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

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ARI Network Services, Inc. (the “Company”); |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Darin R. Janecek                                  |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Darin R. Janecek                                      |
|   | Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer |

----
27530

#### State v. Carlut

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

New World Screwworm Story Map

Last Modified: 

Print
Exhibit 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                                                                         |  |                              |          
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- | ---------
|                                                                                         |  | Year Ended December 31, 2005
|Income available to common stockholders                                                  |  | $                            | 7,963,783
|Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |  |                              | 4,975,470
|Basic earnings per share                                                                 |  | $                            | 1.60     
|Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    |  | $                            | 7,963,783
|Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |  |                              | 4,986,762
|Diluted earnings per share                                                               |  | $                            | 1.60
18667

#### Tax Appeal of King University Associates, In re

January 23, 1997

Order No. 97-5

Affirmed
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1365

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Carl Deon Shinn

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: November 6, 2017

Filed: November 9, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Carl Shinn directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed upon 1

revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Southern District of Iowa. 
has filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of Shinn’s aboveguidelines prison term. Shinn has filed a pro se brief challenging the revocation

decision and his revocation sentence, and arguing that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. 

Upon careful review, we conclude that the revocation of Shinn’s supervised

release was proper. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (stating that the court may revoke a

term of supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant violated a condition of supervised release); United States v. Miller, 557

F.3d 910, 913-14 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for clear error factual findings related

to a supervised-release revocation). We further conclude that the revocation sentence

is not substantively unreasonable, as it is within the statutory limits, and the court

appropriately considered relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (identifying the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that the court must consider before revoking a term of

supervised release and imposing a sentence); United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d

982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (reviewing the substantive reasonableness of

a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion). As for Shinn’s ineffectiveassistance arguments, we decline to consider themon direct appeal. See United States

v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that ineffective-assistance

claims are more properly reviewed in collateral proceedings). Counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
#### Al TRUNNEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 2340.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

May 27, 1975.

*1042Duncan C. Webb, Webb & Dawson, Anchorage, for appellant.

Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Avrum Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for ap-pellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice, and CONNOR, ERWIN, BOOCHEVER and BURKE, Justices.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Trunnel contends that the issuing magistrate had no probable cause to issue a search warrant by virtue of which the police entered and searched premises known as 1412 Hyder in Anchorage, Alaska. Trunnel moved to quash the search warrant and to suppress the evidence obtained in the search. Trunnel was found guilty of possession of narcotic drugs in violation of AS 17.10.010 pursuant to a plea of no contest.1

It is contended on this appeal that the officer erroneously identified the building involved as a residence whereas it was actually a private club known as Northwest Private Club, Inc. It is further alleged that the police officer testified before the issuing magistrate that the informant was under his constant observation whereas he was out of the officer’s sight when in the building. While it is true that the police officer answered affirmatively a question from the District Attorney that the informant was under constant observation, he also testified that on each of three occasions the informant entered the premises at 1412 Hyder and then exited from the building after periods of time varying from five to ten minutes. It is obvious that the officer was referring to observing the informant after he was strip searched and before and after he entered the building. The alleged misstatements under these circumstances can hardly be regarded as material, nor can the designation of the premises as a residence affect the validity of the warrant. There is no question as to the identity of the building in question, and it is immaterial whether it was used as a residence or private club.

The officer testified that the informant was strip searched before entering the premises on each of the three occasions and was furnished with money by the police with which to make purchases. On each of the occasions upon exiting the premises, he was found to have heroin. There was then probable cause for the magistrate to issue the search warrant.2

Affirmed.

1

. We have previously held that a defendant may preserve a limited right of appeal despite a plea of nolo contendere in cases such as this one where the negotiated plea was expressly conditioned on the right to appeal a specific issue which had been fully litigated below. Cooksey v. State, 524 P.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Alaska 1974).

2

. State v. Beckley, 527 P.2d 33 (Alaska 1974).
Exhibit 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-139970 on Form S-8of our reports dated March 14, 2008, relating to theconsolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of Dayton Superior Corporation (a Delaware Corporation) and subsidiary (the “Company”)(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to theCompany’s adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *“Accounting forUncertainty in Income Taxes — an Interpretation of Financial Accounting Standards Board StatementNo. 109*,” Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(Revised 2004)*, “Share-Based Payment*,” and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158*,“Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans — anamendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)*,” discussed in Note 2 and the restatementof the Company’s consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule discussed inNote 13), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (whichreport expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dayton Superior Corporation for theyear ended December 31, 2007.DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPDayton, OH
March 16, 2001

23355

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 3, 2014

No. 04-14-00763-CR

IN RE Shane CAIN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On October 30, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The 

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on November 3rd, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of November, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 91-0984-CR, styled The State of Texas v. Shane McClaine Cain, pending 

in the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable W.C. Kirkendall presiding.
January 12, 1998

19967

#### State v. Kaapuni

Affirmed
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of First Financial Service Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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;





Date:March 16,
      2010
                    
                    By:
                    /s/
      B. Keith JohnsonB.
      Keith JohnsonChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      March 16, 2010
                    
                    By:
                    /s/  Steven
      M. ZagarSteven
      M. ZagarChief
      Financial Officer &Principal
      Accounting
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)I, Edward J. Puisis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dayton Superior Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure 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 the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (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’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.             March 30, 2007 /s/Edward J. Puisis   Edward J. Puisis   Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40767

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO PUENTE-VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-01-CR-141-1

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

March 27, 2002

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Puente-Vasquez appeals his jury conviction and his

sentence for importing and possessing with the intent to

distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana, violations of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 952(a) & 960(a)(1). He argues pursuant to

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) that the evidence was

insufficient to establish that he knew the type and quantity of

the controlled substance which he imported and possessed and that

21 U.S.C. § 841, 952, and 960 are facially unconstitutional.
No. 01-40767

-2-

Puente argues that Apprendi alters the scienter requirements

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), 952(a), and 960(a)(1), requiring the

Government to prove that he knew the type and quantity of drugs

he imported and possessed. We have previously held that these

statutes are “specific intent” statutes which require a defendant

to have only knowledge that he possessed an illegal drug, not

that he know the specific drug he possessed. See United States

v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 345-46 (5th Cir. 1999); see

also United States v. Restrepo-Granada, 575 F.2d 524, 527 (5th

Cir. 1978). Apprendi does not alter this analysis.

Puente’s argument that the statutes under which he was

convicted are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi is,

as he concedes, foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238

F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2015

(2001). He raises the issue solely to preserve it for Supreme

Court review. This court is bound by its precedent absent an

intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc

decision. See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th

Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1091 (2000). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.9



June 12, 2018


Joseph J. Euteneuer


VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY




Dear Joe, 


This letter confirms our discussions regarding the allocation of your 2018 long-term incentive (“LTI”) grant value, which is comprised of equity-based awards in the form of Performance Units, granted under the 2018-2020 Long-Term Incentive Program (“LTIP”), and annual equity-based grants of stock options and restricted stock units (“RSUs”).  As discussed, notwithstanding anything contained in your offer letter with Mattel, dated September 25, 2017, your 2018 LTI grant value will be allocated 50% in Performance Units and the remaining 50% will be allocated between stock options and RSUs as determined by the Compensation Committee.  The allocation of your LTI grant value in subsequent years will be determined by the Compensation Committee.


This letter further confirms your acknowledgement that neither the foregoing nor any action taken by Mattel in connection therewith will constitute a breach of, or “Good Reason” for purposes of, your offer letter or any other agreement between you and Mattel, or any Mattel plan or other arrangement, and you hereby consent to the foregoing.  




Sincerely,




/s/ Amanda Thompson


Amanda Thompson
EVP and Chief People Officer






Acknowledged, Agreed, and Consented To,
this 12th  day of June, 2018:




/s/ Joseph J. Euteneuer
__________________________________
Joseph J. Euteneuer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**HANOVER      FOODS CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO****18U.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 ( Section 1350 of Chapter      63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers      of Hanover Foods Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify      with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period      ended May 30, 2004 (the “Report”) 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. |

 

| Date:        August 30, 2004 |                           |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                              | /s/        John A. Warehime    |
|                         |                                |
|                              | John        A.Warehime         |
|                              | Chief        Executive Officer |

The foregoing      certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the      United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as      a separate disclosure document. 

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

    <ARTICLE>                                                                  5
           
    <S>                                                                      <C>
    <PERIOD-TYPE>                                                          9-MOS
    <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                DEC-31-1997
    <PERIOD-END>                                                     SEP-30-1997
    <CASH>                                                             1,164,158
    <SECURITIES>                                                               0
    <RECEIVABLES>                                                      8,732,150
    <ALLOWANCES>                                                       1,180,143
    <INVENTORY>                                                        3,991,541
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  13,877,425
    <PP&E>                                                             3,488,252
    <DEPRECIATION>                                                     1,273,959
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    54,795,449
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              9,350,797
    <BONDS>                                                                    0
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             14,374,027
    <PREFERRED>                                                                0
    <COMMON>                                                              10,150
    <OTHER-SE>                                                        28,735,942
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      54,795,449
    <SALES>                                                           18,083,073
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  18,083,073
    <CGS>                                                              7,384,856
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      7,384,856
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  15,377,846
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     200,087
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   911,966
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (5,499,410)
    <INCOME-TAX>                                                               0
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (5,499,410)
    <DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
    <CHANGES>                                                                  0
    <NET-INCOME>                                                     (5,499,410)
    <EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          (.59)
    <EPS-DILUTED>                                                          (.59)
            
   

</TABLE>
October 7, 1998

21050

#### LeMons v. Robert P. Muller Const.

Affirmed