alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Fant, Appellant, v. Tober, Appellee. [Cite as State ex rel. Fant v. Tober (1993), Ohio St.3d .] Civil procedure -- Res judicata applicable, when -- Party is bound to present his entire cause and is foreclosed from later attempting to reopen the case as to issues which were or could have been presented. (No. 93-831 -- Submitted October 12, 1993 -- Decided December 29, 1993.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.

64471.

Henry J. Fant, pro se. Juan Edgardo Adorno, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. F.E. Sweeney, J., not participating.
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

**Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended **March 31, 2004** (the “Report”) of**MCG Capital Corporation** (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, **Janet C. Perlowski**, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of myknowledge, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theRegistrant.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, John R. Coghlan, President, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Temporary Financial
Services, Inc.;

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 to make
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 cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 18, 2004

/s/ John R. Coghlan
---------------------------------------
John R. Coghlan, President
#### Application of Kenneth John CODY for Bail.

No. A-13049.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 8, 1961.

*1110Albert Hoch, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

James H. Harrod, County Atty., Oklahoma City, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

The petitioner, Kenneth John Cody, is incarcerated in the Oklahoma County Jail, on a charge of rape in the first degree after former conviction of a felony. He was returned from the state penitentiary after his conviction upon the charge for which he is presently confined was reversed and remanded to the District Court of Oklahoma County for a new trial. Upon being returned to the county jail in Oklahoma County, the petitioner filed an application for bail in the District Court of Oklahoma County, before the Honorable W. R. Wallace, Jr. and on hearing, bail was denied.

A petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this Court on May 1, 1961 requesting that reasonable bail be allowed. A hearing was held before this Court on May 3, 1961 and the matter was submitted upon argument of counsel and the record in Cody v. State, Okl.Cr., 361 P.2d 307.

In determining the petitioner’s right to bail we must consider Article 2, section 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution and title 22, section 1102 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which guarantee the right to bail except for capital offenses when proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption thereof is great. The construction and application of both of these provisions have been before this Court many times and from the many decisions previously decided, the following well defined rules and principles have emerged.

One, the Court of Criminal Appeals in denying or allowing bond in a, capital case does not express or intimate an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Ex parte Beavers, Okl.Cr., 267 P.2d 154; Ex parte Christenberry, 82 *1111Okl.Cr. 378, 170 P.2d 871; In re Custer, Okl.Cr., 285 P.2d 868; Ex parte Lee, 91 Okl.Cr. 426, 219 P.2d 638; Ex parte O’Quinn, 95 Okl.Cr. 430, 247 P.2d 537. It would be manifestly prejudicial to the rights of the accused and the state, for this Court to comment upon the weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented on habeas corpus, prior to its submission to the trier of facts. The question of guilt or innocence is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of facts, based upon the evidence adduced at the trial of the cause.

Two, the burden of establishing the right to bail is upon the petitioner unless the evidence presented by the state establishes this right. Ex parte Bray, 82 Okl. Cr. 431, 172 P.2d 349 and Ex parte Stone, 41 Okl.Cr. 12, 269 P. 785.

Three, this Court should proceed with extreme caution in exercising the power to allow bail in capital cases and should only grant the same when the petitioner has sustained the burden of proof in establishing his right. Ex parte Bray, supra.

We have carefully considered the competent evidence and applying the principles above enumerated, hold that the petitioner has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish his right to bail. For the reasons stated herein the writ is denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2013 (the “Report”) of MCG Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Keith Kennedy, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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, as amended; and

|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




/s/    KEITH KENNEDYName:Keith KennedyTitle:Chief Financial OfficerDateOctober 30, 2013
# C_2008209EN.01005702.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/57

---

Action brought on 18 June 2008 — Szomborg v Commission

(Case T-228/08)

(2008/C 209/103)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Szomborg (Jastarnia, Poland) (represented by R. Nowosielski, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 (1), in that it did not publish a scientific assessment of the effects of using in particular gillnets, trammel nets and entangling nets on cetaceans and did not present its findings to the European Parliament and the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 (1), in that it did not publish a scientific assessment of the effects of using in particular gillnets, trammel nets and entangling nets on cetaceans and did not present its findings to the European Parliament and the Council;

