alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George N. TURNER, Sr., Petitioner, v. John A. BRESLIN, Jr., Judge of the Fleming Circuit Court, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 2, 1959.

*954D. Bernard Coughlin, Maysville, for petitioner.

John A. Breslin, Jr., John H. Clarke, Jr., Maysville, for respondent.

BIRD, Judge.

The petitioner was charged with a felony in the Fleming Circuit Court. He executed a bail bond with personal surety. This bond was forfeited by order and the petitioner was duly lodged in jail.

The petitioner was later admitted to bail. He executed another bond and as security he deposited five thousand dollars in cash with the court clerk.

In compliance with the terms of the second bond, the petitioner appeared for trial on the charge and was convicted of a misdemeanor, a lesser degree of the offense charged. He satisfied the judgment of the court in every particular and then demanded the return of his cash security.

The respondents, Circuit Judge and Circuit Court Clerk, are causing said money to be withheld from him.

Litigation is now pending in this Court concerning the order of forfeiture on the first bond. Apparently the cash deposited to secure the second bond is being held to secure payment of the forfeited first bond, if and when the order of forfeiture is upheld. It appears that there has been no attachment under Section 95 of the Criminal Code of Practice or any other provision of law.

This is an original action in this Court to prohibit respondents from withholding the money.

The two bonds are separate and distinct undertakings. The surety on one bond will not be held for a default on the other. The terms of the second bond having been fully performed it has no efficacy in any particular and the surety is released of further liability. Huffman v. Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 48, 32 S.W.2d 562. We are of the opinion that petitioner’s money is being wrongfully withheld and the respondents are directed to cause the same to be delivered forthwith to the petitioner.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      463
<ALLOWANCES>                                       244
<INVENTORY>                                        117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,968
<PP&E>                                           1,783
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,083
<COMMON>                                         4,191
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,391
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,853
<SALES>                                          2,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,700
<CGS>                                            4,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,307
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,268)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,268)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
[No. 34124.

*En Banc.*

November 19, 1959.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of*Douglas E. Roberts, *Petitioner,*v. Merle E. Schneckloth, *as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent.**1*

*Raftis & Raftis,*for petitioner.

*The Attorney General and Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 346 P. (2d) 668.

*106Weaver, C. J.

January 19, 1955, Douglas E. Roberts was charged in Stevens county with the commission of the crime of second-degree assault by attacking Eileen Bailey and Isabel Bailey with a “section of % inch water pipe, approximately 18 inches long,” under circumstances not amounting to first-degree assault.

At Mr.'Robert’s arraignment, the court, at his request, appointed an attorney to represent him. January 28, 1955, Roberts entered a plea of not guilty. April 7, 1955, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. April 8,1955, he was adjudged guilty of the crime of second-degree assault and sentenced to the state penitentiary for a period of not more than ten years. No jurisdictional issue was presented to the trial court.

It is conceded in this *habeas corpus*proceeding that Douglas E. Roberts was an enrolled member of the Colville Indian tribe; that the alleged crime was committed on an Indian allotment outside of the diminished Colville Indian reservation, but in “Indian country,” as defined by statute (18 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 1151); and that the persons upon whom the assault was committed were enrolled members of the Colville Indian tribe.

“An assault . . . with a weapon or other instrument likely to produce bodily harm, to-wit: a section of % inch water pipe, approximately 18 inches long ...”

corresponds to the charge of “assault with a dangerous weapon,” within the purview of the Ten Major Crimes Act (18 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 1153), which places exclusive jurisdiction thereof in the United States.

For the reasons stated in more detail in our opinion, *In re Wesley v. Schneckloth,*ante p. 90, 346 P. (2d) 658 (1959), the writ of *habeas corpus*shall issue, and respondent is ordered to release petitioner from custody.

Donworth, Rosellini, Ott, Foster, and Hunter, JJ., concur.

Hill, J.

(dissenting)—The writ of *habeas corpus*is granted in this case for reasons stated in detail in the ma*107jority opinion in the Joseph Joe *Wesley*case (In re *Wesley*(1959), *ante*p. 90, 346 P. (2d) 658).

As in the *Wesley*case, the petitioner here (Douglas E. Roberts) entered a plea of guilty to the charge against him (one of the Ten Major Crimes). It is conceded that no jurisdictional issue was raised, and there is nothing in the record to indicate his status as an enrolled member of an Indian tribe, or that the crime was committed in “Indian country,” as defined by 18 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 1151.

The issues are the same as in the *Wesley*case. I dissent from the conclusion of the majority and would deny the writ. My views are expressed more fully in my dissent in *In re Wesley, supra.*

Mallery and Finley, JJ., concur with Hill, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,442,035               1,442,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,035,963               2,035,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                    69,175                  69,175
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,741,509               4,741,509
<PP&E>                                         774,250                 774,250
<DEPRECIATION>                                 602,033                 602,033
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,700,782               8,700,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,325,309               3,325,309
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           73,429                  73,429
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     2,235,674               2,235,674
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,499,780               1,499,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,700,782               8,700,782
<SALES>                                     10,399,979               2,262,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,399,979               2,262,063
<CGS>                                        6,418,678               1,278,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,679,096               1,800,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (78,437)                (15,060)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             125,314                  71,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,674,006                 405,155
<INCOME-TAX>                                   613,000                  92,548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,061,006                 312,607
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,061,006                 312,607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.96                     0.3
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96                     0.3
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-08-0245-CR

NO. 07-08-0246-CR

NO. 07-08-0247-CR

NO. 07-08-0248-CR

NO. 07-08-0249-CR

NO. 07-08-0250-CR

NO. 07-08-0251-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JUNE 24, 2008

______________________________

JOHN PAUL ORTEGA, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 108th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NOS. 52,879-E, 54,034-E, 54,569-E, 54,570-E, 54,571-E, 54,863-E, 55,917-E;

HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, John Paul Ortega, Jr., appeals his convictions for possession of a

controlled substance, cruelty to animals, aggravated assault against a public servant (2),

robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sexual assault of a child. The
2

certification of right to appeal in each case executed by the trial court states that this “is a

plea bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal.” This circumstance was

brought to the attention of appellant, who is acting pro se, and opportunity was granted him

to obtain an amended certification entitling appellant to appeal each case. No such

certification was received within the time we allotted. However, appellant filed a motion

requesting that counsel be appointed. Having received no amended certification, we

dismiss the appeals per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d). Accordingly,

appellant’s motion for appointed counsel is denied as moot.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
EPA Review of HFO - 1234yf: A 2 - Phase Inhalation Screening Study and Single Exposure Study in Rabbits

via Whole - Body Inhalation Exposure (GLP)

Reviewer: Ernest V. Falke April 18, 2011 Reference/Report: HFO - 1234yf: A 2 - PHASE INHALATION SCREENING STUDY AND SINGLE EXPOSURE STUDY IN RABBITS VIA WHOLE - BODY INHALATION EXPOSURE (GLP) Study Type: One hour inhalation study in pregnant rabbits. Study Date: February 28, 2011 Test Material: Name: HFO - 1234yf (2,3,3,3 – Tetrafluoropropene) CAS No: 754- 12 - 1 Structure: Test Material Composition: HFO - 1234yf was administered as a gas and was 99.99% pure. Sponsor: Honeywell 101 Columbia Road PO Box 2245R Morristown, New Jersey 07962 - 1057 Test Lab: Huntingdon Life Sciences 100 Mettlers Road East Millstone, New Jersey 08875 - 2360 Materials Methods/Results In earlier developmental toxicity studies in rabbits, lethality of the dams was observed after m ultiple exposures. While deemed unlikely, the outcome of lethality from a single exposure was not known. This experiment was designed to address that question. New Zealand White rabbits were exposed to target concentrations of 0; 50,000 ; and 100,000 ppm for 1 hour and observed for 14 days post exposure. Analytical concentrations for male/female were 0/0; 45,000/47,000; and 100,000/102,000 respectively. Five males and 6 pregnant females were exposed at each dose. Five non - pregnant females were exposed at 0 and 100,000 ppm.EPA Review of HFO - 1234yf: A 2 - Phase Inhalation Screening Study and Single Exposure Study in Rabbits

via Whole - Body Inhalation Exposure (GLP) No mortality was observed for any condition of the experiment. No differences in body weight over the experiment, gross pathology, and histopathology (control and high dose) of heart, kidney, liver and lung were observed. Metabolit es were analyzed from urine samples taken at 12 hour intervals after exposure up to 48 hours post - exposure. Metabolite patterns were similar in all exposed groups except an unidentified metabolite approximately twice as much in females (both groups) as ma les. In conclusion, a single exposure of pregnant rabbits to high levels of HFO - 1234yf (100,000 ppm) will not cause lethality, changes in body weight, or pathology and histo pathology of major organs . The cause of lethality in dams exposed multiple time in developmental toxicity studies remains unknown.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-4199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JONATHAN KEITH IDEMA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Terrence W. Boyle,

Chief District Judge. (CR-93-2-BO)

Submitted: October 29, 1999 Decided: December 15, 1999

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford J. Barnard, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellant. Janice

McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, John S.

