alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IMPERIAL ELKHORN COAL COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Alvis NEWSOME et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 2, 1964.

*865Fred G. Francis, Howard, Francis & Howard, Prestonsburg, for appellants.

Ronald W. May, Francis M. Burke, Pike-ville, for appellees.

WILLIAMS, Judge.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that an accident causing injury to appellee Alvis Newsome did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and, consequently, dismissed his claim. Upon appeal to the circuit court the order of the Board was reversed.' 7fhis appeal from the judgment of the circuit court results. The appellee’s cross-appeal has been abandoned.

Appellee was injured by an explosion in a mine some distance from his employer’s tipple, where he had been working. Ap-pellee testified that he went to that mine in search of a shovel to loosen some coal stuck in the tipple. He says that as he approached the mine an explosion occurred which caused his injuries.

A witness named Robinson testified that he was present at the mine when the explosion occurred. He saw appellee and another man tamping dynamite inside the mine and he saw them light the fuse. Appellee attempts to discredit Robinson’s testimony as being motivated by political prejudice.

The Board had before it two versions of why appellee was at the scene of the explosion. Had it believed appellee’s story he would have been entitled to compensation. But the Board accepted the witness Robinson’s statement that appellee was there tamping and shooting dynamite, which was completely without the scope of his employment.

The Board may pick the witnesses it chooses to believe and its finding, if based on relevant and substantial testimony, will not be disturbed. Savage v. Claussner Hosiery Company, Ky., 379 S.W.2d 473. Robinson’s testimony was relevant and substantial, and conclusively proved that appel-lee was not injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The judgment is reversed.
#### Duren TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28014.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1956.

D. H. Buchanan, Longview, for appellant.

Ralph Prince, Criminal Dist. Atty., Gladewater, Paul J. McClung and Francis W. Faris, Jr., Asst. Criminal Dist. Attys., Longview, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, 5 years.

The appellant was the proprietor of a beer establishment on the night charged in the indictment and, as such, had separated the deceased and another of his patrons who got into an argument over a woman. The deceased resented the appellant’s intervention and addressed some opprobrious epithets toward the appellant, who countered by commanding the deceased to go home. The deceased started to leave but overheard the appellant state “I hope he comes back” and promptly obliged. As the deceased advanced upon the appellant, the appellant shot four times, and three of the bullets took effect in the body of the deceased, from which he died.

Appellant testified in his own behalf that he shot twice at the ground in order to deter the deceased from advancing upon him and twice at the deceased because he was in fear of his life, but did not state what he thought the deceased had in his hand or what he thought the deceased was going to do to him. The appellant and none of his witnesses testified that they saw any weapon in the hands of the deceased.

The court submitted the appellant’s plea of self-defense to the jury, and the same was rejected. We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The sole question presented for review is the ruling of the court which permitted the State to prove that prior to the instant offense the appellant had been convicted of the offense of murder over the objection that such conviction was too remote to be admissible in view of the proof of reformation on the part of the appellant.

The record before us here reveals that the appellant was released from the penitentiary on the prior conviction five years and eleven months prior to the commission of the instant offense. The last expression of this Court on the question of remoteness is Couch v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 292, 255 S.W.2d 223. In that case, we held that where the offense charged was committed within seven years following release from the penitentiary the prior conviction was not too remote to be proven. See also Shipp v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 185, 283 S.W. 520; Collier v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 249, 12 S.W.2d 572; White v. State, 113 *517Tex.Cr.R. 257, 20 S.W.2d 196; Burns v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 599, 78 S.W.2d 956; and Toms v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 200 S.W.2d 174.

We are not inclined to depart from the holdings in the above cases.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial co'urt is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

      I, Tom Lam, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Auto-Q International, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certifies that to the
best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/  Tom Lam
-------------------------
Name:      Tom Lam
Date:      May 19, 2003



                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
Exhibit 32




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 Quarterly report of Megola, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel Gardner, acting in the capacity as the President, CEO, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Joel GardnerJoel GardnerPresident, CEO, Principal FinancialOfficer and Principal Accounting OfficerMarch 22, 2011
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate1l <!Court of §ppeaI1l

for tbe jfeberaI {!Circuit

SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GORDINI U.S.A., INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2012-1403

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California in case no. 10-CV-0892,

Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KOMBILTD.,

Defendant-Appellee.

2012-1404

Case: 12-1404 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 11/26/2012
SERIUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES V. GORDINI U.S.A., INC. 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California in case no. 10-CV-1217,

Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and SCHALL, Circuit

Judges.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The parties jointly move for extensions of time and to

remand these cases to the United States District Court for

the Southern District of California due to settlement.

