alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-A01012-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

COLIN IRWIN

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 840 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered March 15, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal Division at No(s): 

CP-52-CR-0000168-2018

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.*

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2020

I disagree and therefore must dissent from the scholarly, wellresearched Memorandum of the majority.

Trial courts must be able to enforce their discovery orders and also to 

control their calendars. If they cannot, there will be anarchy in our 

courtrooms.

It would appear that the state police were confused as to who the chief 

law enforcement officer is in Pike County (obviously, the constitutionally 

elected District Attorney), and presumed that they may pick and choose which 

orders of the court to comply with. Further, the District Attorney could have 

served a subpoena duces tecum upon the appropriate state police parties

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A01012-20

- 2 -

when the state police failed to comply with trial court’s order to disclose the 

witness statements.

I agree that the trial court’s preclusion of the material testimony of the 

complainant and two eyewitness at trial is appropriate in light of the discovery 

violation committed by the Commonwealth.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LEVI STRAUSS & CO.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AQUA DYNAMICS SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2021-1871

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:15-cv-04718-WHO, 

Judge William H. Orrick, III.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ROBERT A. MCFARLANE, Hanson Bridgett LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by ROSANNA GAN, JOSEPHINE KENDRA PETRICK,

GARY A. WATT. 

 JAMES LEE MICHAELS, Browne George Ross O'Brien Annaguey & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by ERIC C. LAURITSEN. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 21-1871 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2022
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, PLAGER and 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 

January 6, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1871 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 01/06/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,669,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  261,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    974,099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,933,435
<PP&E>                                         935,884
<DEPRECIATION>                               (515,835)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,367,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          648,498
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,515
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,452,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,367,285
<SALES>                                      2,697,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,784,879
<CGS>                                        1,450,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,450,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,778,787
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (38,122)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (482,335)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (482,335)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (482,335)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
# ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0568 

# FILED STATE OF MONTANA, 

### DEC 0 1 2020

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. CONNER JAMES KAISER,

Defendant and Appellant. BOVVen Creenvvooci Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Conner James Kaiser moves this Court for appointment ofcounsel to represent him in his appeal. As grounds,Kaiser states that he is incarcerated and that he is unable to pay attorney fees because of his financial condition. In his filed Notice of Appeal, Kaiser provides that the Eighth Judicial District Court,Cascade County issued a final judgment in on September 28,2020(Cause No.DDC-20-175(b)). We secured a copy of this decision. The District Court sentenced Kaiser for negligent homicide to a ten-year comrnitment with five years suspended to the Department of Corrections. Kaiser has a recent felony conviction, and he may be entitled to appointment ofcounsel in this appeal. Section 46-8-103(1),MCA. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Kaiser's Motion for Appointrnent ofCounsel is GRANTED. The Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty days from the date ofthis Order within which to file either a Notice of Appearance or a Motion to Rescind this Order appointing counsel. In the event the Appellant qualifies for appointed counsel, the Appellate Defender Division shall immediately order transcripts. The Clerk ofthe Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to the Appellate DefenderDivision,to counsel ofrecord,and to Conner James Kaiser personally.SADATED this I — day ofDecember,2020. For the Court,

ChiefJustice 12/01/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0568
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.1.1

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 GIANT GROUP, LTD. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burt Sugarman, Chief
Executive 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange at of 1934; and in all material
          respects, the consolidated financial condition and result of
          operations of the Company.

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

   /s/  Burt Sugarman
-----------------------------
        Burt Sugarman
Exhibit 23.1



                               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Parallel Petroleum Corporation





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-57348, No. 333-34617 and No. 333-66938) on Form S-8, and the registration
statements ( No. 33-90296 and No. 333-112518) on Forms S-3, of Parallel
Petroleum Corporation of our report dated March 14, 2003 with respect to the
balance sheets of Parallel Petroleum Corporation as of December 31, 2002, and
the related statements of income (loss), stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2002, which
report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Parallel
Petroleum Corporation.







                                            /s/ KPMG LLP





Midland, Texas
March 22, 2004

<page>

                                                                 Exhibit 23.2



                           Consent of BDO Seidman, LLP



The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Parallel Petroleum Corporation:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-57348, No. 333-34617 and No. 333-66938) on Forms S-8, and the registration
statements ( No. 33-90296 and No. 333-112518) on Forms S-3, of Parallel
Petroleum Corporation of our report dated March 5, 2004, with respect to the
balance sheet of Parallel Petroleum Corporation as of December 31, 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, cash flows
and comprehensive income (loss) for the year ended December 31, 2003, which
appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Parallel
Petroleum Corporation.







