alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. BESSIE STRUM.1

July 7, 1911.

Nos. 17,077—(6).

Case followed.

Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Minneapolis of disorderly conduct and sentenced to hard labor in the workhouse for the term of thirty days. From an order, Leary, J., denying defendant’s motion for a new trial and to vacate and modify the judgment, she appealed.

Affirmed.

*Mead & Bryngelson,*for appellant.

*Daniel Fish*and *William G. Compton,*for the State.

1

 Reported in 131 N. W. 1086.

Per Curiam.

This case presents the same questions disposed of in the opinion in State v. Olson, supra, page 153, 131 N. W. 1084, and the same conclusion is reached.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LAKISHA MARIE WARD-GREEN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 272 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner are: 

(1) Whether the exception to the timeliness requirement of the PCRA for 

after-discovered facts requires the petitioner to file her PCRA Petition 

before verifying unknown, but suspected, facts through expert analysis. 

(2) Whether the Court of Common Pleas’ determination of the deadline to file 

a PCRA petition for after-discovered evidence is entitled to deference by 

the Superior Court.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 240.13a-14 or
240.15d-14

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

I, Jay R. Luly, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: January 6, 2017



/s/ Jay R. Luly, Ph.D.Jay R. Luly, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 5.1  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 Canadian Superior Energy Inc.
(the Company) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Greg Noval, Chief Executive 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.  Date:  May 20, 2003  /s/  Greg
  NovalName: Greg NovalCanadian Superior Energy
  Inc.Chief Executive Officer  A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Canadian
Superior Energy Inc. (the Company) and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BUYWADE A. BABORAM,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM,

o/b/o GABRIELLA D.M. JOSEPH,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1375

[October 17, 2018]

Administrative appeal from the State of Florida, Department of 

Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program, DOAH Case No. 18-

001105-CS and CSP Case No. 1279877235.

Buywade Baboram, Mirimar, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Toni C. Bernstein, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee Department 

of Revenue.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150 (Fla. 1980).

WARNER, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51015

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO MARTINEZ-GARZA,

also known as Luis Genaro Martinez-Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-948-ALL-DB

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Martinez-Garza appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Martinez-Garza complains that his sentence was

improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues

that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 
No. 02-51015

-2-

Alternatively, Martinez-Garza contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that

the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was

an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that

should have been alleged in his indictment.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Martinez-Garza acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-12-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          68,916
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  523,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,419
<INVENTORY>                                    404,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               989,288
<PP&E>                                         162,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,792,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          307,092
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,326
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,389,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,792,980
<SALES>                                      2,130,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,131,900
<CGS>                                        1,371,909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,371,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,548)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1000** 

KENRICK HAMILTON , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

- GENERAL COUNSEL Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 01311

- JCC

- TRJ )

Submitted : February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5 , 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenrick Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenrick Hamilton appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hamilton v. Transp. Sec. Admin. , No. 1:13

- cv - 01311

- JCC

- TRJ (E.D. Va.
Nov. 22, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Confidential
 Exhibit 10.2
 Datron World Communications, Inc.
    
    Purchase Order
    
    9562533030 Enterprise Court
    
    Page
    
    1Vista CA 92081
    
    Date
    
    4/16/2010Phone: (760) 597-1500
    
    Buyer
    
    RRobertsShip Via
    
    AMERICAN CARGOFOB
    
    SHIP POINTTerms
    
    NET 15
 Vendor
    
    Ship ToT000032MIKE MALONE
    
    Datron World Communications, Inc.TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP
    
    3030 Enterprise Court100 DOMINO DRIVE
    
    Vista CA 92081CONCORD MA 017422892
    
    Phone: (760) 597-1500Phone: 9782876219
 Fax Num: 9782876228
    
    Our Order Number Must Appear On Invoice,
B/L Bundles, Cases, Packing List and
Correspondence
  o
    