The parties state they have settled the cases and requested indicative rulings from the district court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, whether the district court

would defer, deny, or grant motions to vacate the underlying judgments if the cases were remanded. The district

court indicated pursuant to Rule 62.1(a)(3) that it would

grant the motions.

We grant the motions to the extent that we remand

for the limited purpose of the district court's consideration

of the parties' motions. Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. ThermoPly, Inc., 629 F.3d 1374, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We retain

jurisdiction so that any of the parties may seek appellate

review by notifying the clerk of the court within thirty

days of entry of the district court's determinations on

remand. The appeals are held in abeyance pending the

resolution of the motions by the district court. The parties

should promptly inform this court of the district court's

Case: 12-1404 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 11/26/2012
3 SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES V. GORDINI U.S.A., INC.

rulings on the motions and should propose how they

believe the appeals should proceed in light of the district

court's rulings.

In granting the motions, the Federal Circuit takes no

position as to whether the district court should grant the

motions for vacatur.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The amended motions to remand are granted to

the limited extent explained above. The court retains

jurisdiction over the appeals at this time.

(2) All other pending motions are moot.

(3) The briefing schedules are stayed.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s19

Case: 12-1404 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 11/26/2012
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 Quarterly Report of GlobeTrac Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John daCosta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 represents, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/John daCosta


Chief Financial Officer


November 15, 2010
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


        We consent to the incorporation by reference to this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated September 19, 1996 (October 25, 1996
as to Note 12), appearing in the Form 10-K of Data Processing Resources
Corporation for year ended July 31, 1996.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
January 29, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AFS'
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THIS NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          27,425
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,981,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (204,476)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          74,353
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,899,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,405,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,106,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,889,919
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,307,818
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  208,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               409,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               145,964
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             320,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                223,297
<INCOME-TAX>                                    83,724
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            139,573
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   139,573
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 4.18

                         PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT


                       Between Registrant and Judy Stackel




                                       
<PAGE>   2
                         PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

      This Agreement memorializes an Agreement between Helionetics, Inc., with
its place of business at 6849 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91406
(herein referred to as "Client") and Judy Stackel with his\their place of
business at 911 9TH ST. #208 Santa Monica,CA 90403 (herein referred to as
"Employee\Consultant") as through August 1996. In consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein and other valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which is acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

      I.    QUALIFICATION: The Employee has special skill and and experience in
            certain fields of activity in which the Client is interested.

      II.   SERVICES RENDERED: Client engaged the nonexclusive services of
            Employee in 1995\1996 and Employee rendered substantial services to
            Client over the period Ended August 31, 1996.

      III.  COMPENSATION: The Client issued to Employee an amount of 11,493
            restricted shares of the Client's common stock, in payment in full
            for the aforesaid services rendered through August 31, 1996.

      IV.   ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This document represents the complete agreement
            between the parties and may be modified or amended only by executed
            written agreements. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance
            with the laws of the State of California.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF: The parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of
the day and year noted above.

"Client"                                  "Consultant"
HELIONETICS, INC.



By:/s/ E. MAXWELL MALONE                       /s/ JUDY STACKEL
   --------------------------            ------------------------------
   E. Maxwell Malone                     Judy Stackel
   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1803 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1803

 To provide relief to agricultural producers who granted easements to, 
 or owned or operated land condemned by, the Secretary of the Army for 
   flooding losses caused by water retention at the dam site at Lake 
    Redrock, Iowa, to the extent that the actual losses exceed the 
          estimates of the Secretary, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 1996

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide relief to agricultural producers who granted easements to, 
 or owned or operated land condemned by, the Secretary of the Army for 
   flooding losses caused by water retention at the dam site at Lake 
    Redrock, Iowa, to the extent that the actual losses exceed the 
          estimates of the Secretary, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS FOR FLOODING LOSS CAUSED BY 
              DAM ON LAKE REDROCK, IOWA.

    (a) Eligibility.--To be eligible for assistance under this section, 
an agricultural producer must--
            (1)(A) be an owner or operator of land who granted an 
        easement to the Federal Government for flooding losses to the 
        land caused by water retention at the dam site at Lake Redrock, 
        Iowa; or
            (B) have been an owner or operator of land that was 
        condemned by the Federal Government because of flooding of the 
        land caused by water retention at the dam site at Lake Redrock, 
        Iowa; and
            (2) have incurred losses that exceed the estimates of the 
        Secretary of the Army provided to the producer as part of the 
        granting of the easement or as part of the condemnation.
    (b) Compensation.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
        the Army shall compensate an eligible producer described in 
        subsection (a) for flooding losses to the land of the producer 
        described in subsection (a)(2) in an amount determined by the 
        Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
            (2) Reduction.--The amount of compensation provided to a 
        producer under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by--
                    (A) in the case of land located on a 10-year flood 
                plain, 10 percent of the amount otherwise determined 
                under paragraph (1); and
                    (B) in the case of land located on a 25-year flood 
                plain, 4 percent of the amount otherwise determined 
                under paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
Registered Office.
 Other Offices.
   Time and Place of Meetings
 Annual Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Notice




