alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Channah Goren, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

December 17, 1952.

*Samuel W. Leiterman*for Nathan Spector, for motion.

*.Abraham Finen stat*for jShushannah Greenberg, opposed.

Collins, 8.

This motion for an examination of the proponent as an adverse party is granted to the extent that he will be required to submit to examination in respect of the following matters: (a) testamentary capacity *(Matter of*Korn, 265 App. Div. 987; *Matter of Tanner,*185 Misc. 994); (b) the execution of the propounded paper *(Matter of Carlsen, N.*Y. L. J., July 26,1949, p. 146, col. 7); (c) fraud and undue influence practiced upon the testator *(Matter of Frank,*165 Misc. 411; *Matter of Kaplan,*193 Misc. 129; *Matter of Kreutzberg,*185 Misc. 995); (d) the physical condition of the testator as "bearing upon tho *610issue of undue influence *(Matter of Ruef,*180 App. Div. 203; *Matter of Wilkonska,*N. Y. L. J., Feb. 16, 1950, p. 595, col. 1); (e) the business relations of the deceased with the respondents *(Rollwagen*v. *Rollwagen,*63 N. Y. 504; *Matter of Frank,*supra); (f) financial transactions between the deceased and the proponents *(Matter of Danilow,*N. Y. L. J., Oct. 1, 1948, p. 651, col. 2). He will also be required to produce upon the examination all relevant books, papers, records, documents and other data for use upon the examination.

Submit order on notice.
#### STATE *vs.*JOHN MOUSELY.

Power of magistrates to settle eases of assault and battery.

Indicted for assault and battery. Plea, autrefois convict.

The defendant was arrested and taken before Justice M'Caulley, who bound him over to appear at court. The prosecutor afterwards agreed to settle the matter, and went with defendant before Justice Veach, who allowed them to compromise, on payment of costs.

It was contended on the part of the defendant, that the act of assembly gives authority to *any*justice of the peace, whether the committing magistrate or another, to permit the parties to settle cases of assault and battery. *(Dig.*360.)

Court.

—The act must be construed as a whole, and neither of the clauses referred to is to be taken separately. This is an act giving jurisdiction. Before it, the justice had no power to try cases of assault and battery; and, to preserve the constitutional right of trial by jury, the defendant’s consent is required in all cases, before the justice can proceed. Either on his refusal to be tried by the justice; or on the refusal of the justice, under the discretion given him by the law, to try the case; he must'hold the defendant to bail for his appearance at court, and commit him for refusal to give bail. There is no appeal from this decision of the justice, and no authority any where, much less in each of the other justices of the county, to review the decision of the committing magistrate on this question, nor to prevent the case from coming before this court after a decision *554that it is a case which ought to be tried here. No other magistrate has any thing further to do with the complaint than to take the bail required, or such other bail as may be deemed sufficient, on an application to a judge to reduce the bail.

*Judge Layton*

dissented.

The defendant was convicted.
Exhibit 32
                    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 Quarterly Report of Gold Standard, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB-A1 for the period ending July 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), I, Scott L. Smith, President and Chief Financial Officer 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:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 11-16-05                            /s/ Scott L. Smith
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Scott L. Smith
                                         President and Chief Financial Officer
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Raphael Alexander Wooden, Petitioner, 

v. 

State of South Carolina, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2017-000001 

Appeal From Aiken County 

Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-036 

Submitted September 16, 2019 – Filed October 2, 2019 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED 

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of 

Columbia, for Petitioner. 

Attorney General Alan Wilson and Senior Assistant 

Deputy Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, both 

of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We issued a writ of certiorari to review the post-conviction relief 

(PCR) court's dismissal of Raphael Wooden's application for PCR. We now 

dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW AND JAMES, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


                                ENDOCARDIAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE (1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               Primary EPS            Fully Diluted EPS
                                          -----------------------   -----------------------
                                          Year ended December 31,   Year ended December 31,
                                            1997          1996         1997       1996
                                          ---------    ----------   ----------  -----------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>

Weighted average common shares
outstanding

Common Stock equivalents:
Assumed conversion of mandatorily
  redeemable preferred stock
Stock option (2)
                                          ---------    ----------   ----------  -----------

Pro forma weighted average common
 and common equivalent shares
 outstanding
                                          ---------    ----------   ----------  -----------
                                          ---------    ----------   ----------  -----------

Net income                                $            $            $           $
                                          ---------    ----------   ----------  -----------
                                          ---------    ----------   ----------  -----------

Unaudited pro forma net income per share  $            $            $           $
                                          ---------    ----------   ----------  -----------
                                          ---------    ----------   ----------  -----------

</TABLE>

  (1)  Unaudited pro forma net income per share is based on the unaudited pro
forma weighted average number of shares of common stock and common equivalent
shares outstanding for the period.

  (2)  Effect of applying the treasury stock method to weighted average stock
option outstanding during the period.
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Richard B. AUSTIN, Respondent.

