alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**Certification
      of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of Frawley Corporation (the
      “Company”) for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Michael P.
      Frawley as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
      hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 results of operations of the
                Company.








/s/Michael
      P. Frawley


Name:
            Michael
                P. Frawley


Title:
            Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer


Date:
            June
                13, 2006





This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Hays vs. Roberts.

If either of several replications be a good answer to a plea, it is sufficient on demurrer.

Although the record does not state that the party rested upon his demurrer being overruled, the court will so infer where he does not take issue to the pleading demurred to, but goes to trial on another issue.

*Error to Saline Circuit Court,*

Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Williams & Martin, for the appellant.

*194Smith, for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Roberts brought trespass against Hays for entering his close, taking his-goods, etc.

Hays pleaded not guilty, and a special plea'of justification. Roberts took issue to the first plea, and filed four replications to the .second. Hays demurred to the replications, the demurrer was overruled, and judgment against him for cost of the demurrer.

The parties then submitted the issue to the plea of not guilty to a jury, and the verdict and judgment were for plaintiff, and the defendant, without reserving any question upon the trial, brought error.

Three of the replications to the plea of justification traversed material allegations of the plea, concluding to the country, and the other replication alleged an abuse of the process under which Hays justified, and concluded with a verification.

It is conceded by the counsel for the plaintiff in error that two of the replications were good answers to the plea; and upon this concession the judgment upon the demurrer was properly rendered for the plaintiff below, even if the other two replications were bad, because the good replications were a bar to the defence set up by the plea. *Cuyler vs. Trustees of Rochester,*12 *Wend.*169; *Harrison vs. McIntosh,*1 *John.*384.

The record does not expressly state that the plaintiff in error rested upon his demurrer to the replications, but it is to be inferred from the record entries that he did. Upon the overruling of the demurrer he not only did not *take*issue to the replications, but, in the language of the record, “ thereupon said cause came on to be heard upon the general issue of not guilty, and both parties announcing themselves ready for trial,” etc., etc.

The judgment must be affirmed.
#### GUARANTY TRUST CO. *v.*SMITH.

This case is controlled by *Detroit Trust Co. v. Smith,*256 Mich. 376.

Appeal from Wayne; Boomhower (Xenophon), J., presiding.

Submitted October 21, 1931.

(Docket No. 165, Calendar No. 35,976.)

Decided March 2, 1932.

Assumpsit by Guaranty Trust Company of Detroit, a Michigan corporation, against Frederick P. Smith on promissory notes. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Martin, Hunt & Field,*for plaintiff.

*A. D. Ruegsegger,*for defendant.

North, J.

The material facts and issues in this case are the same as in *Detroit Trust Co.*v. *Smith,*256 Mich. 376, and that decision is controlling. Affirmed.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 15.1


                          ACCOUNTANTS' AWARENESS LETTER



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Re:  Global Marine Inc. Registration Statements

We are aware that our report dated August 10, 1999, on our review of
the condensed consolidated interim financial information of Global
Marine Inc. and subsidiaries for the three and six months ended June 30,
1999, and included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is incorporated
by reference in (i) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-32088, 33-40961,
and 33-63326), respectively, for the Global Marine Inc. 1989 Stock Option
and Incentive Plan and the Global Marine 1998 Stock Option and Incentive
Plan, (ii) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-80383) for the Global Marine
1998 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, (iii) the prospectus constituting
part of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration
No. 33-40266) for the Global Marine Savings Incentive Plan, (iv) the
prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-40961) for the Global Marine Inc. 1990
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, (v) the prospectus constituting
part of the Company's  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration
No. 33-57691) for the Global Marine Inc. 1994 Non-Employee Stock Option
and Incentive Plan, and (vi) the combined prospectus constituting part
of the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Registration
Nos. 33-58577 and 333-49807) for the proposed offering of up to
$500,000,000 of debt securities, preferred stock, and/or common stock.
Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report
should not be considered a part of any of said registration statements
prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
that Act.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Houston, Texas
August 12, 1999
No. 10988.

#### The Cincinnati Traction Company *v.*Jennings, Admr.

Decided October 20, 1908.