    Fax Sent Prior
Do Not Duplicate
    
    o
    
    Verbal Placed Prior
Do Not Duplicate
 Line
    
    Qty Ordered
    
    Qty Due
    
    
    UOM
    
    Item Description
    
    Due Date
    
    Unit Price
    
    Ext. Price1
    
    *****
    
    
    *****
    
    
    EA
    
    DSP9000-HS
    
    *****
    
    *****
    
    *****AUDIO CIPHERING HANDSETManufacturer


    
    Mfg Part NumberANY APPROVED SOURCE2
    
    *****
    
    
    *****
    
    
    EA
    
    DSP9000-HS
    
    *****
    
    *****
    
    *****AUDIO CIPHERING HANDSETManufacturer




    
    Mfg Part NumberANY APPROVED SOURCE3
    
    *****
    
    
    *****
    
    
    EA
    
    DSP9000-HS
    
    *****
    
    *****
    
    *****AUDIO CIPHERING HANDSETManufacturer
    
    Mfg Part NumberANY APPROVED SOURCE4
    
    *****
    
    
    *****
    
    
    EA
    
    DSP9000-HS
    
    *****
    
    *****
    
    *****AUDIO CIPHERING HANDSETManufacturer
    
    Mfg Part NumberANY APPROVED SOURCE5
    
    *****
    
    
    *****
    
    
    EA
    
    DSP9000-HS
    
    *****
    
    *****
    
    *****AUDIO CIPHERING HANDSETManufacturer
    
    Mfg Part NumberANY APPROVED SOURCE
 Buyer/Purchasing Agent
    
    Date
    
    
    
    Manager
    
    Date




---



##### 



Confidential
 Datron World Communications, Inc.
    
    Purchase Order
    
    9562533030 Enterprise Court
    
    Page
    
    2Vista CA 92081
    
    Date
    
    4/16/2010Phone: (760) 597-1500
    
    Buyer
    
    RRobertsShip Via
    
    AMERICAN CARGOFOB
    
    SHIP POINTTerms
    
    NET 15
 Vendor
    
    Ship toT000032MIKE MALONE
    
    Datron World Communications, Inc.TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP
    
    3030 Enterprise Court100 DOMINO DRIVE
    
    Vista CA 92081CONCORD MA 017422892
    
    Phone: (760) 597-1500Phone: 9782876219
 Fax Num: 9782876228
    
    Our Order Number Must Appear On Invoice,
B/L Bundles, Cases, Packing List and
Correspondence
  o
    
    Fax Sent Prior
Do Not Duplicate
    
    o
    
    Verbal Placed Prior
Do Not Duplicate
      Total:
    
    
    2,052,000.00
 Buyer/Purchasing Agent
    
    Date
    
    
    
    Manager
    
    Date
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RUSSELL ALAN CROSIER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-869

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed January 30, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge.

Henry G. Gyden of Gyden Law Group, 

P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and David Campbell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### ATWOOD v. STATE.

No. 22381.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1943.

Sam T. Holt, of Carthage, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The driving of an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $50.

No notice of appeal appears to have been given as required by law. A proper notice of appeal is a prerequisite to the jurisdiction of this court.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Gustav Meiners, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

June 24, 1957.

*41*Davis & Quat*for Gustav B. Meiners, Jr., and another, petitioners.

*Herbert J. Davis,*as successor committee of person and property of Viola N. Hanabergh, an incompetent, and for others, respondents.

*Martin Horowitz*for Gustav B. Meiners, Jr., and another, respondents.

*Lloyd H. Howell*as executor of Nadegda Goodnough, deceased, respondent.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

In this trustees’ accounting the court holds that the remainder of the trust principal in the hands of the surviving trustee passed outright on the death of the income beneficiary to Viola N. Hanabergh, as the only surviving child of testator’s daughter Emma. The gift over is a direction to pay “ the said income and interest ” with no limit of time specified for the duration of the payments and no other disposition of the principal. Even if we consider ‘1 the said income and interest ” to mean income and not principal, such a general gift of income making no mention of the principal has been held to be a general gift of the property itself. *(Matter of Sackett,*201 App. Div. 58, citing *Matter of Allen,*111 Misc. 93, 125; *Matter of Goldmark,*186 App. Div. 447; *Hatch*v. *Bassett,*52 N. Y. 359; *Locke*v. *Farmers Loan & Trust Co.,*140 N. Y. 135; *Tabernacle Church*v. *Fifth Ave. Church,*60 App. Div. 327; *Matter of Dibble,*76 Misc. 413.)

