alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE STATE for the use of DAVID CANNON *vs.*CLEMENT LAYTON and SALLY, his wife, late SALLY CANNON, administratrix of WINGATE CANNON, deceased.

A *natural*guardian account no evidence The mother allowed for maintenance of her child, out of his distributive share of his father’s estate

Summons debt. Pleas, performance; payment; set-off; plene administravit, and the act of limitations. Replication, infancy.

This was an action-on an administration bond against a surety for the distributive balance of David Cannon in the estate of his father, William N. Cannon. The plff. was entitled to one-third of two-thirds bf $306 47, or about $34 05 at two years old.

The defts. offered in evidence an account passed before the register of this county by Sally Cannon, the mother and natural guardian of the plff., for necessary food and clothing furnished him during his infancy. Objected to.

*Woollen.*

The register had no authority to pass such an account. The minor had no power to except to it. If it had been a regular guardian account the minor might have excepted, and according to the settled rule of law the guardian would not have been allowed to any greater extent than the income. This paper is nothing more than a statement of the mother, who is a party to this cause.

The *Court*

said the account was not evidence *per se,*as it was passed without authority; but they would permit the defts. to prove the facts for the consideration of the jury. William S. Cannon left a widow in moderate circumstances, and six children, the plff. being but two years old. If his mother maintained and kept him until he was old enough to be put out for his victuals and clothes, the jury ought to make her a reasonable allowance out of what was coming to him from his father. If it were otherwise, what would be the condition of *325children left in similar circumstances. They must go to the poor house; and the trustees could recover for their maintenance. The old orphans’ court would not allow the guardian to exceed the income after 7 years; but under that age it always made a reasonable allowance for board and clothing. .Verdict for defts.

*Wootten*for plaintiff.

*Layton*for defendants.
#### Ray WHALEY and Douglas A. Judson, as Trustees, et al., Appellants, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN FORT MYERS, etc., Appellee.

No. 72-812.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 2, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Velez, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 965]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 15, 1995, convicting him of sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that because the People’s case was supported by only the complainant’s testimony which, he claims, was undercut by other aspects of the People’s case, the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT NO. 15





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.







|Re: | Registration Statements on Form S-8,
|--- | ------------------------------------
|    | File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,     
|    | No. 333-26177, No. 333-42879,       
|    | No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463, and   
|    | No. 333-39754                       
|    |                                     
|    | Registration Statement on Form S-3, 
|    | File No. 33-58670                   
|    |                                     

With respect to the subject Registration Statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated December 5, 2002 related to our review of interim financial information.



Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such reports are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.









/ s / KPMG LLP





KPMG LLP







Hartford, Connecticut
December 9, 2002
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Earth Search Sciences, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:
 
 (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-K/A") of the Company 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 Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: August 16, 2010/s/Larry VanceLarry VanceChief Executive Officer
 
 This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,967-01

EX P ARTE HARRY G OF F NEY, JR., Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1447414-A IN THE 230TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Ap p l i cant was convicted of possession of methlenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) in an amount of less than one g ram, and was sentenc ed to nine months in st ate jail. He did not appeal his convic tion. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and that his conviction violates due proce ss beca use the evidenc e in his case was tested and found not to contain any MDMA, even though the lab test sh o ws th at t he evidenc e contained a differ ent controlled substance, methamphetamine.The pa rties have enter ed agree d finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, a nd the trial cour

t has deter mined that Applicant’s decision to plead guilty in this case was not a voluntary and intelligent choice
. Applicant is entitled to relief
. Ex parte Mable , 443 S.W .3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 144741401010 in the 230th District Court of Har ris County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Har ris County to answe r t he charg es as set out in the i ndictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench
war rant within 10 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion s h a ll b e s e nt to th e T e xa s Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. Deliver ed: J anuar

y 27, 2016 Do not publish
**Exhibit10.3**

 

**TERM NOTE A**

 
| $6,000,000 |   | April 30, 2002 |
|------------|--------|---------------------|

 

