alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*ANTHONY OLIPHANT

*Paul R. Kraus,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Rita M. Shair,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 5, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 271 (AC 15393), is denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ADAM ABDUR-RAHIM,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 111 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2023, the Application “for Extraordinary 

Relief Pursuant to Rule 3309 [and] 42 Pa.C.S. § 726, and King’s Bench Powers,” the 

Application for Stay, and the Application for an Expedited Schedule are DENIED.
#### STATE ex rel. John DIGIROLAMO v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden.

No. 87-KH-0670.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Digirolamo, John; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, No. 271-776.

Denied.

CALOGERO and LEMMON, JJ., would grant and order a hearing on assignments of error 4 and 5.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

HOWARD ANTON SMITH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50569

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03394-JM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Howard Anton Smith appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United

States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

FILED

MAY 22 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Smith contends that the district court abused its discretion because it failed

to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, relied on improper

factors, and placed too much weight on his criminal history. This contention is

unpersuasive. The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant

sentencing factors, did not rely on any improper factors, and adequately explained

why a reduction was not warranted. In light of the totality of the circumstances

and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying Smith’s motion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151,

1159-60 (9th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d

904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular

case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-50569
#### Glenda Schuberr D’SPAIN v. James L. D’SPAIN.

No. 88-CC-0847.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re James L. D’Spain, applying for rehearing of action of this Court dated April 29, 1988, 523 So.2d 1314, from the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 302-816; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 88-CW-0164.

Plaintiffs application for rehearing is denied. Defendant’s request for clarification is granted. Pledge of partnership interest does not satisfy the suspensive appeal bond in this case. Defendant must file a new bond. He cannot pledge his interest in the partnership as a suspensive appeal bond. Case remanded to district court to permit defendant to file a new bond. Failure to file a bond of sufficient *sum*within seven (7) days will result in pending appeal becoming devolutive.

DIXON, C.J., concurs in the ruling; the second bond is invalid.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Abatix Environmental Corp.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (No.
33-63265) on Form S-8 of Abatix Environmental Corp. of our report dated March 6,
1997, relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of Abatix Environmental Corp.
and  subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995,  and the related  consolidated
statements of operations,  stockholders'  equity, and cash flows for each of the
years  in the  three-year  period  ended  December  31,  1996,  and the  related
schedule,  which report appears in the December 31, 1996,  annual report on Form
10-K of Abatix Environmental Corp.


                            /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Dallas, Texas
March 20, 1997
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 2 p.m.-3 p.m.

# PLACE: 

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# STATUS: 

Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.

## Matters To Be Considered

*Briefing Matter:*                     § 1112 Lab Withdrawal, Codification & Audit Provisions. A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at                     *www.cpsc.gov/​webcast*.                

# TIME AND DATE: 

Wednesday, March 21, 2012; 3 p.m.-4 p.m.

# PLACE: 

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# STATUS: 

Closed to the Public.

## Matter To Be Considered

### Compliance Status Report

The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of compliance matters.

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: March 13, 2012.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-6539 Filed 3-14-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 27, 2009 

p0518 

Order 

 

May 27, 2009 

137730 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137730 

 COA: 285761 

Wayne CC: 89-006001 

RICHARD KILBOURNE, a/k/a 

RICHARD KILBOURN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT 32.2

              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 Cdoor Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Asher Zwebner of the
Company, Principal Financial Officer certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 13650, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 results of operations of the Company.

                                        /s/ Asher Zwebner
                                        ---------------------
                                        Asher Zwebner
                                        Principal Financial Officer
                                        August 15, 2006
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00235-CR

IN RE MATTHEW ALAN CLENDENNEN

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Matthew Alan Clendennen’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed on July 1, 

2015. Now that it appears the various procedural deficiencies have been adequately 

resolved, the Court requests a response from the other parties to the proceeding. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Any response shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later 

than 14 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Response requested

Order issued and filed July 16, 2015
Exhibit 4.2


 


CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM


 


We have issued our report dated November 27, 2020, with respect
to the financial statement of m+ funds Trust, Series 1-14 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6
(File No. 333-249128) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm”.


 


 


/s/
GRANT THORNTON LLP


 


Chicago,
Illinois


November 27, 2020
50408.

#### BUSH et al. v. THE STATE.

Evans, Judge.

Defendants were indicted for the possession of marijuana. Motions to suppress certain evidence allegedly seized by reason of an illegal search and seizure were filed, heard and denied. Defendants appeal. *Held:*

1. The basis for which the motions are made is that the affidavit on which the search warrant issued was insufficient to establish probable cause that dangerous drugs were present on the property covered by the search warrant. The facts tending to establish the grounds for the issuing of the search warrant on February 8, 1974, were as follows: Defendant Williams was involved in an automobile collision on January 22, 1974. The affiant, a deputy sheriff, investigated the collision and found "zig zag papers” on the floor of Williams’ automobile "after being aware of the strong odor of marijuana smoke.” Defendant Bush was also at the scene of the collision and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Affiant then determined where defendants Bush and Williams lived and placed the property under surveillance, observing between January 25, 1974, and February 8, 1974, numerous automobiles and persons coming and going from a building on said property. On February 3, Williams was observed meeting unknown persons near a convenience store and making an exchange of money for a package. On February 3, at 2:30 a.m. two minors, age 16 and 13 respectively, were involved in "an accident” investigated by the affiant. These minors were under the influence of drugs and stated they had just previously visited the residence of Williams. "Marijuana seeds” were found under the seat of this automobile. All of the above facts occurred between January 27, 1974, and February 3, 1974. They establish only a strong suspicion in the mind of the affiant that Williams and Bush could be involved in drug activity. The affidavit was not sworn to until February 8, five days later. The affidavit is totally lacking in sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the affiant had reason to believe there were drugs present inasmuch as it is totally devoid of any knowledge that any drugs of any kind were located on the premises. *Maxwell v.*
      *490
      *State,*127 Ga. App. 168 (193 SE2d 14); *Windsor v. State,*122 Ga. App. 767 (178 SE2d 751); *Fowler v. State,*121 Ga. App. 22, 23 (172 SE2d 447). See also *Burns v. State,*119 Ga. App. 678 (168 SE2d 786) and *Marshall v. State,*113 Ga. App. 143 (147 SE2d 666). There was simply no reliable information as to drugs being present, and the affiant’s knowledge did not show any drugs to be present.

Argued February 26, 1975

Decided April 7, 1975.

*Bennett & Dantzler, Deryl D. Dantzler, David E. Henderson,*for appellants.

*Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, Charles D. Newberry, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.*
#### Charles T. NEELEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-2839.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1987.

*90Robert H. Trachman of Law Offices of Robert H. Trachman, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Deborah Guller, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure without an evidentiary hearing.

Appellant contends that the trial court’s examination of the transcript of the change-of-plea hearing did not furnish an adequate basis to determine whether his plea was induced by an improper promise or misunderstanding. Nor did it establish whether the defendant was still under the influence of withdrawal from heavy psychotropic medication and therefore unable to make a rational decision regarding his plea. We agree and reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. We remand this cause to the trial court with directions to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on the grounds raised in appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. *See Ream v. State,*449 So.2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); *Chapman v. State,*444 So.2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>


This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statements of operations found on the Company's Form 10-K and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.


</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000846535
<NAME> VARTECH SYSTEMS INC.
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           29460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   487448
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     220235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                861260
<PP&E>                                          488060
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1327455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           716840
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          2100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      520724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1327455
<SALES>                                        5723376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5723376
<CGS>                                          3624649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3624649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2244502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               74647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (226922)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (36963)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (189959)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.26


 


Platform Intermediary
Service Agreement


 


(Contract No. :  [●])


 


Party A (Principal): Chongqing
Penglin Food Co. Ltd.


No:91500102781564844k


Legal representative: Zeshu
Dai


 


Party B (Intermediary): Sichuan
Toucu Finance Information Service Co. Ltd.


No:91510104091268239Q


Legal representative: Benqiang
Shi


 


Whereas:


 


	 	1.	Due to the request of the liquid capital, Party A needs external financing (“Financing Project”).Party A delegates Party B as a middleman to post financing information by its’ internet finance service platform (Toucu finance www.chinap2g.com, “Toucu Platform” ) in order to look for the Lending institutions or personal (“Third Party Funders”)


 


	 	2.	Based on the principals of equality and voluntariness, after friendly negotiation, both Parties agree to the terms set forth below. 


 


	I.	Platform Service items



 


	 	1.	Party A delegates Party B as an Intermediary to post financing information by Toucu Platform, Party B should make contribution to the loan contract between Party A and Third Party Funders. Assist Party A to complete financing and related items.


 


	 	2.	Loan information:


 


		(1)	Amount: RMB 1,000,000






		(2)	Interest rate: 7.5%






		(3)	Term: 1 month






		(4)	Purpose: working capital






		(5)	Source of repayment: Business income






		(6)	Guarantee: Asset Mortgage, actual controller guarantee or legal person guarantee, Chongqing Penglin Food Co. Ltd. provides
joint guarantees






		(7)	Repayment: loan interest shall be paid monthly and loan principal shall be repaid on maturity date.



 


	II.	Intermediary service fee and settlement



 


	 	1.	Party B shall receive service fee equal to 0.625% of the total loan, payable within 3 business days after Party A receive a loan.


 


	 	2.	If Party A does not pay the service fee on time, the liquidated damage is the 10% of the total service fee, with a daily interest of 0.05%.


 


Principal: /s/ Chongqing
Penglin Food Co. Ltd.


 


Intermediary: /s/
Sichuan Toucu Finance Information Service Co. Ltd.


 


Execution date: September 11,
2019
#### Francis B. BUDA, Appellant, v. Stephanie M. BUDA, Appellee.

No. 86-1280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 1987.

Martin J. Jones, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Edward D. Foreman of Law Offices of Edward D. Foreman, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a dissolution proceeding that was ably presented in the trial court by both parties and counsel and likewise ably argued here.

We find that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court on all issues raised here as error. We, therefore, affirm.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2465 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2465

To reduce temporarily the duty on arrangements of artificial flowers of 
                            man-made fibers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reduce temporarily the duty on arrangements of artificial flowers of 
                            man-made fibers.

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

SECTION 1. ARRANGEMENTS OF ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS OF MAN-MADE FIBERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Arrangements of     5%           No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        artificial                                                         31/2011.......
                        flowers of man-
                        made fibers
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6702.90.35)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         522,368<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               522,368
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 522,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,085
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       516,283
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   522,368
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,923<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,157<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                135,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,085
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            133,931
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   133,931
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .023
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .023
<FN>
<F1>Cash of $2,254 and income mutual funds of $520,114.
<F2>Principally dividend income.
<F3>Principally change in unrealized gain on marketable securities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>