alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ACCEPTED

06-14-00101-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

4/15/2015 4:55:24 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/15/2015 4:55:24 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13A-14**

**PROMULGATED UNDER**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Laurie Romanak, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust; 

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: 

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

(b) [Omitted in reliance on SEC ReleaseNo. 33-8238; 34-47986, Section III E.] 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

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

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 7, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Joseph Johnson, )
)
Plaintiff, )
y Case: 1:15-cv-00578
7, ) Assigned To : Unassigned
) Assign. Date : 4/16/2015
United States ef. al., y Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiff's pro se complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the case will be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which requires the Court to dismiss a complaint upon
a determination that it, among other grounds, is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

Plaintiff is a resident of St. Louis, Missouri. He sues, among other individuals, high-level
federal and state officials, including President Barack Obama and Missouri Governor Jay Nixon,
the nine Supreme Court Justices, a list of judges at the appellate and district court levels, and
congressional leaders House Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell. See Compl.
Caption. Plaintiff lists in the complaint’s caption 47 purported causes of action ranging from
fraud to violations of the RICO Act and the Hobbs Act. The 92-page complaint consists in large
part of incoherent and disjointed statements and general proclamations.

Not only does the complaint fail to provide any notice of a claim but it is the type
warranting dismissal of the case under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (a court may


dismiss claims that are “essentially fictitious”-- for example, where they suggest “bizarre
conspiracy theories . . . [or] fantastic government manipulations of their will or mind”) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir.
1981) (“A court may dismiss as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of
a wholly fanciful kind.”). In addition, “[a]n in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed
as frivolous prior to service of process if it is clear from the face of the pleading that the named
defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims asserted.” Jd. at 1308 (citing Moore v.
Burger, 655 F.2d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (finding “complaint against four Justices of Supreme
Court for creating judicial precedents alleged to deny plaintiff his constitutional rights properly
dismissed as frivolous”); Johnson v. Reagan, 524 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1975) (finding “claims
against legislators and judges properly dismissed as frivolous”)). Finally, actions that lack “an
arguable basis in law and fact” also are subject to dismissal as frivolous. Brandon v. District of
Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

The instant complaint satisfies the frivolous standard and, thus, will be dismissed with

prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: April (3, 2015
Marcho Farms APPROVED

Premium Lamb Specification April 26, 2007

USDA, AMS, LS, STDZ 

Washington, DC 20250 

Page 1 of 1

USDA SPECIFICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF LAMB CARCASS 

QUALITY AND YIELD CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFICIALLY GRADED LAMB 

SCOPE

This specification is for certification of products marketed by the Marcho Farms Process 

Verified Program, which is a USDA Process Verified Program (PVP). 

This specification is for certification by an Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) agent of lamb 

carcasses which meet the following set of requirements: 

1. Classified as lamb; 

2. Graded U.S. Choice or higher; 

3. A yield grade of 3.9 or numerically lower; and 

4. Dressed carcass weight of 60 to 85 lbs. 

__________ 

Items 1, 2, and 3 shall be determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards 

for Grades of Carcass Lamb.” 

Item 4 shall be determined by a third-party certified scale. 

CERTIFICATION

In order to certify lamb products with this specification, Marcho Farms must have an approved 

USDA PVP; having successfully passed a document review and onsite audit conducted by the 

Audit Review and Compliance (ARC) Branch and has been found in conformance with all ARC 

Procedures (http://processverified.usda.gov/). 

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with the requirements of this specification shall be 

clearly identified when presented to the AMS agent for certification. Procedures for 

identification, certification, the removal of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of 

control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and control of certified carcasses shall be in 

accordance with established Meat Grading and Certification (MGC) Branch procedures. The 

AMS agent shall certify acceptable carcasses and complete the Live Animal/Carcass 

Certification Worksheet (Form LS-5-6). 

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by the AMS agent involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the 

person, group, or plant requesting the service. Marcho Farms representatives must have any 

program changes approved by AMS prior to implementation. 

LABELING

Labeling of Marcho Farms Process Verified Program products shall be in compliance with 

Food Safety and Inspection Service regulations and policy guidelines, MGC Branch 

instructions and Livestock and Seed Program Policy Standardization Procedure 2 (LS Policy 

SP2; issued July 25, 2002). This product will be labeled as Sysco Brand Butcher’s Block 

Reserve Lamb.
#### Jimmie Lee HENDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. O-77-301.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 12, 1977.