---



##### 



Quorum
 Voting.
 Method of Voting
 Action Without Meeting
 2




---



##### 



Responsibilities
 Number; Term
 Vacancies; Increases
 Place of meetings
 3




---



##### 



Regular Meetings
 . Special Meetings
 Quorum; Majority Vote
 Minutes.
 Committees
 Committee Minutes
 Action Without Meeting
 4




---



##### 



Method
 Waiver.
   Number
 5




---



##### 



Appointed Officers
 Removal
 Compensation
 Duties
       6




---



##### 



Checks
 2. Fiscal Year
 Telephone and Similar Meetings
 Distributions and Share Dividends
 Amendment of Bylaws
 7
## EP A R e v i e w

C ommen t Le tt e rP r epa r ed b y: A nd r e w St e ck el ( 415 ) 947

- 4115 A i rP o ll u ti on C on t r o l Di s t r i c t ( A PCD) : DPR DPR; DPR Fo ll o w i ng R u l es w e r e r e v i e w ed: F ield Fu m igan t M e t hods



### A tt ac h E m a il/ F il e h e re :

----- Fo rw

a r ded b y A nd r e w St e ck e l/R 9 /USEPA/US on 08

/ 13/ 2010 03 : 53

P M -----
F r o m: A nd r

e w St e ck e l/R 9 /USEPA/US To: " R and y S ega w a" < r s ega w a @ c dp r. c a

. go v> C c: P a tti Ten Br oo k /R 9 /USEPA/US@EPA D a t e: 08

/ 13/ 2010 03 : 49

PM S ub j e c t: Fu m i gan t D e fi n iti ons
Rand y

- T han ksfo r

ta l k i ng w

i th u s l a s t wee k

about D P R' sf

i e l d fum i gant method sand fo r s end i ng fo ll ow

- up i nfo rmat

i on. A swe d i sc u ss ed, s ome te rm su s ed i n the method sa r e not def i ned w i th i n the D P R ru l e sthat we r

e s ubm i tted to EPA fo r i n c l u s i on i n the S I P . I unde rs tand that s e v e r a l of the s e te rm sa r

e def i ned i n othe r

D P R ru l e sand man y

o r a ll of them a r

e gene r a ll y unde rs tood b y

affe c ted i ndu s t

ry

. Nonethe l e ss , EPA gene r a ll y i n s i s t

sthat a ll potent

i a ll y amb i guou ste rm sbe def i ned w i th i n S I P ru l e sto en s u r e that the S I P i senfo rc eab l e and c l ea r on i t sown. B a s ed on a qu i ck r e v i ew of the ru l e s , he r

e a r e te rm sthat I th i n k s hou l d be def i ned w i th i n the s ubm i tta l :
A i r fan d il ut i on sys tem A pp li c at i on b l o ck B r oad c a st C l o s i ng s hoes F um i gat i on

- hand li ng a c t

i v i t i es Hot gas Ra i s ed

- ta rpau lin Re s t ri c ted

- ent

ry i nte rv al S o il c app i ng T a rpau li n c utt

i ng
W e a l s o d i sc u ss ed EPA ' s c on c e rn that the s ubm i tted r egu l at i on s r efe r en c e othe r

D P R p r o v i s i on swh i c h a r e not s ubm i tted (

e.g., 6447.3 (

a )( 3 )(F) r efe r en c e s6784 ( b )( 4

))

. T o en s u r

e that S I P r

equ i r ement sa r e enfo rc eab l e and c l ea r, EPA a l s o gene r a ll y i n s i s t

sthat a ll s u c h r

efe r en c e sbe s ubm i tted.
F ee l f r ee to c a ll me ( 415

- 947

- 4115 ) i f y ou want to d i sc u ssth i sfu r the r

. - A nd y



### T ex t o fEl ec t ron i c F ile :
EXHIBIT 2

                 STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                   THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Arthur J.
Seidenfeld certify that:

1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,
    2002 (the "Report") of Scientio, Inc. (the "Company"), 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: January 6, 2003

                        /s/ Arthur J. Seidenfeld
                        ------------------------
                          Arthur J. Seidenfeld
            President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer