alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Billy Gray WRIGHT v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45686.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 9, 1970.

Garner, Whitten, May & Garner, Hern-ando, Arthur Huggins, Southaven, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Velia Ann Mayer, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice.

Billy Gray Wright, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County of the illegal possession of gambling devices, in violation of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2192 (1956).

This case is controlled by the decision of the Court in Presley v. State, 229 So.2d 830, decided December 22, 1969. It was there held that an agent of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division of the State Tax Commission does not have the authority to serve a search warrant issued for the purpose of making a search for illegal gambling equipment. Introduction of the evidence in question was objected to by defendant’s counsel on the ground of an illegal search and seizure, but not on the particular basis of the power of an ABC agent. However, we think that under the “plain error” rule and in the interest of equal administration of justice this Court should apply the holding in Presley v. State to the instant case, where *778the evidence was in fact objected to on the ground of an illegal search.

Reversed and appellant discharged.

RODGERS, JONES, BRADY, and INZER, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130685 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130685 

 COA: 263358 

Wayne CC: 00-012832-01 

ROBERT W. TATE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
# Official Journal C 227/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.227.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 227 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5324 August 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.227.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 227

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5324 August 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 227/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 1 |
| 2010/C 227/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5947 — Silver Lake/CIE/Multiplan Holdings) (1) | 3 |
| 2010/C 227/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5923 — Verbund/EVN) (1) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 227/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

1

2010/C 227/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5947 — Silver Lake/CIE/Multiplan Holdings) (1)

3

2010/C 227/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5923 — Verbund/EVN) (1)

3

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 227/04 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 227/04

Euro exchange rates

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| 2010/C 227/05 | Recruitment notice PE/122/S | 5 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 227/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5944 — Osaka/UFG/Infrastructure Arzak/Saggas) (1) | 6 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

2010/C 227/05

Recruitment notice PE/122/S

5

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2010/C 227/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5944 — Osaka/UFG/Infrastructure Arzak/Saggas) (1)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Annual Report of Klever Marketing, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeremiah Cox, C.F.O. of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Jeremiah
Cox


Director
& CFO


(Principal
Financial Officer)








April 14,
2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.87

EXTENSION AGREEMENT

Bank
of America, N.A.,
    as Administrative Agent
Attn: Suzanne Paul
231 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

The
undersigned hereby agrees to extend, effective April 3, 2002, its Commitment and the Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement dated as of April 3, 2001 among
SOURCECORP, Incorporated, f/k/a F.Y.I. Incorporated, each of the Lenders party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Banc of America Securities LLC, as sole lead arranger and
sole book agent (as the same may be amended or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement") for 364 days to April 2, 2005
pursuant toSection 2.1(d)of the Credit Agreement. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein as therein defined.

This
Extension Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of Texas. The Extension Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.

| |  | SUNTRUST BANK
| |  | -------------
| |  | Name:        
| |  | By:          
| |  | Title:       

|Agreed and Accepted:                               
|---------------------------------------------------
|SOURCECORP, INCORPORATED, f/k/a
F.Y.I. INCORPORATED
|By:                                                
|Name:                                              
|Title:                                             
|BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Administrative Agent     
|By:                                                
|Name:                                              
|Title:                                             

---

QuickLinks
Pugh, Theresa 

to: RobertJ Wayland, Bill Maxwell 

11/03/2011 01:41 PM 

We assume that you may be invited to join in on the OMB meeting with APPA 

this morning. Here is our handout 

 

Thank you 

OMB talking points re MACT (3) (4).docx
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc.
                Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                               Pursuant to
            18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
             Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


    I, Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Frozen Food Express Industries,
Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. and will
be retained by Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



November 14, 2003                            /s/ Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.
                                            --------------------------
                                            Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.
                                            Chief Executive Officer
#### Geraldine WARNER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, and Russell’s Lawn Care, Respondents.

No. 51314.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 27, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1978.

Kenneth Garber, Fort Myers, for petitioner.

Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., and Alex D. Little-field, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondent, Florida Department of Commerce Division of Employment Security.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court under its conflict certiorari jurisdiction as provided by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and Fla.App. Rule 4.5c(6).

After hearing argument, we are of the opinion that the writ of certiorari heretofore granted in this cause should now be discharged. Accordingly, the writ of certio-rari is discharged.

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
           from the Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations included in the
           Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is
           qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER>1000
       
<S>                                                      <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                           Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                             Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            12-MOS
<CASH>                                                      24,621
<SECURITIES>                                                11,451
<RECEIVABLES>                                               96,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 2,096
<INVENTORY>                                                 48,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           251,838
<PP&E>                                                      41,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                              14,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             306,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      158,990
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                        35
<OTHER-SE>                                                 146,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               306,910
<SALES>                                                    608,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           608,581
<CGS>                                                      541,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              541,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           133,105
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           2,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (68,857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               (29,368)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (39,489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (39,489)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (1.13)
        

</TABLE>
#### KOLOSIK v. LI’L GENERAL STORE NO. 64.