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati. *Messrs.*

*Kinkead, Rogers & Ellis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Healy, Ferris, & McAvoy,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0685

LT Case No. 2020-102141-CFDL

_____________________________

JASON RASHARD EDWARDS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.

James R. Clayton, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell E. 

Sanders, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

May 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and SOUD, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
#### PUFFER *v.*STATE MUTUAL RODDED FIRE INSURANCE CO.

1. Appeal and Error — Trial Court Without Jurisdiction to Dismiss Perfected Appeal.

Where appeal is perfected by appellant by giving timely notice of appeal, circuit court is without jurisdiction to dismiss appeal, although other acts necessary to complete appeal are not performed within required time.

2. Same — Completing Appeal — Nonperformance Excused on Proper Showing.

Order of circuit court dismissing appeal is set aside by Supreme Court, where it appears that appeal was perfected by giving timely notiee. of appeal, although other necessary aets to complete appeal were not performed, and, reasonable excuse for nonperformance having been shown, circuit court is directed to enter such order as may be necessary therefor.

Appeal from Kalkaska; Lamb (Fred S.), J.

Submitted December 15, 1931.

(Calendar No. 36,354)

Decided January 15, 1932.

Action by George W. Puffer against State Mutual Nodded Fire Insurance Company of Michigan on a fire insurance policy. Defendant appeals from an order dismissing appeal.

Order set aside.

*Kimane & Leibrand,*for appellant.

*Henry Miltner,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this case a judgment was entered in tbe circuit court for tbe county of Kalkaska in favor of tbe plaintiff on September 24, 1931. Defendant’s attorney mailed in Bay City a preliminary *76notice of appeal to the county clerk on October 10th. It was received and filed by him on October 14th. He also mailed a copy thereof on the same day to the plaintiff’s attorney, and one addressed to “Circuit Court Stenographer, Cadillac.” This latter notice was not received by the stenographer who reported the case, which was tried in Cadillac, until several days later. Proof of service of these notices was not mailed to the county clerk until November 6th.

Plaintiff’s attorney moved in the circuit court to dismiss this appeal. Defendant’s attorney asked that if the motion be denied he be permitted to correct any irregularities in the perfecting of the appeal. It seems to have been conceded that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion to dismiss. He concluded that the court rules had not been complied with, and entered an order on November 12th dismissing the appeal.

In an opinion of this court, handed down on December 10, 1931 *(Hoffman*v. *Security Trust Co.,*256 Mich. 383), it was held that—

> “An appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within the required time. * * * The other acts necessary to complete an appeal are not jurisdictional. * ** **When the appeal is perfected by seasonable filing of the notice of appeal, the jurisdiction of the appellate court attaches and the trial court has no authority to dismiss the appeal.”

It follows that the order dismissing the appeal must be set aside. As it appears that there was reasonable excuse for the nonperformance of the other acts to complete the appeal, we see no reason for the issuance of an order to show cause on defendant’s motion, but hereby direct the trial court to enter such order as may be necessary therefor.
#### Mrs. Augusta H. HAMMACH v. McCRORY CORP., d/b/a McCrory Store #313.

No. 45723.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 30, 1970.

William F. Riley, Edwin E. Benoist, Jr., Natchez, for appellant.

Heidelberg, Woodliff & Franks, Sam E. Scott, William H. Brown, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 103 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 103

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 24, 1993.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 920) to extend the emergency unemployment 
compensation program, and for other purposes. The amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means printed in the bill and the amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, as amended, and 
against its consideration are waived. Debate on the bill shall not exceed two 
hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Orville HINES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-759.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### John HARGROVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-34.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 15, 1973.

*391Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and V. John Brook, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Dade City, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Hargrove claims to have been “taken into custody as a result of the conduct or criminal episode giving rise to” these charges on June 16, 1972. CrPR 3.-191(a)(1), 33 F.S.A. On that date he was arrested in Pinellas County on Polk County charges unrelated to this case, and, while in the Pinellas jail, was placed in a line-up, where a witness to the crime charged in the instant case identified him. No hold was placed upon him on this Pas-co County matter, and he was not formally charged until August 14. He was then on bond, in fact, and was arrested September 1 in Pinellas County. We think his argument that he was taken into custody on these charges in June is without merit, dispense with the requested oral argument (F.A.R. 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A., and affirm.