Further, a reading of the will indicates a use of the words *“*income and interest ” interchangeably for both income and principal. In the first clause of the will, the testator directed the executors to divide the ‘1 interest and income ’ ’ into two equal portions. He then gave one equal portion of said ‘ ‘ interest and income ’ ’ to Emma for life and after her death he gave “ such equal portion ” which could only refer to *“*interest and income ” to her children. The prior accounting shows that the principal of one half of the estate was paid to Emma’s children and such disposition was acquiesced in by all parties as no objection was filed to such disposition. The practical construction placed on the clause by the parties in the prior accounting may be considered by the court.

Further, in clause Third, it is provided that if at the death of decedent’s daughters, any children of Emma should be minors, the share of such minor is to be held for him ‘ ‘ until he becomes of age.” The inference would follow that he would *42receive the remainder outright when he becomes of age or as here if he is already of age. The same clause also refers to the contingency that any of the children of Emma might die “ before receiving his or her portion.” The word “ portion ” is more appropriate to principal and was so used in clause “first.”

The fee of the attorneys for the petitioner is fixed and allowed in the sum of $1,000.

Submit decree on notice settling account accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2979 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2979

To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to preserve the 
  eligibility of a child for kinship guardianship assistance payments 
 when the guardian is replaced by a successor legal guardian named in 
             the kinship guardianship assistance agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

Mr. Doggett (for himself, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Bass, Mr. 
 Lewis, Mr. Rangel, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to preserve the 
  eligibility of a child for kinship guardianship assistance payments 
 when the guardian is replaced by a successor legal guardian named in 
             the kinship guardianship assistance agreement.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Guardians for Children Act''.

SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR KINSHIP GUARDIANSHIP ASSISTANCE 
              PAYMENTS WITH A SUCCESSOR GUARDIAN.

    Section 473(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(d)(3)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) Eligibility not affected by replacement of 
                guardian with a successor guardian.--In the event of 
                the death or incapacity of the relative guardian, the 
                eligibility of a child for a kinship guardianship 
                assistance payment under this subsection shall not be 
                affected by reason of the replacement of the relative 
                guardian with a successor legal guardian named in the 
                kinship guardianship assistance agreement referred to 
                in paragraph (1) (including in any amendment to the 
                agreement), notwithstanding subparagraph (A) of this 
                paragraph and section 471(a)(28).''.
                                 <all>
```
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2802 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 418 Liberty Street in Covington, Indiana, 

as the ‘‘Fountain County Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2802 EH

1 SECTION 1. FOUNTAIN COUNTY VETERANS MEMORIAL 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 418 Liberty Street in Covington, 

5 Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Fountain 

6 County Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Fountain County Vet11 erans Memorial Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2802 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Posterans Memorial Post Office’’. ington, Indiana, as the ‘‘Fountain County Vet- al Service located at 418 Liberty Street in Cov-
**Exhibit 15**

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

We have conducted a review of the condensed consolidated financial statements of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 2007 and for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2007 and2006, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and issued our report thereon dated October 25, 2007 (which report contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’sadoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*). We are aware that such financial statements and our above-mentioned report appearing in the Form 10-Qof Superior Uniform Group, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 are being incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-105906, effective June 6, 2003) and that such report pursuant to Rule436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 is not considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Paragraphs 7 and 11 of that Act. 

Tampa, Florida 

October 25, 2007
State of Alaska 

40 CFR Part 52 - Subpart C 

State Implementation Plan 

Materials Incorporated by Reference 

40 CFR 52.70(c) and (d) 

March 4, 2014 

US EPA Region 10 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101
#### JAMES v. STATE.

No. 23124.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 9, 1945.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction upon a plea of guilty before the court upon a charge of selling whisky in dry area. Punishment, a fine of $150.

The proceedings appear regular. No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, Melinda S. Urion, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer of AmerUs Group Co. (the Company), hereby certifies that:  (i)
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Commission Act of 1934; and(ii)
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Melinda S. UrionMelinda S. UrionExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerAmerUs Group Co.
 Dated: March 7, 2005