No. 38808.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,666
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,388<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,784
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,254
<PP&E>                                             500<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,841
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              248
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,444
<SALES>                                         38,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,800
<CGS>                                           33,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,835
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   288
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  97
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    452
<INCOME-TAX>                                       988
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (536)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS REPORTED FOR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT
ARE NET AMOUNTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FILED

December 22, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

1 FOR PUBLICATION

2

3

4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

5

6 AT JACKSON 

7

8

9

10

11 STATE OF TENNESSEE, (

12 (

13 Plaintiff-Appellee, ( Henry County

14 (

15 ( Hon. C. Creed McGinley, Judge

16 (

17 v . ( S. Ct. No. 02S01-9607-CC-00068

18 (

19 (

20 (

21 DAVID WILLARD PHIPPS, JR., (

22 (

23 Defendant-Appellant. (

24

25

26

27

28 CONCURRING OPINION

29

30

31

32 I concur in the decision to remand the case to the

33 trial court with instructions; however, I would impose a more

34 precise standard for determining if the presumption of

35 vindictiveness has been overcome.

36

37 The majority states that the presumption of

38 vindictiveness “may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence

39 which demonstrates that the prosecutor’s decision was motivated

40 by legitimate purpose,” and further, “the State must proffer fact

41 specific, legitimate, on-the-record explanations for its conduct

42 which dispel the appearance of vindictiveness.” Majority

43 opinion, p. 20. Consequently, the proof presented by the State
-2-

1 must show a legitimate, as opposed to specious, purpose for the

2 increased punishment which will dispel the appearance, as opposed

3 to the reality, of vindictiveness. This standard would not be

4 met with proof which showed only that the prosecutor acted in

5 good faith. It is the “fear of vindictiveness” which may chill a

6 defendant’s exercise of the right to appeal or collaterally

7 attack the first conviction. Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21,

8 94 S. Ct. 2098, 2102 (1974). As stated in In Re Bower , 700 P.2d

9 1269, 1277 (Cal. 1985), “[t]he presumption is not based on the

10 subjective state of mind of the individual prosecutor and does

11 not imply that he or she individually harbors an improper

12 motive.” 

13

14 In my view, this high standard cannot be met with

15 evidence of facts or information which was reasonably available

16 to the prosecutor when the original charge was made. I would

17 apply the rule adopted by the California Supreme Court in In Re

18 Bower :

19

20 In order to rebut the presumption of

21 vindictiveness, the prosecution must

22 demonstrate that (1) the increase in charge

23 was justified by some objective change in

24 circumstances or in the state of the

25 evidence which legitimately influenced the

26 charging process and (2) that the new

27 information could not reasonably have been

28 discovered at the time the prosecution

29 exercised its discretion to bring the

30 original charge.

31

32 Id.

33

34
-3-

1 I am authorized to state that Justice Birch joins in

2 this Concurring Opinion.

3

4

5 ____________________________

6 Reid, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 687 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 687

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the deduction for 
                       business use of the home.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

 Mr. Mfume (for himself and Mr. Frost) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the deduction for 
                       business use of the home.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS USE OF THE HOME.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 280A(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions for certain business or 
rental use) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
``For purposes of subparagraph (A), in the case of a trade or business 
which would not (but for this sentence) have a principal place of 
business, its principal place of business shall be where substantially 
all of the management activities for such trade or business occur.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
file:///C|/Temp/090000648101a045.txt [8/7/2013 11:10:04 AM] From: "Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov> To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, JohnB

Chamberlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/19/2012 04:48 PM Subject: RE: RICE Reconsideration

I didn ’t want to bother Cortney with this type of question. Now everyone can have these handy

tables. Thx

Hi Cortney!

From: Melanie King [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 4:44 PM To: Bromberg, Kevin L. Cc: RobertJ Wayland; Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov; JohnB Chamberlin Subject: Re: RICE Reconsideration Hi, EPA Region 1 has a good website that has some handy tables, which are taken from a presentation I did. Links to both are below. Also, I believe since the rule it at OMB now for interagency review, it would be a good idea if you could route questions through Cortney.

http://www.epa.gov/region1/rice/

http://www.epa.gov/apti/video/pdfs/RICENESHAP-NETIwebinar12-7-11.pdf

Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov

"Bromberg, Kevin L." ---04/19/2012 04:26:16 PM---Hi Melanie - Is there a good table on the EPA website listing the current SI and CI

From: "Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov> To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/19/2012 04:26 PM Subject: RICE Reconsiderationfile:///C|/Temp/090000648101a045.txt [8/7/2013 11:10:04 AM] Hi Melanie - Is there a good table on the EPA website listing the current SI and CI RICE requirements by engine size, and status (existing, new)? I’m reviewing the new proposal. Hope all is well.

Kevin Kevin Bromberg | Assistant Chief Counsel for Environmental Policy | SBA Office of Advocacy | 409 3rd St. SW, Washington, DC 20416 | p 202/205-6964 | f 202/481-2963 | kevin.bromberg@sba.gov | website | listserv | blog | Facebook | twitter |