State v. Sutton, Fla.App.2d 1972, 269 So.2d 712, is a different matter. There the defendant was held on a detain-er, as well as on extraneous charges, and we held that the lodging of a formal de-tainer on a charge, meaning that the disposition of all other charges will not result in the prisoner’s release, starts the meter running under the speedy trial rule. We held there that the State cannot enlarge the time by withholding formal service of process. The important thing is whether the prisoner is held in custody on the charge in question. If he is, then the State must bring him to trial within the time allowed.

At the other end of the scale, there may be times when deliberate delay without taking the accused into custody may raise a constitutional question, but this case falls far short of that. See United States v. Marion, 1971, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468; Barker v. Wingo, 1972, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101.

There may be valid reasons why these Pasco County charges were not filed until *392August. Certainly such reasons are presumed to exist, no prejudice has been shown, and we find no reason to reverse the trial judge’s denial of discharge.

Affirmed.

LILES and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15




                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                               BORDERS GROUP, INC.
                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN



         Section 2(j) of the Borders Group Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
"Plan") is hereby amended to read as follows, effective with respect to Offering
Periods beginning on or after October 1, 1997:

         " (j) "Employee" shall mean any person, including an officer, who as of
         an Offering Date is regularly employed by the Company, a wholly owned
         Subsidiary of the Company or a Designated Subsidiary of the Company,
         except any person who is both "highly compensated" within the meaning
         of Section 414(g) of the Code and designated by the Committee as a
         participant in the Company's Management Stock Purchase Plan (other than
         director level employees who were given a one-time opportunity to
         purchase shares under the Management Stock Purchase Plan); provided,
         however, that such person's customary employment immediately prior to
         the relevant Offering Date must be more than 20 hours per week.
         Director level employees who are given a one-time opportunity to
         purchase shares under the Company's Management Stock Purchase Plan
         shall be eligible Employees"

         This Amendment shall not affect, or in any manner inure to the benefit
of, any person who is subject to the reporting and short-swing liability
provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

         Except as herein amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.


                                            BORDERS GROUP, INC.


                                            By: /s/ George R. Mrkonic
                                               -------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,422,839
<SECURITIES>                                 1,250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  261,030
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    716,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,652,402
<PP&E>                                         442,153
<DEPRECIATION>                                (139,408)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,995,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          419,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,126
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,015,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,995,732
<SALES>                                      1,095,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,095,894
<CGS>                                          621,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  621,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,633,693
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (3,462,925)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,621,866)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,621,866)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,621,866)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.98)
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael N. SMITH et al. v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION.

No. 61639.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1978.

In re: Louisiana Department of Civil Service applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 358 So.2d 1291.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE 

MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ETHAN THOMAS COMMINS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-985

LT Case No. 2018-CF-57891-AX

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 14, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

Stephen G. Henderson, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Andrew Mich, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and L. Charlene 

Matthews, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
2

We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences that were imposed by 

the trial court. We do so, however, without prejudice to Appellant timely 

seeking postconviction relief, if he can do so in good faith. See generally

Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018); State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 

(Fla. 2015).

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6177

PAMELA J. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA HUFFMAN; KIM WARE; TRACY MEYERHOFFER;

LARRY HUFFMAN; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES;

JOHN BARNETT, MD; RUTH NESBITT; ARLENE

JOHNSON; LERLA JOSEPH, MD; PRISON HEALTH

SERVICES; E. LOONEY; FRED SCHILLING, MD; T.

HICKS, Sergeant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-01-602-7)

Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 8, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pamela J. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Pamela J. Anderson, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2001). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. Anderson v. Huffman, No.

CA-01-602-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2002). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2020222EN.01003701.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/37

---

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — MCM Products v EUIPO — The Nomad Company (NOMAD)

(Case T-285/20)

(2020/C 222/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MCM Products AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Eichhammer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Nomad Company BV (Zevenaar, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NOMAD’ — EU trade mark No 1 742 089

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 in Case R 854/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the registered goods in Class 18; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the registered goods in Class 18;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---