alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Scott Thomas REED, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20388.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. 4, 1985.

*392Brooke C. Wells, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., J. Stephen Mikita, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

HOWE, Justice:

Pursuant to a plea bargaining arrangement, defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated robbery and one count of second degree murder. He appeals from the trial court’s ruling that his sentences for these convictions should be served consecutively to a sentence he was then serving in California.

Initially, in sentencing defendant, the trial court ordered that the sentences he imposed be served consecutively and not concurrently. However, he did not specify whether those sentences were to be served concurrently with his California sentence. (It is not clear that the court was aware of the California term.) After sentencing, defendant filed a motion to clarify whether the sentences imposed were to run concurrently or consecutively with his California sentence. The court thereupon stated that the sentences were to be served consecutively to that imposed in California. Defendant now claims that the trial court erred in three respects: (1) the trial court’s initial failure to make defendant’s sentences consecutive to his California sentence entitles him to have his sentences run concurrently with the prior California sentence; (2) the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the earlier sentences it had pronounced; and (8) the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it lengthened defendant's earlier sentence.

Utah Code Ann., 1953, § 76-3-401(1) provides: “Sentences shall run concurrently unless the court states, in the sentence, that they shall run consecutively.” This statute speaks only to sentences imposed by Utah courts and is silent in its application to sentences previously imposed by sister states. However, the majority of jurisdictions subscribe to the rule that this type of statute does not apply to sentences which are imposed by two independent sovereigns and therefore the sentences should run consecutively unless the sentencing court expressly directs otherwise. *State v. Smith,*Mo.App., 633 S.W.2d 253 (1982); *Wheeler v. Jernigan,*248 Ga. 302, 282 S.E.2d 891 (1981); *Herman v. Brewer,*Iowa, 193 N.W.2d 540 (1972); *Grimes v. Greer,*223 Ga. 628, 157 S.E.2d 260 (1967). The rationale behind this rule is that penal laws are limited in their application to the penal system of the respective state. *Grimes v. Greer, supra.*

The district court acted properly in clarifying defendant’s sentence. This clarification was made at his own request. The court neither modified nor lengthened the sentences it had earlier pronounced, but only followed the general rule that multiple sentences are construed as consecutive when they are imposed by different sovereigns. Absent legislative enactment to the contrary, we choose to follow that rule and not accord extraterritorial effect to section 76-3-401(1).

Affirmed.

HALL, C.J., and STEWART, DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Wallace Mountain Resources Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert Gelfand, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of December, 2005.

/s/ Robert Gelfand
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
# L_2006039EN.01001701.xml

| 10.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 39/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 39/17

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 233/2006

of 9 February 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003, on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction from third countries in the duty on sorghum imported into Spain was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 3 to 9 February 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported sorghum issued in Regulation (EC) No 2094/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 February 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005 p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 335, 21.12.2005, p. 4.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

3

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

<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                0000949427
<NAME> THE HARTCOURT COMPANIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         77,688
<SECURITIES>                                   5,474,966
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,409,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                   76,477
<INVENTORY>                                    3,541,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,670,017
<PP&E>                                         3,668,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                 100,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,120,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,189,709
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          1,500,000
<PREFERRED>                                    9,400,010
<COMMON>                                       16,442
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,248,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   45,120,600
<SALES>                                        4,723,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,723,905
<CGS>                                          3,688,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,503,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (472,672)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (474,372)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (474,372)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .05
        


</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2029 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Menthyl anthranilate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Menthyl 

anthranilate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MENTHYL ANTHRANILATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.40 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Menthyl anthranilate) is amended by striking the date in 

7 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2029 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.2
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
I, Karen M. Spaun, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofMeadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date:  March 12, 2004 /s/  Karen M. Spaun     Karen M. Spaun   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas** 

August 27, 2013

N o. 04

- 13

- 00083

- CV

HALE LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SILVARIS CORPORATION, d/b/a Low Grande Lumber and

SILVARIS CORPORATION , d/b/a Low Grade Lumber and Alcalosa Forwarding, Inc.,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08

- 12

- 24038

- MCV

Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding

No. 04

- 13

- 00320

- CV

IN RE HALE LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the Motion for Rehearing filed by Hale Land and Cattle

Company, Inc. and the motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on August 27, 2013

.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 08

- 12

- 24038

- MCV, styled Silvaris Corporation, D/B/A Low

Grade Lumber and Alcalosa Forwarding, Inc. v. Hale Land and C attle Company, Inc. , pending in the 293rd Judicial

District Court, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz presiding._____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27 th day of August, 2013

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2015 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Albrite DMHP. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Albrite DMHP. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ALBRITE DMHP. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Dimethyl hydrogen phosphite 

(CAS No. 868–85–9) (provided for in subheading 

2920.90.50) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2015 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### JOSEPH PAJOR *v.*TOWN OF WALLINGFORD

*William F. Gallagher*and *Barbara L. Cox,*in support of the petition.