As Corrected Sept. 9, 1977.

John T. Elliott, Public Defender, John M. Stuart, Asst. Public Defender, Oklahoma County, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles S. Rogers, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jimmie Lee Henderson, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of Attempt to Kidnap on December 10, 1975, in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-75-3073. His punishment was fixed at a term of four (4) years’ imprisonment, with the same being suspended upon the condition that defendant obey the rules of probation set forth by the sentencing court. Thereafter, an application to revoke said suspended sentence was filed by the State, alleging that the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation, specifically that he had committed the crime of Burglary in the Second Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony. After a hearing the defendant’s suspended sentence was revoked. From said order of revocation defendant has perfected a timely appeal to this Court.

At the close of the jury trial on the Burglary charge alleged as a basis for this revocation of suspended sentence, the same judge who presided over the trial revoked defendant’s suspended sentence in the case at bar; this was done by stipulation; that is, the attorneys stipulated “that this Court may consider evidence that it heard during the trial of CRF-76-2173 [the burglary charge] for purposes of this revocation.”

The defendant contends in his only assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking defendant’s suspended sentence. We find this proposition to be without merit.

Violations of the conditions of a suspended sentence need only be shown by a *298preponderance of the evidence. *Allison v. State,*Okl.Cr., 562 P.2d 883 (1977). A preponderance of the evidence has been defined by this Court to mean simply the greater weight of evidence. *Queen v. State,*35 Okl.Cr. 412, 250 P. 935 (1925). Preponderance was also defined in the case of *Peyton v. McCaslin,*Okl., 417 P.2d 316 (1966), to mean that which, to the mind of the trier of fact or the seeker of the truth, seems most convincing and more probably true.

Moreover, this Court has also consistently held that the decision to revoke the suspended sentence in whole or in part lies within the discretion of the trial court, and absent an abuse thereof the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed. *Wallace v. State,*Okl.Cr., 562 P.2d 1175 (1977). The evidence produced by the State and stipulated to by defense not only could have been interpreted as of greater weight, but also could have been deemed more probably true than not by the trial judge reviewing this evidence. Therefore, no abuse of discretion by the trial court is apparent from the record.

For the above and foregoing reasons, the revocation of defendant’s suspended sentence in Case No. CRF-75-3073, is *AFFIRMED.*

BRETT, J., concurs in results.
BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 

2011ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K 

EXHIBIT 10.13 

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO 

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 

**DIRECTOR COMPENSATON**

Each nonemployee director receives an annual retainer of $150,000, of which $75,000 is payable in cash and $75,000 is payable in thecompany’s common stock. In addition, the lead independent director receives $20,000 in cash annually, the chairs of the Audit, Compensation, Finance and Nominating & Governance Committees each receives $10,000 in cash annually, andeach member of the Audit Committee receives $5,000 in cash annually. 

The common stock grant is credited to thedirector’s account in the Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors. Stock granted prior to 2012 is distributed following the director’s retirement from the Board. For stock granted during or after 2012 to a director who has achieved thestock ownership guidelines, the stock will be distributed one year after the grant date unless the director elects to defer distribution to a later date. For stock granted during or after 2012 to a director who has not yet achieved the stockownership guidelines, the stock will be distributed following the director’s retirement from the Board. 

In addition,under the Plan a nonemployee director may elect to defer receipt of all or a portion of his or her director’s cash and stock compensation until any date but no later than the year in which the director attains the age of 73 years. Participantsmay elect to have cash deferred amounts (1) credited with interest quarterly at 80% of the prevailing prime rate, or (2) converted into deferred stock based on the deferral date closing price of the company’s common stock. Any balanceof deferred shares in a director’s account is credited with an amount equivalent to any dividend paid on the common stock, which will be converted into additional deferred shares. The portion of a director’s annual retainer that wasautomatically deferred in common stock is distributed in stock. Voluntary deferrals into a cash account are distributed in cash, and voluntary deferrals into a deferred stock account are distributed in cash or stock at the election of a director.

Nonemployee directors are provided with $150,000 of coverage under Briggs & Stratton’s Business Travel AccidentPlan while on corporate business. 

Nonemployee directors are encouraged to use company products to enhance their understandingand appreciation of the company’s business. Each such director may purchase at retail up to $10,000 annually of company products and products powered by the company’s engines. The company reimburses directors for the purchase price ofthese products. The amount of the reimbursement is included in the director’s taxable income.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Company, certifies 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/ David LichtensteinDavid
      LichtensteinChairman,
      President, and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)August
      14, 2009
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting

by designation.

* * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 96-11027

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRIS PAUL WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CR-211-D)

_____________________________________________

June 10, 1997

Before WIENER a nd PARKER, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE, District

Judge. *

PER CURIAM: **

In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant-Appellant Chris Paul

Williams asks us to reverse his co nvictions following guilty

verdicts by a jury on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to

conduct a financia l transaction with the proceeds of a specified

unlawful activity. Williams also contests his sentence of seventy-2

eight months incarceration plus a mandatory assessment of $100.00,

a fine of $5,000.00, and three years supervised release. The

gravamen of his complaints regarding his conv ictions comprises

assertions t hat the evidence was insufficient to prove that the

alleged financial transaction was conducted with drug proceeds or

that it affected interstate commerce; that the conduct alleged in

the indictment is not the type behavior contemplated by Congress in

enacting the money laundering statute, 18 USC § 1956; and that the

district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of

(1) Williams’ prior conviction fo r possession with intent to

deliver cocaine, and (2) his cash purchase of a Lexus automobile.

Regarding his sentence, Williams complains that the district court

erred in imposing a two-level enhancement for obstr uction of

justice based on its findings that Williams committed perjury at a

post-trial detention hearing, and in sentencing him at the top of

the Guidelines range.

We have carefully reviewed the record o n appeal and duly

considered the facts a nd the law as presented to us by able

counsel, both in their briefs and their oral arguments before this

panel. Our review convinces us that Williams received a fair

trial, free of reversible error in all respects (including the

evidentiary ruling of the court) and that the evidence is more than

sufficient to sustain his c onvictions. We are equally convinced

that the court committed no reversible error in assessing and

imposing Williams’ sentence, and that his sentence is lawful in all3

respects. Consequently, Williams’ convictions and sentence are

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9507]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting; Agenda

TIME AND DATE:  9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 24, 2012.

PLACE:  NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

STATUS:  The TWO items are open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

8225A Marine Accident Report--Allision of Passenger Ferry Andrew J. 
Barberi With St. George Terminal, Staten Island, New York, May 8, 2010.
8400 Railroad Accident Report--Collision of BNSF Coal Train With the 
Rear End of Standing BNSF Maintenance-of-Way Equipment Train, Red Oak, 
Iowa, April 17, 2011 (DCA-11-FR-002)

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:  Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour 
prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact 
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, April 20, 2012.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
www.ntsb.gov.
    Schedule updates including weather-related cancellations are also 
available at www.ntsb.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi Bing, (202) 314-6403 or by email 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0d2d9ded7d3f0dec4c3d29ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7d5ded9d0d4f7d9c3c4d599d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-9507 Filed 4-17-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 11 - Computation of earnings per share


Earnings per common share were computed as follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                       Thirteen Weeks Ended       Twenty-Six Weeks Ended
                                                    -------------------------     -----------------------         
In thousands, except share and per                   August 3,      August 2,      August 3,    August 2,
share amounts                                           1996          1997            1996         1997
                                                    ----------     ----------     ----------   ----------
<S>                                                 <C>            <C>            <C>          <C>        
Net income (loss).........................          $   (1,567)    $   (1,378)    $   (5,967)  $   (5,604)
                                                    ==========     ==========     ==========   ==========
Weighted average shares:
  Weighted average shares -  Common (1)...           7,415,878      7,423,090      7,414,555    7,421,754
  Common stock equivalent pursuant  to
     APB 15 (2)...........................              70,578         78,696         66,472       75,456
                                                    ----------     ----------     ----------   ----------          
Total weighted average shares.............           7,486,456      7,501,786      7,481,027    7,497,210
                                                    ==========     ==========     ==========   ==========
Net income (loss) per share applicable               
    to common shares......................          $    (0.21)    $    (0.18)    $    (0.80)  $    (0.75)
                                                    ==========     ==========     ==========   ==========
</TABLE>

________________________
(1) The weighted average shares outstanding are based on the number of shares of
    Common Stock issued and outstanding.

(2) In accordance with APB 15, the common stock  equivalents  were calculated by
    applying the  treasury  stock  method,  and limiting the number of shares of
    Common Stock obtainable upon exercise of outstanding options and warrants in
    the aggregate to 20% of the number of shares  outstanding  at the end of the
    period for which the computation is being made.