No. 41446.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 23, 1972.

Byron B. Block, Jacksonville, and Norman A. Faulkner, Tallahassee, for complainant.

Richard B. Austin, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

In this Bar discipline proceeding, we review a recommendation of the referee dated October 7, 1971, that respondent Richard B. Austin, a member of The Florida Bar, be publicly reprimanded for his conduct in disbursing the proceeds of a settlement negotiated on behalf of his client with the Government Employees Insurance Company. Neither side has requested a hearing.

In pertinent part, the report of the referee reads as follows:

> “After consideration of the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that:

> “1. That on March 10, 1969, Respondent received $1315.67 which he was under a duty to forthwith transmit to Mrs. Shirley T. Milstead of RFD #2, *143Maple Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York, 12886.

> “2. That Respondent neglected and refused to transmit said sum to Mrs. Milstead until disciplinary action had been instituted.

> “3. That on April 5, 1971, Respondent paid $1305.93 of said sum and paid an additional $231.44 on April 12, 1971, thereby restoring to Mrs. Milstead the sum due plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum during the period of some two years delay.

> “RECOMMENDATION OF GUILT

> “It is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of violation of Rule 11.02(4) of Article XI of the Integration Rule (effective as of June 15, 1968), Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (effective as of May 11, 1966) and Rule 1 of Additional Rules (effective as of December 6, 1955) Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida; that is to say, that Respondent violated his professional responsibility with respect to trust funds.

> “RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE

> “It would be difficult to overstate the remorse and regret of Respondent for the unprofessional conduct which he had acknowledged and cooperated with Bar counsel in establishing. The complexities of the normal practice of law, under normal circumstances, are multiplied many times when a lawyer gets into financial difficulty and many times more when his office is padlocked by the Internal Revenue Service. While such facts mitigate the degree of discipline recommended, they do not in any way excuse the guilt found or the seriousness of the violation.

> “The finding of guilt alone, and the imposition of any discipline, is an added handicap to Respondent who is seeking to make his way in the practice of law, “sadder but wiser” for this experience.

> “Accordingly, it is recommended that the Respondent suffer a public reprimand at a time and place, and under such circumstances as the Board of Governors shall determine.”

Having examined the record and the report, we now approve the findings and recommendations of the referee. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that this opinion shall constitute a public reprimand of respondent, Richard B. Austin. Execution is hereby directed to issue for costs against respondent.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>   5 
        
<S>                                                               <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    YEAR 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            OCT-31-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                                 OCT-31-1998 
<CASH>                                                           31,673 
<SECURITIES>                                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      5,562 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0 
<INVENTORY>                                                        2,548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  95,706
<PP&E>                                                            53,025 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    24,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   173,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            394,343
<BONDS>                                                                0 
<COMMON>                                                           6,745 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0   
<PREFERRED>                                                            0 
<OTHER-SE>                                                      (227,368)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     173,720 
<SALES>                                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  10,129 
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 754,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 8,868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (751,088) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (751,088) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    13,252
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0 
<CHANGES>                                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (737,836)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       (.10) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (.09) 
         




</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ed H. Bowman, Jr.,certify that:

1.      I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of *SOURCECORP*, Incorporated (the “registrant”);

2.      Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| Date: March 31, 2005 |   | /s/ ED  H. BOWMAN, JR.                                   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | Ed H. Bowman, Jr.*Chief Executive Officer and President* |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1 


                    Subsidiaries of Borders Group, Inc.


SUBSIDIARY                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION
----------                                      ----------------------

Borders, Inc.                                   Colorado
Walden Book Company, Inc.                       Colorado
Planet Music, Inc.                              North Carolina
Borders Properties, Inc.                        Delaware
Waldenbooks Properties, Inc.                    Delaware
Borders Online, Inc.                            Delaware
Borders Outlet, Inc.                            Colorado
Borders Fulfillment, Inc.                       Delaware
Books etc. Limited                              U.K.
BGP U.K. Limited                                U.K.
BGI U.K. Limited                                U.K.
EXHIBIT 32.2

PC MALL, INC.

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 PC Mall, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Theodore R. Sanders, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 as of the dates and for the
periods indicated.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                       
|-----------------------
|March 12, 2007         
|                       
|/s/ Theodore R. Sanders
|Theodore R. Sanders    
|Chief Financial Officer
# C_2020297EN.01004602.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/46

---

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Sanford v EUIPO — Avery Zweckform (Labels)

(Case T-443/20)

(2020/C 297/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sanford LP (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avery Zweckform GmbH (Oberlaindern/Valley, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 141999-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 2413/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the appeal of other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 11 December 2018 against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 25 October 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the appeal of other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 11 December 2018 against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 25 October 2018;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,228
<PP&E>                                           5,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (263)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,127
<BONDS>                                         42,028
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,219
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,225
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (58,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>