For value received, the undersigned, MACKIE DESIGNSINC. (“Borrower”), promises to pay to the order of U.S. BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION (“U.S. Bank”), at 1420 Fifth Avenue, Seattle,Washington 98101, or such other place or places as the holder hereof maydesignate in writing, the principal sum of Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) inlawful immediately available money of the United States of America, inaccordance with the terms and conditions of that certain Amended and RestatedCredit Agreement of even date herewith by and between Borrower andU.S. Bank (together with all supplements, exhibits, amendments andmodifications thereto, the “Credit Agreement”).  Borrower also promises to pay interest on the unpaid principalbalance hereof, commencing as of the date hereof, in like money in accordancewith the terms and conditions and at the rate or rates provided for in theCredit Agreement.

 

Borrower and all endorsers, sureties and guarantorshereof jointly and severally waive presentment for payment, demand, notice ofnonpayment, notice of protest and protest of this Note, and all other noticesin connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default, dishonor orenforcement of the payment of this Note except such notices as are specificallyrequired by this Note or by the Credit Agreement, and they agree that theliability of each of them shall be unconditional without regard to theliability of any other party and shall not be in any manner affected by anyindulgence, extension of time, renewal, waiver or modification granted orconsented to by U.S. Bank. Borrower and all endorsers, sureties and guarantors hereof(1) consent to any and all extensions of time, renewals, waivers ormodifications that may be granted by U.S. Bank with respect to the paymentor other provisions of this Note and the Credit Agreement; (2) consent to therelease of any property now or hereafter securing this Note with or withoutsubstitution; and (3) agree that additional makers, endorsers, guarantorsor sureties may become parties hereto without notice to them and withoutaffecting their liability hereunder.

 

This Note is the Term Note A referred to in theCredit Agreement and as such is entitled to all of the benefits and obligationsspecified in the Credit Agreement, including, but not limited to, anyCollateral and any conditions to making advances hereunder.  Terms defined in the Credit Agreement areused herein with the same meanings. Reference is made to the Credit Agreement for provisions for therepayment of this Note and the acceleration of the maturity hereof.

 
|   | MACKIE DESIGNS  INC. |
|--------|----------------------|
|   |                 |
|   |                 |
|   | By:                  |   |
|   |                 | Name: |   |
|   |                 | Title: |   |

 

----
Attachment F:

Partner Annual Assessment Form –

Waste Prevention and Recycling
#### Jerry ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-117.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 9, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
-  HHS Family of Agencies      -  HHS Agencies & Offices 
  -  Regional Offices 
  -  Advisory Committees, Task Forces & Initiatives 
  -  Organizational Chart 
-  Leadership 
-  Budget & Performance      -  FY 2025 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2025 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2024 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2024 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2024 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2023 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2023 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2023 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2022 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2022 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2022 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2021 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2021 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan and Report 
  -  FY 2020 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2020 Budget in Brief 
  -  FY 2020 Annual Performance Report 
  -  FY 2019 Contingency Staffing Plan 
  -  FY 2019 Annual Performance Report 
-  Strategic Plan FY 2022 - 2026      -  Message from the Secretary 
  -  Introduction: About HHS 
  -  Overview: Strategic Plan FY 2022 - 2026 
  -  Strategic Goal 1: Protect and Strengthen Equitable Access to High Quality and Affordable Healthcare 
  -  Strategic Goal 2: Safeguard and Improve National and Global Health Conditions and Outcomes 
  -  Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen Social Well-Being, Equity, and Economic Resilience 
  -  Strategic Goal 4: Restore Trust and Accelerate Advancements in Science and Research for All 
  -  Strategic Goal 5: Advance Strategic Management to Build Trust, Transparency, and Accountability 
  -  Appendix: Plan Updates 
-  News 
-  I Am HHS 
-  Careers 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

#             The Honorable Constance B. Tobias          

Chair, Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)

Judge Tobias was appointed as Chair of the Departmental Appeals Board on April 29, 2007. She previously served at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs as a Chief Veterans Law Judge of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. In addition, Judge Tobias served as Counsel to the Chairman and was also a staff attorney. She received her Juris Doctorate from Cornell University and a Bachelor’s Degree from Saint Augustine’s College. Judge Tobias lives in Maryland with her husband and has two children.

