alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lewis C. THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-77-292.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 25, 1978.

Burke Mordy, Mordy & Clark, Ardmore, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, Lewis C. Thomas, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Carter County, Case No. CRF-76-13, for the offense of Cultivating Marijuana, in violation of 63 O.S.Supp.1977, § 2-509. A jury assessed punishment at five (5) years’ imprisonment. From said judgment and sentence the defendant has perfected an appeal to this Court.

*1226The single assignment of error which requires reversal in the instant case is that the affidavit for a search warrant was wholly insufficient to support a finding of probable cause by the magistrate issuing the search warrant under which the contraband was seized. The defendant correctly argues that the following affidavit was insufficient:

> “David Willingham of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says:

> “1. That he is a detective with the Ard-more Police Department Ardmore, Oklahoma; that he has been a detective for one (1) year; that he has been a member of the Ardmore Police Department for five (5) years.

> “2. That on the 24th day of January, 1976, affiant received information that marijuana was being sold from the above named residence.

> “3. That the information was received from a person who was observed making what was apparently a marijuana purchase from the above named residence. Further this affiant has on another oecassion [sic] observed what appeared to be a purchase of marijuana from the same residence, and later was found to be marijuana.

> “4. That this affiant has received reliable information that marijuana was being sold at the above residence on at least eight other occassions [sic].

> “5. That affiant has reliable information that on this date there is an unknown quantity of marijuana in the above residence, more particularly in the first bedroom on the right when entering from the North entrance of the house and proceeding South.

> “said residence being occupied and under the control of Lewis C. Thomas and other unknown persons.”

From a detailed examination of this affidavit we find that it does not meet the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Aguilar v. Texas,*378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), *Spinelli v. United States,*393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), *United States v. Harris,*403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971), and *Pierce v. State,*Okl.Cr., 491 P.2d 335 (1971). In accordance with these authorities we find that the affidavit was wholly insufficient to establish probable cause for the magistrate to issue the search warrant, and we are of the opinion that the court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seized under the authority of the search warrant. We accordingly REVERSE AND REMAND this cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1996
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       6,919,000
<SECURITIES>                                   227,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,405,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   475,000
<INVENTORY>                                     76,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,677,000
<PP&E>                                       1,572,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 516,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,265,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,983,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,378,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,265,000
<SALES>                                     12,144,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,144,000
<CGS>                                        3,971,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,418,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,810,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             288,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,084,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (12,084,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,084,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,084,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.24

Description of Compensation for Zix Corporation Board of Directors Members

    -   Cash payment of $2,000 per meeting per director for attendance in
        person at Board meetings.

    -   Cash payment of $1,000 per meeting per director for attendance at
        telephonic Board meetings.

    -   Annual cash payment of $5,000 per director for serving as Chair of a
        Board committee (assuming attendance of at least two-thirds of the
        meetings).

    -   Annual cash payment of $2,000 per director for serving as a member
        (i.e., not the Chair) of a Board committee (assuming attendance of
        at least two-thirds of the meetings).

    -   The Zix Corporation 2004 Directors' Stock Option Plan provides that
        on the day that a non-employee director is first appointed or
        elected to our Board of Directors, such director will be granted
        nonqualified options to purchase 25,000 shares of our common stock.
        These options vest quarterly and pro-rata over one year from the
        grant date, and the exercise price is 100% of the common stock price
        on the grant date.

        Also, on the first business day of January of each year, each
        non-employee director that has served on our Board of Directors for
        at least six months as of the grant date will be granted
        nonqualified options to purchase a number of shares of our common
        stock equal to the greater of (i) one-half of one percent of the
        number of our outstanding shares (measured as of the prior December
        31) or (ii) 200,000 shares, divided by the greater of (i) five or
        (ii) the number of non-employee directors that have served on our
        Board for at least 6 months as of the grant date. The options will
        vest quarterly and pro-rata over three years from the grant date and
        the option exercise price will be 100% of our common stock price on
        such day.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (13,839)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,041
<PP&E>                                         207,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                (87,801)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,950
<BONDS>                                         14,637
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           297
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179,014
<SALES>                                         83,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,195
<CGS>                                           53,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,420
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  87
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,881
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,768
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,113
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,113
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24


</TABLE>
# C_2020209EN.01002301.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Tilly-Sabco v Council and Commission

(Case T-707/18) (1)

(Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Regulation (EU) 2018/1277 adopted following the annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 by a judgment of the Court of Justice - Competence of the author of the act - Abuse of process - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Damage)

(2020/C 209/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: D. Komilaki and M. Alver, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1277 of 18 September 2018 on fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2018 L 239, p. 1), and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of fixing those export refunds at zero for the period 19 July to 31 December 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tilly-Sabco to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tilly-Sabco to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---
#### State v. Hoo

22896

04/17/2001

Affirmed
#### State v. Jones

23700

04/12/2002

Affirmed
21169

#### State v. Ruiz

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           72220
<SECURITIES>                                   3596883
<RECEIVABLES>                                   563823
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     195843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                854094
<PP&E>                                          295659
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1276972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           764835
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       3596883
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1276972
<SALES>                                        3934579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3934579
<CGS>                                          2652620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2652620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                975204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 201028
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    201028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT
                          REVOLING LINE OF CREDIT NOTE

$20,000,000                      Houston, Texas               September 30, 1997

WHEREAS,  EIF HOLDINGS,  INC., Hawaii corporation  ("Maker") heretofore executed
and delivered to AMERICAN ECO CORPORATION,  an Ontario,  Canada corporation (The
"Payee") a certain  promissory  note (the  "note"),  dated March 1, 1996, in the
original  principal  amount of Five Million Two Hundred Fifty  Thousand  Dollars
($5,250,000); and

WHEREAS, the original Note matured as of July 31, 1997, and a renewal, extension
and modification of the Note (the "First  Amendment") was executed September 22,
1997;

WHEREAS,  the parties  desire to increase the maximum  line of credit  available
under the Note from $15,000,000 to $20,000,000.