                                                     /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP





Houston, Texas
March 22, 2004

<page>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.3





                 Consent of Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.









         As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-57348, No.
333-34617 and No. 333-66938) on Forms S-8, and the registration statements (No.
33-90296 and No. 333-112518) on Forms S-3 of Parallel Petroleum Corporation of
information from our reserves report dated January 31, 2004 and all references
to our firm included in or made a part of the annual report on Form 10-K of
Parallel Petroleum Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.



                                    /S/ CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.









Ft. Worth, Texas
March 12, 2004
Exhibit
10(ii)(d)


 


AMENDMENT
TO COST SHARING AGREEMENT


(Parent to Subsidiaries)


 


THIS
AMENDMENT (“Amendment”), effective as of February 1, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), amends Cost Sharing
Agreement (Subsidiaries to Parent) effective January 1, 2008 (the “Agreement”), by and between CUNA Mutual Insurance
Society, now known as, CMFG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (“Parent”) and its subsidiaries, and is entered into by Parent,
Subsidiaries, CUNA Mutual Holding Company (“CM Holding”) and CUNA Mutual Financial Group, Inc.(“CM Financial”).


 


WHEREAS,
this Amendment is fully incorporated into the Agreement; capitalized terms used in this Amendment, and not otherwise defined
herein, will have the meanings set forth in the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS,
Parent was reorganized into a mutual holding company structure in which CM Holding and its direct wholly-owned subsidiary,
CM Financial were formed and Parent and Subsidiaries became the direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries of CM Financial;
and


 


WHEREAS,
CM Financial and CM Holding wish to become parties to the Agreement;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the responsibilities respectively assumed by the parties under the terms and conditions of
the Agreement, the parties hereto intending to be legally bound hereby agree that the provisions of this Addendum shall control
the terms and conditions of the Agreement to the extent set forth herein:


 


1.       CM
Holding and CM Financial each agree to become a party to the Agreement, each as a Subsidiary (as defined in the Agreement),
and accept all applicable terms and conditions of the Agreement, and shall be bound by all of the obligations and entitled to
the rights of a Subsidiary thereunder.


 


All
other terms and conditions of the Agreement not materially affected by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 


	©
    CUNA Mutual Group. All Rights Reserved.	-
    1     -	CUNA
    Mutual Group Confidential Information



 



     


    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to the Cost Sharing Agreement (Parent to Subsidiaries) to be executed
by their duly-authorized representatives on the Effective Date set forth above.


 


	CMFG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY	 	CUNA MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	By:	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Print Name: 	Chris Copeland	 	Print Name: 	Alastair Shore
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	VP, Corporate Treasurer	 	Title:	EVP, Chief Financial Officer



 







	 	 	 	 	 
	CUNA MUTUAL FINANCIAL GROUP,
    INC.	 
	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	 	 
	Print Name:	Andrew Michie	 
	 	 	 
	Title:	SVP, Chief Accounting Officer	 






 




	©
    CUNA Mutual Group. All Rights Reserved.	-
    2 -	CUNA
    Mutual Group Confidential Information
No. 10743.

#### Phillips *v.*Steiner et al.

Decided 22, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Monroe *454county.

*Messrs.*Mallory, *Jeffers & Sears; Messrs. Spriggs & Gallaher*and *Mr. A. C. Denbozv,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Mats & Kremer,*for defendant's in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
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 Secured Digital Applications,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December  31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Voon Fui Yong, Chief Accounting 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, 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Voon Fui Yong
------------------
Voon Fui Yong
Chief Accounting Officer
April 10, 2006
#### PAGE *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 57,

September Term. 1961.]

*Decided March 27, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated by Judge Cullen for dismissing the petition, the application for leave to appeal is denied.

*Application denied.*
# C_2022171EN.01001402.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-183/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Article 19 - Genuine use of a trade mark - Burden of proof - Application to revoke for non-use - National procedural rule obliging the applicant to carry out market research concerning use of the mark)

(2022/C 171/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding a procedural rule of a Member State which, in proceedings concerning an application for revocation of a trade mark for non-use, requires the applicant to carry out market research concerning the possible use of that mark by its proprietor and to make in that regard, to the extent possible, substantiated submissions in support of its application.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
Exhibit 10.28

Description of 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan ("LTIP")

The 2006 LTIP is designed and offered to motivate and retain key associates
whose judgment, initiative and efforts are aligned to the continued success,
growth and development of the Company. The performance period extends from
fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008. The awards of restricted stock units
("RSUs") will vest only if the target performance measures and goals are reached
by February 28, 2009. Provided both the requisite operating income and the
requisite return on invested capital ("ROIC") measures are achieved, then if
either or both measures are exceeded, the RSUs may be increased on a pro rata
basis, up to 200%. Operating income and ROIC are weighted equally in determining
the RSUs. Special conditions to participation apply, as detailed in the
individual's award letter, including active employment on the date stock
certificates are issued, in or about May 2009.