Content last reviewed November 15, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                         5
<MULTIPLIER>                      1000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                            3,439
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                     14,910
<ALLOWANCES>                      778
<INVENTORY>                       17,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  37,447
<PP&E>                            15,084
<DEPRECIATION>                    9,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    49,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             12,268
<BONDS>                           309
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       13
<COMMON>                          69
<OTHER-SE>                        35,103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      49,144
<SALES>                           56,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  56,908
<CGS>                             39,252
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     39,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  27,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  2,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (13,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (13,268)
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                      (13,268)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (1.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (1.91)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14619]

[[Page 31725]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-17-2018]

Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 21--Charleston, South Carolina; 
Authorization of Production Activity; AGRU America Charleston, LLC; 
(High Density Polyethylene Pipe); North Charleston, South Carolina

    On March 5, 2018, AGRU America Charleston, LLC (AGRU America) 
submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ 
Board for its facility within FTZ 21--Site 38,\1\ in North Charleston, 
South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Notification of Proposed Production Activity mistakenly 
identified the site number as Site 5, instead of Site 38. See 83 FR 
10657 (March 12, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (83 FR 10657, March 12, 2018). On July 
3, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no 
further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14619 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
#### Lucius Bonner McLEOD, Jr., and Lucius Bonner McLeod, III, Petitioners, v. Mildred S. YOUNG, etc., Respondent.

No. 42135.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 10, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 257 So.2d 605.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Gerald FORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1115.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 10, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1971.

Whitman, Wolfe & Glick, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Schemer, Miami, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Ford appeals a judgment of guilty of extortion entered in a jury trial of the cause begun upon a two count information for conspiracy to extort and extortion.

The sole point on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. It would serve no purpose to detail the events surrounding the “shake-down” of a male nurse by three young persons and the defendant, who was then a probationary officer of the City of Miami.

We have reviewed the record and note that it reveals more than a lack of good judgment by a young officer combined with a peculiar chain of events during a short span of time. Rather, there is sufficient, substantial competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict. The jury’s function as the trier of fact is to evaluate the evidence, weigh the credibility of witnesses, and resolve conflicts in the testimony. They can draw or refuse to draw inferences from the evidence presented. Their determination is accorded *563great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal except for the lack of substantial competent evidence.

Therefore, the judgment and sentence appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1623
<SECURITIES>                                        87
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8149
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1135
<INVENTORY>                                         82
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10678
<PP&E>                                           67929
<DEPRECIATION>                                   54132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4688
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           598
<OTHER-SE>                                       19362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24648
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 37017
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    33646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4684
<INCOME-TAX>                                       140
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4544
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4544
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7445** 

RONALD WAYNE LEWIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. SUHASINI N. SHAH, Medical Doctor, FCI Petersburg , Defendant

- Appellee
.

**No. 11**  **- 7450** 

RONALD WAYNE LEWIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v.
HARLEY LAPPIN , Defendant

- Appellee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , Chief District Judge. ( 3:10

- cv - 00 568

- JRS ; 3:10

- cv - 00130

- JRS )

Submitted : February 16, 2012 Decided: February 22, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN , and WYNN, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronald Wayne Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this c ircuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Ronald Wayne Lewis appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his civil rights actions in which he alleged that he received inadequate m edical

care . We have reviewed the record s and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lewis v. Shah , No. 3:10

- cv - 00568

- JRS (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2011); Lewis v. Lappin , No. 3:10

- cv - 00130

- JRS (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2011) . 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 33-93572, 33-97712, 333-08985, 333-13519, 333-24165,
333-31183, 333-39247 and 333-43745 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-12177, 333-29759 and
333-29763) and related Prospectuses of Highwoods Properties, Inc. and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-31183-01) and related Prospectus of
Highwoods/Forsyth Limited Partnership of our report dated February 20, 1998
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Highwoods/Forsyth Limited Partnership included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina
March 27, 1998