NOW THEREFORE,  IN CONSIDERATION  OF THE PREMISES  DESCRIBED ABOVE AND FOR VALUE
RECEIVED, the Maker hereby promises to pay to the order of Payee in lawful money
of the United States, up to the principal sum of twenty Mllion and no/100s (U.S.
$20,000,000),  with  interest  at the  rate set  forth  in the  Note  and  First
Amendment.

The Note is given in  enlargement  and  modification,  but not in  cancellation,
discharge  or  extinguishment  of the Note or First  Amendment  Note  (described
above),  the terms and provisions of which are incorporated  herein by reference
for all purposes,  except where in conflict with the  provisions  herein,  which
event the terms of this second Amendment shall control.


                                       MAKER:

                                       EIF HOLDINGS, INC.

                                       By:    /s/ Frank J. Fradella
                                              -------------------------
                                       Name:  Frank Fradella
                                              -------------------------
                                       Title: President, CEO
                                              -------------------------

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

PAYEE:

AMERICAN ECO CORPORATION

By:    /s/ Michael E. McGinnis
       -------------------------
Name:  Michael E. McGinnis
       -------------------------
Title: President, CEO
       -------------------------

Page 48
Document Number: Revision: 

Previous Number:

Section/Area:

 Date:

Notes:

Inspection: Assessing Compliance with the Requirement of State 

Veterinarian Approval

CVB-WI-5215 03

CVB-WI-IC

25 Feb 2023

CVB-Released
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6946

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERBERT COUNCIL, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-97-P, CA-97-208-P) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 18, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Council, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Herbert Council seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Council’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Council , Nos. CR-92-97-P; CA-97-208-P (W.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### State v. Sajolan

20128

9/15/98

Affirmed
Males are brown with 

a darker brown pattern 

on their wings and 

a wingspan of 

11⁄2 inches

Adults

Females have a 2-inch 

wingspan, are nearly 

white, and can’t  y

Egg masses Larva(e)

The caterpillars 

feed for about 

6 to 8 weeks 

and then 

pupate in a 

protected area

LIFE CYCLE

GYPSY MOTH

Caterpillars are 

black and fuzzy 

with blue and 

red spots on 

their backs 

Pupa

Adults

white, and can’t  y

a darker brown pattern 

on their wings and 

a wingspan of 

11⁄2 inches

Females have a 2-inch 

wingspan, are nearly 

Egg masses are 

covered with 

yellowish hair 

and measure 

11⁄2 by 3⁄4 inches 
WHAT TO LOOK FOR

• Egg masses on trees, stones, 

walls, logs, lawn furniture, and 

any other outdoor item

• Egg masses on the undersides 

of the outdoor item or in a nook

• Any other life stage of the 

gypsy moth (e.g., larva feeding on 

leaves, adults visiting porch lights)

THEHARM IT CAUSES

All of the damage from gypsy moths occurs during 

the caterpillar stage as the insects feed on leaves. 

They can defoliate trees at an alarming rate, with a 

single caterpillar eating up to 1 square yard during 

its development. Defoliation leaves trees more 

susceptible to other pests and diseases and destroys 

habitats for mammals and birds. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO • Know the quarantines and requirements in your 

area, especially if you’re moving. Learn more at 

YourMoveGypsyMothFree.com.

• Report  ndings of egg masses or other gypsy moth 

life stages at HungryPests.com.

Moth laying egg mass

For more information visit: 

HUNGRYPESTS.COM

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

 Program Aid No. 2125-GM Issued September 2012
#### State v. Vliet

20994

11/10/98

Affirmed & Reversed in part
#### State v. Choy

20934

1/14/99

Vacated & Remanded
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements and Related Prospectuses (Forms S-3 No. 333-84402 and No. 333-42245; and Forms S-8 No. 333-95282, No. 333-3438, No. 333-26135, No. 333-44281, No. 333-50679,No. 333-76991, No. 333-33944, No. 333-56800, No. 333-84404, No. 333-101378, No. 333-115494, and No. 333-144006) of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. of our report dated May 24, 2007, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. at September 30, 2006 and for each of the two years in the period ended September 30, 2006, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedSeptember 30, 2007. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Jose, California 

December 17, 2007
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusGrounds Features
Ford Building Cherry Trees
        
                  The Basics
      
Location
      
Ford House Office Building

Ford House Office Building

                  View on Map

Site of one variety: Japanese flowering (Prunus serrulata). These trees can be found on both the 2nd Street NW side and the 3rd Street NW side. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### State v. Kerr

18495

4/22/97

Affirmed
19655

#### HI Kai Investments v. Krantz

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6898

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATTAMUS JAMES JONES, III, a/k/a Pacman, a/k/a Pattimus, a/k/a Buddy Jones, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-93-187-R, CA-97-341-R) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 2, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Pattamus James Jones, III, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Pattamus James Jones, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motions to supplement the record with documents not presented to the district court, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jones , Nos. CR-93-187-R; CA-97- 341-R (W.D. Va. May 20, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1


The Board of Directors
Dendrite International, Inc.:

We consent to the incoporation by reference of our report dated February 16,
1999, with respect to the balance sheets of CorNet International, Ltd. as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of income, shareholders'
equity, and cash flow for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1998, which are not presented herein, into Dendrite International
Inc.'s previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statements Files Nos. 333014363,
333-19141, 333-24329, 333-35701, 333-09090 and 333-81783.

KPMG LLP




Allentown, Pennsylvania
August 16, 1999