alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gustave Harold Watkins, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed March 30, 1915.

1. Motions to quash informations and the ruling of the court thereon form part of the record proper in a cause, and have no place in the bill of exceptions, and, when evidenced to an appellate court only by- a bill of exceptions, such court cannot consider assignments of error based upon the overruling of such motions.

2. A Judgment of conviction will be l’eversed where hearsay and irrelevant testimony that is manifestly prejudicial and harmful to the defendant is admitted in evidence over appropriate objections.

Writ of Error to Criminal Court of Record for Hills-borough County; Lee J. Gibson, Judge.

Judgment reversed.

*Gh'oene*& *Blackwell,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*T. F. West,*Attorney General, and *G. O. Andrews,*Assistant, for the State. '

*356Whitfield, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough Co.unty.of the statutory offense of withholding from his minor children; the means of support,- and took writ of ..error.

It appears from the hill of exceptions that a motion was made and ..overruled to quash the information on the ground that there is pending in the Circuit Court of Hills-borough County a divorce proceeding in which the defendant here is' defendant, wherein a decree of divorce and for alimony was rendered, and wherein a writ of *ne exeat*was issued and a bond given. .Even if this may be regarded as a proper motion to' quash the information, it appears only in the bill of exceptions and not in the transcript of the-record proper, therefore it can not be considered here.

Motions to quash indictments and the ruling of the court thereon form part of the record proper in a cause, and have no place in the bill of exceptions, and, when evidenced to an appellate court only by a bill' of exceptions, such court cannot consider assignments of error based upon' the overruling of such motions. Bell v. State, 61 Fla. 6, 54 South. Rep. 799.

The court permitted a witness to give hearsay testimony that the defendant has a month’s pay in his pocket and would not give his former wife any of it, though it appears he did1 make a payment afterwards for alimony. This and other hearsay and irrelevant testiinony was. erroneously permitted to be given over objection, and it was prejudicial to the defendant.

In permitting the present- wife to testify on cross-examination over objections as to matters having no. relation *357to the issues being tried, there was reversible error. The evidence does not clearly show that the defendant withheld from his children any means of support that he had or was able to acquire. In People v. Schlott, 162 Cal. 347, 122 Pac. Rep. 846, it was found that the defendant wilfully omitted to furnish his child with necessary food, etc., he having the ability to furnish such support.

The judgment is reversed.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleforu., Cockrell and Ellis, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                             46,510
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      30,490
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,700
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   83,015
<PP&E>                            189,295
<DEPRECIATION>                     46,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    846,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              62,144
<BONDS>                           449,500
<COMMON>                              270
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             193,539
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                         97,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      846,369
<SALES>                            52,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   52,853
<CGS>                              11,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      54,981
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 10,705
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (8,622)
<INCOME-TAX>                      (1,971)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (6,651)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (6,786)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

IVAN GUADALUPE NUNEZ-HURTADO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 301 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,James G. Thomasch, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PLC Systems Inc.;

 

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 statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

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)[Not Applicable];

 

c)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

 

d)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’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons 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 controls overfinancial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2005 |  /s/  James G. Thomasch   |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                          |  James  G. Thomasch       |
|                          |  Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
June 10, 2010

Mr. John Kenny Director of Operations Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc.

d.b.a, STAT MedEvac 10 Allegheny County Airport

West Mifflin, PA 15122

Dear Mr. Kenny:

We have received your May 13, 2010, correspondence withdrawing your April 12, 2010, petition on behalf of Center for Emergency Medi cine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. d.b.a. STAT MedEvac for an exemption from §§ 135.213(a) and (b), 135.219, and 135.225(a)(1) and (2), (f), and (g) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

Your letter has been placed in the public docket (No. FAA-2008-0811). No further action will be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7585** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WALTER INGRAM , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00322

- JFM

- 5; 1:14

- cv - 00888

- JFM )

Submitted : March 1 7 , 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Walter Louis Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wal ter Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certific ate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reaso nable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief o n procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal cont entions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Kenneth A. Myszkowski, Chief Financial Officer of Arrowhead Research Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Rule
13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                             
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2010 |  |  |  |                             
|                   |  | 
|                   |  |  |  | /s/    KENNETH A. MYSZKOWSKI
|                   |  |  |  | Kenneth A. Myszkowski       
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer     

A signed original of these written statements required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to Arrowhead Research Corporation
and will be retained by Arrowhead Research Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133173 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 133173 COA: 264604 Washtenaw CC: 04-001501-FC RASON ANGELO HORTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

     CERTIFICATION 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 Interland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allen L. Shulman,
Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:  November 26, 2003
                                        /s/ Allen L. Shulman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Allen L. Shulman
                                        Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
                                        Officer, and General Counsel
May 14, 2004

24872

#### State v. Martin

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 32.1 STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ian M.
Herman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Global Aircraft
Solutions, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31,
2006 (the "Report"), which this statement accompanies, 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.