*Thomas R. Gerarde*and *David S. Monastersky,*in opposition.

Decided April 8, 1998

The petition by the plaintiff Margaret Paj or, Executrix (Estate of Joseph Pajor), for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 365 (AC 16091), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF §

NATURAL RESOURCES AND § No. 459, 2018

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, §

§ Court Below : S uperior Court

Appellee Below, § of the State of Delaware

Appellant, §

§ C.A. No. N1 7A

- 0 3

- 006

v. §

§

FOOD & WATER WATCH, §

§

Appellant Below, §

Appell ee. §

Submitted: September 25, 2018

Decided: December 11 , 2018

Before VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, and SEITZ

, Justices.

O R D E R

(1) Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

(“DNREC”) filed this interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court’s August 24,

2018 memorandum opinion in an administrative appeal from an order of the

Delaware Environmental Appeals Board (“the Board”). 1 The Bo ard’s order of

March 1, 2017, had dismissed an appeal filed by an environmental interest group,

Food & Water Watch, for the group’s lack of standing to challenge a joint order

issued by DNREC and the Delaware Department of Agriculture, approving a general

1 2018 WL 4062112 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 24, 2018).2

permit program establishing standards for certain poultry feeding operations. In the

August 24 memorandum opinion, the Superior Court reversed the Board’s order

dismissing Food & Water Watch’s appeal and remanded the matter to the Board. 2

(2) On September 7, 2018, DNREC filed its application for certification of

an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court’s August 24, 2018 memorandum

opinion reversing the Board ’s dismissal of Food & Water Watch’s appeal. DNREC

conceded that its application was untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 42(c)(i)

.

Food & Water Watch opposed the application

.

(3) By order dated September 24, 2018, the Superior Court denied

certification of the interlocutory appeal after finding , first, that DNREC had not

demon strated good cause to excuse the untimely filing of its application , and second,

that even if the application had been timely filed, interlocutory review of the August

24 memorandum opinion was not warranted under the criteria in Rule 42(b)

. 3 For

the reas ons stated in the Superior Court’s order of September 24, 2018, the Court

has determine d, in its discretion

, that DNREC’s application for interlocutory review

of the August 24, 2018 memorandum opinion does not me e t the requirements of

Rule 42

.

2 Id. at *7.

3 2018 WL 4613594 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 24, 2018).3

NOW, THEREF ORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory

appeal is REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-98440, 33-98444, 33-98442, 33-98446, 333-21799 and 333-21795) on Form
S-8 and the Registration Statement (No. 333-20479) on Form S-3 of CheckFree
Holdings Corporation of our reports dated August 11, 1998, except for Note 20 to
the consolidated financial statements as to which the date is September 11,
1998, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CheckFree Holdings
Corporation for the year ended June 30, 1998.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------
    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
September 25, 1998
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11


               MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,

                                                                   1999                  1998                  1997
                                                            -------------         ------------          -------------
<S>                                                        <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Basic:
     Weighted average shares outstanding                        8,588,216            8,702,768              8,657,677

Diluted:
     Weighted average shares outstanding                        8,588,216            8,702,768              8,657,677
     Common stock equivalents                                           -              323,412                519,077
                                                            -------------         ------------          -------------

                                                                8,588,216            9,026,180              9,176,754
                                                            =============         ============          =============

Income before extraordinary item and
     preferred dividend requirement                          $ (7,846,811)         $ 5,869,969           $ 13,042,456
Preferred dividend requirement                                          -                    -                      -
                                                            -------------         ------------          -------------
Income applicable to common shareholders
     and before extraordinary item                             (7,846,811)           5,869,969             13,042,456
Extraordinary item                                             (1,706,416)                   -                      -
                                                            -------------         ------------          -------------
Net income applicable to common
     shareholders                                              (9,553,227)           5,869,969             13,042,456
                                                            =============         ============          =============


Earnings per share:

Basic:
     Net income before extraordinary item                         $ (0.91)              $ 0.67                 $ 1.51
     Extraordinary item                                             (0.20)                   -                      -
     Net income                                                     (1.11)                0.67                   1.51

Diluted:
     Net income before extraordinary item                           (0.91)                0.65                   1.42
     Extraordinary item                                             (0.20)                   -                      -
     Net income                                                     (1.11)                0.65                   1.42

</TABLE>