alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert J. Mitchell, Plaintiff, *v.*Board of Probation & Parole, Defendant.

Argued February 7, 1975,

before Judges Kramer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*70
      *Albert J. Mitchell,*plaintiff, for himself.

*Robert A. Greevy,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Benjamin Lerner,*Deputy Attorney General, and *Robert P. Kane,*Attorney General, for defendant.

March 20, 1975:

Opinion by

Judge Kramer,

This case involves a complaint in mandamus filed by Albert J. Mitchell (Mitchell) which questions the statutory power and authority of the Board of Probation and Parole (Board) to extend the expiration date of a court-imposed maximum sentence of an individual, who, while on parole, committed a crime for which he was not convicted until after the expiration date of the court-imposed maximum sentence. Mitchell filed his complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County on September 25, 1974. On September 30, 1974 the court ruled that jurisdiction over the action was with this Court and, therefore, ordered the complaint transferred to this Court.

Mitchell’s complaint alleges that after serving two years of a two to four year sentence at the State Correctional Institution at Dallas, Pennsylvania, he was released on parole. While on parole he was arrested on a new criminal charge to which he eventually pled guilty. However, Mitchell’s guilty plea took place after the expiration date of his original sentence and after his period of parole had expired. Following Mitchell’s conviction the Board recommitted him as a convicted parole viola*71tor and extended the expiration date on the sentence for which he was originally on parole. Mitchell now contends that the Board had no legal authority to extend his sentence and that said extension constitutes double jeopardy.

On November 12, 1974 the Board filed preliminary objections to Mitchell’s complaint, alleging that it “fails to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.” We must sustain these preliminary objections. The statutory authority of the Board to recommit a convicted parole violator such as Mitchell is clear on its face. *See*section 21.1 of the Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, *as amended,*61 P.S. §331.21 (a). Furthermore, this Court has previously considered and rejected all of the arguments raised by Mitchell in his complaint. *See Williams v. Board of Probation and Parole,*3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 633 (1971) and *Commonwealth ex rel. Hall v. Board of Probation and Parole, Commonwealth ex rel. Blair v. Board of Probation and Parole,*3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 435 (1971).

Therefore, we sustain the preliminary objections filed by the Board and dismiss Mitchell’s complaint.
#### GATES RUBBER COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Appellee, v. IRATHANE SYSTEMS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Appellant.

No. 82-2178.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1983.

Decided June 30, 1983.

*502Briggs & Morgan, Jeffrey F. Shaw, Elizabeth J. Andrews, Saint Paul, Minn., for appellee Gates Rubber Co.

Charles J. Noel, Jesse & Cosgrove, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant Irathane Systems, Inc.; Joseph W. Anthony, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel.

Before BRIGHT and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges, and NICHOL, Senior District Judge.*

*

 FRED J. NICHOL, United States Senior District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

Irathane Systems, Inc. appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing its fourth counterclaim against Gates Rubber Company. The district court dismissed the fourth counterclaim with prejudice on the grounds that Irathane’s claims under strict liability and negligence theories could not be maintained in what the court deemed a contract action for “economic loss” under the Uniform Commercial Code.1

Irathane claims that *Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp,*311 N.W.2d 159 (Minn.1981) does not bar a counterclaim for strict liability or negligence for damage to property other than that which is the subject matter of the contract. Irathane’s fourth counterclaim asserts that on or about July 18,1979, the defective lube spray and exhaust system sold to Irathane by Gates Rubber caused a fire in Irathane’s plant. The counterclaim alleges that as a result of the fire, Irathane suffered damage to both real and personal property.