1

| — | order the Commission to bear its costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its costs;

| — | order the applicant's costs to be reimbursed. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant's costs to be reimbursed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 27 of Council Regulation No 2187/2005 the Commission was obliged to ensure by 1 January 2008 that a scientific assessment was conducted of the effects of using in particular gillnets, trammel nets and entangling nets on cetaceans and its findings presented to the European Parliament and the Council. In connection with the failure to present such a report within the prescribed period, the applicant called on the Commission to act, by letter of 25 February 2008. In reply to the applicant's call to act, the Commission asserted that such a scientific assessment had not yet been presented as a result of the lack of cooperation by other parties.

Considering that in those circumstances the Commission's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 27 of Council Regulation No 2187/2005 is beyond dispute, the applicant brought the present action for failure to act under Article 232 EC.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98 (OJ 2005 L 349, p. 1).

1

---
#### Application of Ernest JONES, for Writ of Mandamus.

No. A-13080.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. *25,*1961.

Ernest Jones, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

' BRETT, Judge.

This is an original action by Ernest Jones, petitioner, to obtain a casemade by mandamus. He alleges in substance that he is being held under a void conviction ■rendered by the district court of Stephens County, Oklahoma, from which he desires to perfect an appeal. Petitioner further alleges that he filed an affidavit forma pauperis for casemade at the expense of the State, which was by the trial court denied. This action, he alleges, has denied him his right to casemade by which he could demonstrate the void character of his conviction, judgment and sentence.

To this petition the State has filed a response, alleging in substance that the petitioner was charged by information in the district court of Stephens County with the crime of burglary with explosives, allegedly committed on January 2, 1960. He was tried by a jury and convicted on April 20, 1961. In accordance with the verdict, petitioner was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of twenty years on April 24, 1961. At the time of judgment and sentence, the petitioner appeared with his counsel, Hon. A. W. Mauldin, and waived his right to file a motion for new trial, and requested that judgment and sentence be pronounced immediately, all of which appears in both the judgment and sentence and the court minutes.

It has been repeatedly held where a dispute arises as to the trial procedure, the minutes of the court are the best evidence of what transpired. Ex parte Hunt, 93 Okl.Cr 106, 225 P.2d 193; Ex parte McCombs, 94 Okl.Cr. 270, 234 P.2d 953.

The sole question presented by this petition is, did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the writ of mandamus for casemade .requisite to an appeal.

We are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its- discretion in denying the petition for casemade, because *834a prerequisite to an appeal is the filing of a motion for new trial, since it has been held that only those assignments of error presented in a motion for new trial will be considered on appeal to this court, unless the error is of a fundamental character. Campbell v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 396, 247 P.2d 281; Washington v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 81, 118 P.2d 267; Holloway v. State, 58 Okl.Cr. 100, 52 P.2d 109.

No motion for new trial was ever filed, as provided in 22 O.S.1951 § 953, and no fundamental error is apparent from the pleadings before us.

The right to file a motion for new trial having been expressly waived, relief by mandamus for casemade on the record herein is not now available.

The writ is denied.

NIX, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


Identification of Categories of Criteria under the 2003 Senior Executive Incentive Plan


On March 30, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of Iron Mountain Incorporated (the “Company”) established the categories of criteria to determine the 2005 bonus, payable in 2006, to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company under the Company’s 2003 Senior Executive Incentive Plan.  The categories of criteria, are as follows: (1) Gross Revenue Achievement, (2) Achievement of Corporate Goal (Contribution Attainment (Operating Income Before Depreciation and Amortization (OIBDA))) and (3) Achievement of Other Corporate Goals.  The category “Achievement of Other Corporate Goals” includes various initiatives of the Company.  The bonus may be reduced in the discretion of the Compensation Committee, after consultation with the Chairs of the Audit and Executive Committees of the Board of Directors, in
accordance with the Company's 2003 Senior Executive Incentive Plan.
<PAGE>   1
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Epoch Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
33-66742 on Form S-3 and No. 33-73074 on Form S-8 of Epoch Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
of our report dated March 14, 2000, relating to the balance sheet of Epoch
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as of December 31, 1999, and related statements of
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years
in the two-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the
December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Epoch Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2000
In the Senate of the United States, 

September 18, 2018. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 46) entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the Secretary 

of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Fort 

Ontario in the State of New York.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fort Ontario Study 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

7 the Secretary of the Interior. 