Dated,
April 15, 2007

| | /s/    Ian M.Herman Ian M. HermanChief Executive
Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------
#### Salvatore CUCURILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHULTE, BRUNS SCHIFF GESELLSCHAFT, M.B.H., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSAL TERMINAL *&*STEVEDORING CORP., Third Party Defendant-Appellee.

No. 109, Docket 28358.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 29, 1963.

Decided Oct. 29, 1963.

*235James Gallatin Mackey, New York City (Joseph Dean Edwards, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Victor S. Ciehanowicz, New York City (Ciehanowicz & Callan, New York City, on the brief), for defendant and third party plaintiff-appellee.

Albert S. Commette, New York City (Budd Quencer Brown & Commette, New York City, on the brief), for third party defendant-appellee.

Before SWAN, CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court the order of Chief Judge Ryan denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate his prior order dismissing the suit for lack of prosecution. The motion was based on Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is conceded tha't the determination of such a motion will not be upset on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Parker v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 2 Cir., 289 F.2d 318. See also Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734. We see no abuse of discretion here. This is made clear by the following quotation from Judge Ryan’s memorandum opinion:

> “This suit was filed on September 21, 1960 for injuries alleged to have been sustained ¿board the SS Eliza- ‘ beth Schulte on-' February 24, 1960. This is but one of five separate pending suits filed by plaintiff, asserting five separate claims for personal injuries dating back- to December 11J 1957. At a call of the Review Calendar on June 12,1962 a four-month order was entered. This order was not complied with and on October 25, 1962 a dismissal order was entered. Plaintiff now moves to vacate this dismissal and restore the suit to the docket.

> “Plaintiff has done nothing apparently since the filing of answers to interrogatories on October 26, 1961 to prosecute this suit. Plaintiff has not presented any facts which constitute ‘excusable neglect’ as contemplated by Rule 60(b) F.R.C.P. and has waited over eight months before bringing this motion: (Ohlinger v. United States, 308 F.2d 667 (2d Cir., 1962).)”
# C_2019230EN.01001901.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/19

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2018 by Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2018 in Case T-374/17 Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira

(Case C-780/18 P)

(2019/C 230/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. (represented by: S. Ferrandis González and K. Gibas, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and A. Salgado Nespereira, S.A.

By order of 22 May 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. to bear its own costs.

---
# C_2020215EN.01003301.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)

(Case T-535/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Peek’s - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 215/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 (Case R 60/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---
H. Res. 635 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 3, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4557) to 

allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing national 

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and 

structural clay products or for clay ceramics manufacturing 

before requiring compliance with such rule. All points of 

order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 

shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. On any legislative day during the period from 

March 4, 2016, through March 11, 2016— 

(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 

shall be considered as approved; and 
2 

•HRES 635 EH 

(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of 

clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment. 

SEC. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform 

the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 

8(a) of rule I. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
January 7, 1998

19847

#### Herring v. Labor and Industrial Island Beverage Co.

Affirmed
EX-10.53C



 Exhibit 10.53C 
  





 
 TO: ELIZABETH D. PHILLIPS 

RE: EXTENSION OF CHANGE OF CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

Pursuant to Section 1(b) of your Change of Control Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of December 4, 2008,
the term of the Agreement, as stated in Section 1(b) thereof, is hereby extended so that the Agreement, as extended, will end on November 12, 2018. 

In all other respects, the Agreement is reaffirmed and remains unchanged. 

Please confirm your agreement with the foregoing by signing this Extension Agreement in the space provided below. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension Agreement is executed in the Company’s name on its behalf as of the day and year shown herein. 

Date: December 6, 2017 
  

			
	KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas D. Hull III

		 	Thomas D. Hull III
		 	Vice President, Finance,
		 	Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary


  

	
	Accepted and Agreed:
	
	 /s/ Elizabeth D. Phillips

	Elizabeth D. Phillips
	Vice President, Human Resources
	  
 DATE: 12 /7 /2017


 P.O. BOX 1842, STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28687-1842 ● 2700 WEST FRONT STREET, STATESVILLE, NORTH
CAROLINA 28677-2927 
 PHONE XXXXXXXXXX • FAX XXXXXXXXXX