The damage asserted in the counterclaim is broad enough to encompass loss beyond that which is economic loss governed by the Uniform Commercial Code. *See Superwood Corp.*v. *Siempelkamp Corp., supra,*311 N.W.2d at 162 (determining that economic losses arising out of commercial transactions are nonrecoverable “except those involving personal injury or damage to other property”); *Alfred N. Koplin & Co. v. Chrysler Corp.,*364 N.E.2d 100, 107 (Ill.1977) (same); *Seely v. White Motor Co.,*63 Cal.3d 9, 45 Cal.Rptr. 17, 403 P.2d 145, 152 (Cal.1965) (same).

The district court apparently did not address this issue and differentiate between the loss caused to the system itself (economic loss) and the' damage caused to other property. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of Irathane’s fourth counterclaim and remand this cause to the district court for a determination of whether the loss asserted in the counterclaim, or any portion thereof, relates to property damage other than that which is the subject of the contract claim between Irathane and Gates Rubber, and for further proceedings as may be appropriate.

1

. The district court certified the ruling as final and immediately appealable under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
# all_lease02082018
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chang-On
International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | 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.

|Dated: May 20, 2008 | /s/ Guomin Li                                           
|------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------
|                    | Guomin Li                                               
|                    | President, Principal Executive Officer,                 
|                    | Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary,
      Treasurer

---
#### Gerald Pops BROWN v. STATE.

No. 38878.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 337.
| Date:  March 7, 2011 | /s/ Marc T. Giles                                  |   |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           | Marc T. GilesPresident and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                      |   |
|                           |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
| Date:  March 7, 2011 | /s/ Michael R. Elia                                     |   |
|                           | Michael R. EliaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                     |   |
# Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire

                - Title:  Architect-Engineer and Related Services Questionnaire 
                - Form #:         SF254      
                - Current Revision Date:  Obsolete
                - Authority or Regulation:  FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-2(b)
                - Special Instructions:             ********NOTE:  SF254 and SF255 were replaced with SF330 effective June 8, 2004.********    

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
No. 10615.

#### Birney *v.*Birney et al., Exrs., et al.

Decided January 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Harrison county.

*Messrs. Perry & Rowland,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Hollingsworth & Worley,*for defendants in error.

*458Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Summers, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 483 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 483

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 26, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3870) to promote the research and development of environmental 
technologies. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. After general debate the bill shall 
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 
4799. The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title 
rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
### Grand Strand Airport at North Myrtle Beach

Myrtle Beach, SC, September 26 , 2013

– Grand Strand Airport (CRE) is preparing for a ramp rehabilitation project, scheduled to be gin next week.

The Horry County Department of Airports was recently awarded an FAA Grant, to be used in the rehabilitation of the ramp at CRE . The g rant, which covers almost 90 percent of the project cost , will be used to mill the current surface wh ere aircraft park

, re constitute the surface base, and replace the surface with concrete. The old apron surface will be recycled to construct a perimeter road around the airfield within the existing perimeter fence

.

“ The apron rehab project is important in maintaining safe operations at Grand Stand Airport ,” said Pat Apone, Interim Director of Airports. “This project is just the start, of many activities that will occur, as we work towards developing a world

- class airport.”

“We are glad to se e this project get underway,” said North Myrtle Beach Mayor Marilyn Hatley. “The airport has a direct and very positive impact on our community .”

The total cost of the project is $2.9M (funding sources: $2.6M FAA Grant; $56,000 State Grant; $235,000 Depart ment of Airports). The project is scheduled to begin during the first week of October 2013, and be completed by the end of February 2014

.

About the Grand Strand Airport (CRE) The Grand Strand Airport is conveniently located in the City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. North Myrtle Beach is a gateway to the regions world

- renowned golf courses, top beaches, fantastic restaurants and more. The Grand Strand Airport is owned by Horry County and operated by the Department of Airports.



### ###
EXHIBIT NO. 10.8

MEMORANDUM

 

 

 

To:  John Hancock

From:  Marc T. Giles

Date:  December 7, 2001

 

Effective December 7, 2001, the Board of Directors of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Board") has appointed you President and a Director of Gerber Coburn Optical, Inc. and a Senior Vice President of Gerber Scientific, Inc.

The Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board (the "MDCC") has set your base salary at $210,000 effective December 10, 2001 and has set your bonus target at 50% of your base salary.  Due to your changes in status in Fiscal Year 2002, your bonus will be calculated as follows:  from May 1, 2001 up to September 3, 2001, your bonus will be calculated using the Gerber Coburn scores and a pro rata portion of your then base salary and 30% bonus target; from September 3, 2001 up to December 10, 2001, your bonus will be calculated using the Gerber Coburn scores and a pro rata portion of your then base salary and 3% bonus target; and, from December 10, 2001 through April 30, 2002, your bonus will be calculated at 50% of the pro rata portion of your base salary as of April 30, 2002.

In addition, effective December 7, 2001, the MDCC has awarded you options to purchase 20,000 shares of the Common Stock of the Company, pursuant to the Company's 1992 Employee Stock Plan.

You have agreed to relocate from Florida to Connecticut and Gerber has agreed to cover some of your relocation expenses.  Our relocation offer will be outlined in a separate memorandum.

If this memorandum sets forth our agreement on the subject matter hereof, kindly sign and return to the Company the enclosed copy of this memorandum, which will then constitute our agreement on this subject.

 

 

Marc T. Giles

President and CEO

 

Agreed this 13th day of December, 2001

 

________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         426,652
<SECURITIES>                                 4,149,718
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,460,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                   106,000
<INVENTORY>                                    271,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,577,414
<PP&E>                                      13,432,118
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,161,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,823,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          741,981
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       223,180
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,947,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,823,340
<SALES>                                      4,847,152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,320,276
<CGS>                                        1,964,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,991,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,069,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                48,584
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,094,219
<INCOME-TAX>                                   399,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   694,919
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements Form S-8 (No. 333-08847) pertaining to the Lark Sequencing
Technologies, Inc. 1990 Stock Option Plan, Form S-8 (No. 333-35675) pertaining
to the Lark Technologies, Inc. 1997 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors, Form S-8 (No.333-46280) pertaining to the Lark
Technologies, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan and Form S-8 (No. 333-102386)
pertaining to the Lark Technologies, Inc. 2002 Stock Option Plan of our report
dated March 1, 2004 with respect to the financial statements of Lark
Technologies, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year
ended December 31, 2003.

                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 29, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 356 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 134

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 356

                          [Report No. 103-421]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
 consideration of a certain resolution reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            February 9, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 134
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 356

                          [Report No. 103-421]

    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
 consideration of a certain resolution reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 1994

  Mr. Beilenson, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
 consideration of a certain resolution reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-
thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to a 
resolution reported on or before the legislative day of February 11, 
1994, providing for the consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 
3759) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, any amendment 
thereto, any conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in 
disagreement from a conference thereon.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Corrica, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 434]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County *373(Owens, J.), rendered October 2, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hammond,*208 AD2d 559; *People v Brown,*178 AD2d 647).

The court’s discharge of two sworn jurors constituted a provident exercise of the court’s discretion *(see,*CPL 270.35; *People v Rodriguez,*71 NY2d 214; *People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290; *People v Jamison,*203 AD2d 385).

The defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit. Thompson, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 30, 2012

d0123 

# Order

January 30, 2012

143569(25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143569 COA: 304623 Calhoun CC: 1995-000817-FC BRIAN ANDR’E WARREN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s November 21, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                  437
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        38,088
<ALLOWANCES>                           (307)
<INVENTORY>                          31,257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     71,045
<PP&E>                               44,152
<DEPRECIATION>                      (15,754)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      345,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                42,145
<BONDS>                             205,554
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                           77,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        345,822
<SALES>                              65,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     65,510
<CGS>                                38,067
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        59,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         62
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    5,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         248
<INCOME-TAX>                            528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (280)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                           (280) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (2.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (2.80)
        

</TABLE>