8 (2) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ means 

9 Fort Ontario in Oswego, New York. 
2 

† HR 46 EAS 

1 SEC. 3. FORT ONTARIO SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a spe3 cial resource study of the study area. 

4 (b) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study under sub5 section (a), the Secretary shall— 

6 (1) evaluate the national significance of the 

7 study area; 

8 (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of 

9 designating the study area as a unit of the National 

10 Park System; 

11 (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, 

12 protection, and interpretation of the study area by the 

13 Federal Government, State or local government enti14 ties, or private and nonprofit organizations; 

15 (4) consult with interested Federal agencies, 

16 State or local governmental entities, private and non17 profit organizations, or any other interested individ18 uals; and 

19 (5) identify cost estimates for any Federal acqui20 sition, development, interpretation, operation, and 

21 maintenance associated with the alternatives. 

22 (c) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required under sub23 section (a) shall be conducted in accordance with section 

24 100507 of title 54, United States Code. 

25 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

26 on which funds are first made available to carry out the 
3 

† HR 46 EAS 

1 study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to 

2 the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Rep3 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Re4 sources of the Senate a report that describes— 

5 (1) the results of the study; and 

6 (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the 

7 Secretary. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 46 

AMENDMENT
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       THE RECENT TRAGEDY IN THE COMMUNITY OF PENDLETON, INDIANA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of sadness that I 
rise to mark a tragedy in the community of Pendleton, Indiana that has 
taken the life of an innocent resident and a K-9 police dog and injured 
two police officers.
   On the evening of July 26, 2012, John Neal Shull, Jr. of Pendleton, 
lost his life in a shooting incident. According to Pendleton Police 
Chief Marc Farrer, Shull was simply in the wrong place at the wrong 
time. Mr. Shull was a business owner in Pendleton and a member of the 
local Kiwanis Club.
   He will be remembered for his sense of humor and fondness for 
classic cars, but those who knew him best will remember John Neal 
Shull, Jr. as a devoted family man and friend. I want to offer my 
sincere condolences to his wife Noelle, their children and to his 
extended family.
   Also lost during this terrible tragedy was one of Anderson's 
finest--K-9 police dog Kilo. Kilo and his handler, 11-year veteran 
police officer Marty Dulworth, were assisting Pendleton police with 
responding to the shooting. Officer Dulworth had been partnered with 
Kilo since 2010. The two have been responsible for several successful 
drug arrests and earned a number of awards during the K-9 Olympics. 
During the course of the incident, Officer Dulworth was wounded after 
suffering gunshots to his legs. Pendleton Police Sergeant Shane Issacs 
was also wounded while responding to the incident after being grazed by 
an assailant's bullet.
   Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that we owe a debt of gratitude 
to those first responders who, like in Pendleton, rushed to the scene 
and put themselves in harm's way to ensure our protection. To choose 
the life of a police officer is to choose to make certain sacrifices 
for the good of the public. These men and women do so on each traffic 
stop, each knock on a door and each time they stand watch over a public 
event. For that, Mr. Speaker, we will be eternally grateful.
   Let us keep the family of John Neal Shull, Jr. in our thoughts and 
prayers during this difficult time. We also pray for the full recovery 
of Officer Marty Dulworth and Sergeant Shane Issacs. Finally, as a dog 
owner, I feel for the loss suffered by Officer Dulworth and the 
Anderson Police Department, and on behalf of the Sixth District of 
Indiana, I want to express condolences and gratitude for the service of 
Kilo, the police dog.

                          ____________________
```
exv10w18



 






Exhibit 10.18




DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION REGARDING COMPANY CAR FOR R. MICHAEL ROULEAU




      On December 1, 2004, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Michaels Stores,
Inc. (the “Company”) approved the purchase of a new automobile for use by R. Michael Rouleau, the
Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, as part of his compensation. In addition, the
Compensation Committee authorized the transfer to Mr. Rouleau of title to an older automobile
formerly used by him, also as part of his compensation.