The 2006 LTIP is adopted pursuant to the 1998 Share Award Plan which, as
amended, is subject to approval of the shareholders at the Annual Meeting on
July 13, 2006.
<PAGE>
                                                                    
                           [LOGO OF WOODEN & BENSON]
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this registration statement, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on
Form S-8 to Form S-4 Registration Statement (File No. 33-90350) of our report
dated March 31, 1997, included in the Quantum Financial Holdings, Inc. Annual
Report Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                                   /s/ WOODEN & BENSON

May 14, 1997
Baltimore, Maryland
##### 



Registered Office
 Other Offices
   Place of Meeting
 Annual Meeting




---



##### 



Notice of Meeting
 Voting List
 Special Meeting
 Notice of Special Meeting
 Scope of Special Meeting
 Quorum
 2




---



##### 



Voting
 Right to Vote
 Consent of Stockholders
 Voting of Stock of Certain Holders
 3




---



##### 



Treasury Stock
 Fixing Record Date
   4




---



##### 



Nomination of Directors
 5




---



##### 



Powers
 Number, Selection and Term
 Vacancies, Additional Directors and Removal From Office
 Resignation
 Meetings of the Board
 6




---



##### 



Regular Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Notice of Special Meeting
 Quorum
 Action Without Meeting
 Compensation
 7




---



##### 



Designations, Powers and Name
 Minutes
 Compensation
   Methods of Giving Notice
 8




---



##### 



Written Waiver
   Officers
 Election and Term of Office
 Removal and Resignation
 Vacancies
 Salaries
 9




---



##### 



President
 Vice President
 Secretary and Assistant Secretaries
 Treasurer and Assistant Treasurers
 10




---



##### 



Contracts
 Checks, etc
 Deposits
   Issuance
 11




---



##### 



Lost Certificates
 Transfers
 Registered Stockholders
   Declaration
 Reserve
 12




---



##### 



Indemnification of Directors, Officers and Employees
 Insurance
   Fiscal Year
 Books
 Annual Statement
 Seal
 13




---



##### 



14
#### Donald Richard MAGHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 82-5198.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 14, 1983.

Decided May 2, 1983.

Certiorari Denied June 27,1983.

See 103 S.Ct. 3549.

Donald Richard Maghe, pro se.

A. Melvin McDonald, U.S. Atty., Susan A. Ehrlich, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellee.

Before FAIRCHILD*, HUG, and FAR-RIS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Thomas E. Fairchild, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

In 1956, Maghe pleaded guilty to transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce. He was not represented by counsel. As a result of the 1956 conviction, he received an undesirable discharge from the Army. In 1981, the Army denied Maghe’s request to upgrade his discharge.

Maghe then filed this action, which has been treated as a petition for writ of *coram nobis,*challenging the validity of the 1956 conviction. He alleges that the 1956 conviction violated his sixth amendment right to counsel. He believes that if he is successful in this action, the Army will upgrade his discharge and he will be eligible for various benefits.

The district court denied Maghe’s petition without a hearing. We affirm.

To be entitled to a writ of *coram nobis,*Maghe must show that there are “sound reasons” for his failure to seek relief earlier. *United States v. Morgan,*346 U.S. 502, 512, 74 S.Ct. 247, 253, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954). The district court properly denied Maghe’s petition without a hearing because he failed to allege an adequate factual basis justifying his 25-year delay in seeking relief. *See United States v. Taylor,*648 F.2d 565, 573 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*454 U.S. 866, 102 S.Ct. 329, 70 L.Ed.2d 168 (1981). Maghe has known the nature of his discharge, and the reason for it, since 1956. His allegation that he had no reason to *504challenge the conviction until 1981 when his request to upgrade his discharge was denied explains only his *motive*for now seeking relief. It does not explain the *reason*that he waited 25 years before seeking to upgrade a discharge that he allegedly knew should be upgraded. He has alleged no “sound reasons” for his failure to challenge the 1956 conviction earlier.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
[No. 551-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

June 21, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ernest L. Chandler, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 53021, Robert M. Elston, J., entered April 21, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
# C_2021088EN.01002002.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 8 January 2021 — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-9/21)

(2021/C 88/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AX

Respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---