Bowler, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Although Idema’s notice of appeal was filed after the ten-day

appeal period in Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), we find excusable neglect

clear on the record. Thus, we have jurisdiction to address the

merits of Idema’s appeal. See United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d

351, 354 (4th Cir. 1985).

2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Keith Idema appeals from a restitution order issued

after remand.* In his initial appeal from his convictions and

sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and fifty-eight counts

of wire fraud, we vacated the district court’s order of restitution

and remanded for the district court to make appropriate findings of

fact regarding Idema’s financial resources, needs, and earning

ability. See United States v. Glosson, No. 94-5669(L), 1996 WL

175053 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 1996) (unpublished). On remand, the

district court reimposed restitution in the amount of $200,000.

On appeal, Idema contends that the district court failed to make

the requisite findings of fact showing that Idema had the ability

to pay restitution.

We have reviewed the district court’s order of restitution, as

well as the briefs and joint appendix, and we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v.

Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151, 1159 (4th Cir. 1995) (standard of review).

We thus affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United

States v. Idema, CR-93-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 1999). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 OnScreen  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company"),  on Form 10-QSB of the quarter  ended  September  30, 2004, I hereby
certify  solely for the purpose of complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as
adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)   The quarterly  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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

OnScreen Technologies, Inc.


By:  /s/ Mark R. Chandler                   Dated this 12th day of November 2004
   ---------------------------------------
         Mark R. Chandler
             COO/CFO

                                       29
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OPNET
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Mel F. Wesley, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                            |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: August 5, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Mel F. Wesley                         
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Mel F. Wesley                             
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to OPNET Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by OPNET Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SCIOS INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        Computation of Net Loss Per Share

                       (Calculated in accordance with the
                            guidelines of item 601 of
                          Regulation S-K. The effect of
                            stock options on loss per
                             share is anti-dilutive

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Twelve Months Ended
                                                              December 31,
                                                  1996                          1995
                                                  ----                          ----
<S>                                               <C>                           <C>    
                                                              (Unaudited)
PRIMARY:
 Average common shares outstanding                35,885,922                    35,809,876
 Net effect of dilutive stock options -
  based on treasury stock method                           0                             0
                                                  ----------                    ----------
 Average common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding                              35,885,922                    35,809,876
                                                  ==========                    ==========
                                                  

  Net loss                                      $(18,403,000)                 $(26,382,000)
                                                ============                  ============ 
                                                  
 Net loss per share                                   ($0.51)                       ($0.74)
                                                      ======                        ====== 
                                                 

FULLY DILUTED:
 Average common shares outstanding                35,885,922                    35,809,876
 Net effect of dilutive stock options -
  based on treasury stock method                           0                             0
                                                  ----------                    ----------
 Average common and common equivalent -
  shares outstanding                              35,885,922                    35,809,876
                                                  ==========                    ==========
                                                 
 Net loss                                       $(18,403,000)                 $(26,382,000)
                                                ============                  ============ 
                                                  
Net loss per share                                    ($0.51)                       ($0.74)
                                                      ======                        ====== 
                                                  

                         See notes to consolidated financial statements

                                          Exhibit 11.1

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10


                            Exhibit 10.1




                         PROPERTY EXTENSION







               LAKEFIELD VENTURES, INC.

           50 LIBERTY STREET WEST, SUITE 880 RENO NEVADA 89501  




                              




Peter Hawley

169 Perrault Avenue Val D'or Quebec, Canada




December 31, 2003

ATTENTION : Peter Hawley 

RE: Kayla Property Claims

 Dear Sir,




Pursuant to an option agreement dated as of April 15, 2002, Peter Hawley ("PH") granted to Lakefield Ventures, Inc., an option to acquire an interest in the Property (the "Agreement*') This letter confirms that in and for the sum of $ 1000 Cdn., the receipt of which is hereby agreed,  and to amend the terms of the Agreement by deleting the reference to -December 31, 2003" in section 2 l(C) and inserting "December 31, 2004" and further by deleting the reference to "December 31, 2004" in section 2 1(D and inserting "December 3I, 2005". and further by deleting the reference to "December 31, 2003 in section 11 ( D) and inserting "December 31, 2004" The remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




Yours truly,




LAKEFIELD VENTURES, INC.




Per /S/ Michael Iverson




Michael Iverson, President







The above is hereby confirmed and agreed as of the date first above written. 

Per /S/ Peter Hawley 

Peter Hawley