alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Don GROVES, Petitioner, v. Sharon BUMGARNER, Secretary, Cleveland County Election Board; E.M. McDanel, District Judge; and The District Court of Cleveland County, Respondents.

No. 59967.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 14, 1983.

*308David Hopper, Norman, for petitioner.

Sharon Bumgarner, Cleveland County Election Bd., Judge E.M. McDanel, and Philip Red wine, Norman, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We assume Original Jurisdiction under the provisions of Art. VII, § 4, Okla. Const., and by reason of *Edmondson v. State ex rel. Phelps, Okl., 533 P.2d 604 (1974); Helm v. State Election Board, Okl., 589 P.2d 224 (1979); Hembree v. City of Stilwell, Okl., 597 P.2d 1218 (1979).*After consideration of the briefs, transcript of proceedings had in the District Court of Cleveland County and having heard Oral Argument of the parties, this Court finds:

> 1. One contesting an election has the burden of proving the winner of the contested race cannot be ascertained with mathematical certainty. Mere probability will not suffice. *Helm, supra [589 P.2d] pg. 227; Hembree, supra.*

> 2. We find petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof that respondent, real party in interest, Joyce Carr, could not be determined the winner of the contested race with mathematical certainty.

> 3. It is highly improper to inquire of a voter-witness during a judicial proceeding as to the person for whom the voter cast his ballot, even though that voter-witness is required to secretly mark a ballot and deposit same in a locked box which remains unopened. 26 O.S.1981, § 7-109. Because the court below did not consider such evidence, and indeed, left the ballots in the locked box without examination, such judicial action constituted harmless error.

> 4.The findings of the trial court that Joyce Carr can be determined to be the winner of the contested race with mathematical certainty are supported by the record.

The order heretofore issued staying the issuance of the certificate of election to respondent real party in interest, Joyce Carr, be and the same is hereby dissolved; the secret ballots marked by voter-witnesses are ordered to be destroyed immediately without examination; and petitioner’s prayer for a prerogative writ is denied.

APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION GRANTED. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.

BARNES, C.J., SIMMS, V.C.J., and IRWIN, HODGES, LAVENDER, DOOLIN, HARGRAVE, OPALA, JJ., concur.

WILSON, J., not participating.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Theundersigned officer of WII Components, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2006 to which this certification is beingfurnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) ofRegulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In accordancewith clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall notbe deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, orotherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actor the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.

 
| **Date:  August 14, 2006** |                           |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                       | /s/ John Fitzpatrick           |   |
|                       | Name: John Fitzpatrick         |
|                       | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

20

----
## Before releasing this report to the public, please remove the listing of registration numbers at the end of this spreadsheet.

**PRD A ppendix A**  **: Food/Feed & Non-Food/Non-Feed Uses Considered in Registration Review Work Planning**  Dihy dro-5-Penty l-2(3H)-Furanone (122301)



## Note: This is an aggregate report of registered uses for this chemical. Label data for chemicals with more than one pesticide product are presented in aggregate form (i.e. each line of data may be a combination of data from one or more pesticide). Current As Of Date : 11-MAR-2011**F o** **o d** **( F** **) /** **N o** **n -** **f o** **o d** **( N** **)**



### Use Site **Formulation Desc A. I. Max App**  **Rate/App Max # Apps /** 

**CC A. I. Max** 

**App Rate/CC**  **Max #**

**Apps / Year**  **A. I. Max App**

**Rate/Year Minimum** 

**Retreatment Interval**  **Minimum**

**Reentry Interval**  **PGI / PHI / PSI Allow Geo Restrictions**  **DisAllow Geo Restrictions**  **Limitations**

N DW ELLINGS INDOOR PREMISES IMPREGNATED MATERIAL NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS No Restrictions No Restrictions NS

N HOUSEHOLD/DOMESTIC DW ELLINGS OUTDOOR PREMISES GRANULAR .1045 lb / a NS NS NS NS NS NS NS No Restrictions No Restrictions NS HOUSEHOLD/DOMESTIC 

## Note: This is an aggregate report of registered uses for this chemical. Label data for chemicals with more than one pesticide product are presented in aggregate form (i.e. each line of data may be a combination of data from one or more pesticide).

N DW ELLINGS OUTDOOR PREMISES IMPREGNATED MATERIAL NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS No Restrictions No Restrictions NS

N HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WH ILE BEING W ORN IMPREGNATED MATERIAL NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS No Restrictions No Restrictions NS

N ORNAMENTAL HERBACEOUS PLANTS GRANULAR .1045 lb / a NS NS NS NS NS NS NS No Restrictions No Restrictions NS

N ORNAMENTAL LAW NS AND TURF GRANULAR .1045 lb / a NS NS NS NS NS NS NS No Restrictions No Restrictions NS

N PAVED AREAS (PRIVATE ROADS/SIDEW ALKS) GRANULAR .1045 lb / a NS NS NS NS NS NS NS No Restrictions No Restrictions NS



### Registration Numbers contained in this report



### NDC = No Dosage Conversion NS = Not Specified 45987-1,66617-1



### Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)



                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Presstek, Inc.
Hudson, New Hampshire

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the respective
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-80466, 33-61215, 33-39337,
333-76905 and 333-97897) and on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-2299 and 33-48342) of
Presstek, Inc., and in the Prospectuses constituting part of such Registration
Statements, of our report dated February 25, 2004, relating to the financial
statements and schedule of Presstek, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2004.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

New York, New York
March 17, 2004
#### PALM BEACH COUNTY, Appellant, v. Frank CLINGERMAN, Diane Clingerman, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 4-86-1905.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 7, 1987.

Marlyn J. Altman and James W. McCann, Asst. Co. Attys., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Thompson & O’Brien, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, and Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order denying the County’s motion to change venue is reversed, it appearing that the accident in question took place in Palm Beach County and involved all county residents. The appellees have demonstrated no basis in the com*349plaint or in the record for the trial court’s refusal to recognize the County’s venue privilege. *Cf. Board of County Commissioners of Madison County v. Grice,*438 So.2d 392 (Fla.1983).

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Earl J. ANDRY v. N. Burl CAIN, Warden, Dixon Correctional Center.

No. 87-KH-0420.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1987.

In re Andry, Earl J.; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 42-203.

Granted. The district court is ordered to act, if it has not already done so, on the post conviction petition submitted on or about December 15, 1986, if it has been filed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 3067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00721]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8153]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Looking East: Rubens's Encounter With Asia''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Looking East: Rubens's Encounter with 
Asia,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United 
States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant 
to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also 
determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The 
J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA, from on or about March 5, 2013, 
until on or about June 9, 2013, and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 8, 2013.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-00721 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY v. Gerry MOSLEY.

No. 57475.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 6, 1988.

Sheila R. Fortenberry, Suzanne N. Saunders, Saunders, Abel & Fortenberry, Jackson, for appellant.

James D. Shannon, Hazlehurst, for ap-pellee.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON and GRIFFIN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
** EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven D. Hunt, certify that: 

     1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

     b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 

|                   |   |                                    |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:                    |   | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|  

 

  |   |                                    |
|                   |   | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: January 8, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE 1996 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,966
<SECURITIES>                                 1,256,445
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,367,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         25
<COMMON>                                           319
<OTHER-SE>                                     346,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,367,245
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,027
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   470
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,240
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,240
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Ronald N. PENN v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, State of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-2652.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Penn, Ronald N.; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. “L.”

Denied. Moot.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUDITH ROMO; VINCENT

TALDONE; ROBIN TAYLER;

MARGARET TAYLOR; RANDY

TAYLOR; RAY TEETS; LAWRENCE

TELLS; KATHRYN TEMCHACK;

CHARLES TERRY; VERONICA

TERRY; ROBERTA THORNE;

MARGARET TIVIS; LINDA TODD;

DELORES TOOHEY; DEBRA

TOURVILLE; DENA TSOUALS;

ALLEN TURNER; CAROLYN

TURNER; WANDA TURNER;

STARLET TYRONE; GLORIA

UNDERWOOD; HENRY

UNDERWOOD; JANICE VANISON;

WILLIAM VERHEYEN; CHARLES

VILDIBILL; SHARON WALLGREN;

PAM WALSH; SHARON WALSH;

KEESHA WARRIOR; LATANGA

WASHINGTON; DARLENE WATT;

JAMES WEISS; WESLEY

WELBORNE, III; DEBRA

WHEELER; MARSHA WHITT;

CAROLYN WHYNO; CECILIA

WILCKENS; SANDRA WILEMON;

STELLA WILKERSON-CLARK;

JOANN WILLIAMS; JOYCE

WILLIAMS; ROSE WILLIAMS;

SHANTAS WILLIAMS; MARY

WILSON; ROSE WILSON; PATSY

WINZEY; JIMMIE WISE; RUTH

WOLFSON; JUANITA WOODSON;

No. 13-56310

D.C. No. 5:12-cv-02036-PSG-E

ORDER

FILED

FEB 10 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2

LYNNE WYSOCKY, single individuals,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,

INC.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

MARGALIT CORBER; RENE CARO;

STEVE DANTZLER; LINDA

SOWARDS; LORI HUISMAN;

JOHNNY GEORGE, Sr.; TERRY

PERRY; WILLIAM RACKLEY;

ANGELA YOUNG; PAMELA

RODRIGUEZ; STEVEN SYVERSON;

OLGA CAICOYA; JANET

CARROLL; ROSE CASH; ULAD

CELENTANO; VIRGINIA

COSTANZO; KIMBERLY FILLIGIM;

ARMELDIA SMITH; CARLA WEST;

JOANNE BIERZYNSKI, individually

and as next of kin to Eleanor Wojcik;

SHARLEY MORRIS; WYOMIA

TIMMONS; DEAN REINKING;

DANIEL THORNE; WENDELEN

ASHBY; CARMEN BEDFORD;

CLAUDE COMMODORE; JAMES

HENSON; NANCY LOCKE;

MILDRED SCOTT; BILLIE

BURNETT; SHEENA HALL;

BRENDA ROBERGE, individually and

as next of kin to Ernest Roberge;

No. 13-56306

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09986-PSG-E
Page 3

DEBORAH WOODSUM; RICHARD

PASCUITO,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS,

INC.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

these cases be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion in Romo v. Teva

Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 13-56310, shall not be cited as precedent by or to

any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge McKeown did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
50639.

#### MULLIGAN et al. v. SCOTT et al.

Argued May 6, 1975

Decided May 13, 1975.

*Gerstein, Carter & Chesnut, James C. Watkins,*for appellants.

*Nick G. Lambros,*for appellees.

Webb, Judge.

"Piece-meal review is not favored by the courts. '[I]n the absence of an express determination by the court that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment, no order or decision which adjudicates with respect to fewer than all the claims or all the parties is final or appealable. Code Ann. § 81A-154 (b) [Cits.] Since there is no appeal, from a final, appealable judgment in the record and no certificate for immediate review as provided for by Code Ann. § 6-701 (a, 2) this appeal must be dismissed under authority of the above cases.’ *Rodriguez v. Newby,*130 Ga. App. 139, 140 (202 SE2d 565).” *Foley v. Shanahan,*133 Ga. App. 262 (1) (211 SE2d 367). Accord, *Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc.,*133 Ga. App. 23 (1) (209 SE2d 715) and cases cited; *Walker v. Robinson,*232 Ga. 361 (207 SE2d 6) and cases cited.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*
#### Pamela M. GRIMES v. STATE.

3 Div. 123.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 7, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1986.

Certiorari Denied May 2, 1986 Alabama Supreme Court 85-578.

Elno A. Smith, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

TYSON, Judge.

Pamela M. Grimes was charged by information with driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. The jury found her “guilty as charged” and, following a sentencing hearing, the trial judge fixed punishment at a fine of $500.00 and thirty (30) days in the county jail, all but forty-eight (48) hours of which was suspended.

Our review of this record uncovers no problem with the weight and sufficiency of the evidence from which the appellant was adjudged guilty. *Prescott v. State,*44 Ala. App. 670, 219 So.2d 655 (1969); *Pace v. City of Montgomery,*455 So.2d 180 (Ala.Crim.App.1984); *Swann v. City of Huntsville,*455 So.2d 944 (Ala.Crim.App.1984); *Manners v. State,*461 So.2d 43 (Ala.Crim.App.1984).

I

The only issue raised on appeal is whether a police officer may testify in a D.U.I. prosecution that, in his opinion, the defendant was intoxicated. Appellant argues that such amounts to an opinion on the ultimate issue of fact and it is, therefore, inadmissible.

In this cause the prosecutor asked the arresting officer if he had an opinion concerning whether or not the appellánt was intoxicated. Over objection by defense *9counsel, the witness was allowed to answer the question and stated that it was his opinion that the appellant “was intoxicated” on the night in question. The prosecution brought forth this testimony only after eliciting evidence of how appellant was driving, that the officer smelled alcohol on her and in the car and that there were empty beer cans in the car. Also evidence was introduced that the officer administered a photoelectric intoximeter test and that this appellant had a reading of .157 on the test. See *Patton v. City of Decatur,*337 So.2d 321 (Ala.1976).

A search of D.U.I. cases in Alabama reveals that a police officer is allowed to give his opinion as to the sobriety vel non of the appellant. See *Pierson v. State,*31 Ala.App. 452, 18 So.2d 578 (1944); *Pate v. State,*35 Ala.App. 586, 50 So.2d 796 (1951); *Gladden v. State,*36 Ala.App. 197, 54 So.2d 607 (1951); *Durham v. State,*38 Ala.App. 341, 83 So.2d 260 (1955); *Holloway v. City of Birmingham,*56 Ala.App. 545, 323 So.2d 726 (1975); *Ex parte Bush,*474 So.2d 168 (Ala.1985).

We have found no error in this record and, therefore, are of the opinion that this cause should be and is, hereby, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.