alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HEAD et al. v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 8, 1951.

Wheeler Boone, Lexington, for appellants.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

Appellants, Charles Head and William Earl Bolton, were tried jointly and convicted of the robbery of Henry Anderson. Head was sentenced to 10 years and Bolton to 5 years in the state reformatory.

The only ground urged for reversal is that the trial court erred in refusing to permit appellants to introduce evidence concerning two other robberies which were committed in the same vicinity in a somewhat similar manner on the same day Anderson was robbed.

The evidence for the Commonwealth is that appellants met Anderson in the Short Street Inn in Lexington on the night of February 6, 1950. After the parties had consumed several beers, appellants offered to drive Anderson home in an automobile-being operated by Head. Instead of taking him home, they drove out on the Paris Pike, in a different direction, and ordered him out oí the car. They then assaulted him with steel knucks, robbed him of $141,. and left him lying by the side of the road. He regained consciousness early the following morning, returned to Lexington, and reported the crime.

Appellants offered to prove that two other similar robberies were committed in Fay-ette County on the afternoon and night of February 6. In each of those cases the victim had been at the Short Street Inn and left that place with two men who later assaulted and robbed him. There was no-attempt to prove who committed the other-robberies, nor that the persons responsible for those crimes had any opportunity to-commit the crime for which appellants were-convicted. Appellants contend they could, have established they had no opportunity to-commit the other two robberies, and that evidence of those robberies was admissible as part of the res gestae in this case.

We know of no authority under which the proposed evidence would be admissible, and counsel for appellants has cited us to none.

Judgment affirmed.
| a)   | all      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,      process, summarize and report financial information;  and |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b)   | any      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control      over financial reporting. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | May 12,      2009 | /s/ Gregory M.      Bowie    |
|--------|-------------------|------------------------------|
|   |              | Gregory      M. Bowie        |
|   |              | Chief      Financial Officer |
**Exhibit
      32**








**Written
      Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer**


**Pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. §1350**








Solely
      for the
      purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of Teltronics, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify,
      based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
      for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










/s/
      Ewen R.
      Cameron


Ewen
      R.
      Cameron


Chief
      Executive
      Officer








/s/
      Russell R.
      Lee III


Russell
      R. Lee
      III


Chief
      Financial
      Officer








Date:
      November 8,
      2006
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-74889 of Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report
dated August 23, 2004 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
explanatory paragraphs relating to the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern, uncertainties, and the change in the Company's method of
accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets), appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

August 23, 2004
#### DeFelice et al. *v.*Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., Appellant.

Argued April 19, 1939.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.

*William A. Ohallener, Jr.,*with him *Frank McO. Painter,*and *William A. Ohallener,*for appellant.

*192September 29, 1939:

*Lawrence M.*Behring, for appellee.

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

*This*appeal by *an employer in*a workmen’s compensation case from a judgment entered by the Common Pleas of Beaver County, upon an award by the board to the parents of an employee accidentally killed in the course of his employment, arose out of the state of facts recited in the preceding appeal by the same appellant to No. 68 April Term, 1939, from a judgment of the Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

The only additional testimony taken in support of the claim of the parents related to the extent of their dependency upon the decedent. As counsel for the employer concede partial dependency — the basis of the award — this testimony need not be reviewed.

From what we have said in the opinion reversing the judgment in favor of the illegitimate daughter of the deceased employee it follows that the present judgment in favor of his parents should be affirmed. It is supported by a clear and comprehensive opinion written for the court below by Reader, P. J., in which he has, inter alia, considered and distinguished all the cases relied upon by the Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

We quote with approval the concluding paragraph of Judge Reader's opinion: “The courts of our Commonwealth have construed and applied the Workmen’s Compensation Act liberally to effect its purpose. It is to be observed, however, that there is no public policy of the Commonwealth as to compensation of injured employees except that which is stated in the act. The persons entitled to compensation, the circumstances under which the right arises, the procedure to establish and enforce the right, are governed wholly by the act. Like all other acts of assembly it must be interpreted in accordance with sound and well established legal principles. This course may result in occasional hardship in particular cases, but immeasurably greater *193hardship will be imposed upon the public at large by abandoning such principles. There is no justification in law or assumed public policy for giving to the word ‘child’ as used in the compensation law a meaning which it has never heretofore been given as used in deeds, wills, other like instruments, or other statutes. If larger provision should be made for illegitimate children in our workmen’s compensation system, that provision should be made by the legislature.”

Judgment affirmed.
#### Mrs. Adrian GINN, Appellant, v. Henry Means WALKER, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 17, 1954.

D. Bernard Coughlin, Maysville, Harvey Parker, Jr., Vanceburg, for appellant.

E. L. Zeigler, Maysville, L. T. Grant, Lexington, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Lewis Circuit Court affirming an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied the appellant’s claim for compensation for the death of her husband, Adrian Ginn. The Board held that Ginn and the appellee, Henry Means Walker, had not complied with certain provisions of the Compensation Act. It is argued that the appellee and his insurance carrier are es-topped to deny liability for compensation.

Ginn and his son were mowing a 50-acre pasture when Ginn’s tractor overturned with him into a creek, pinning him underneath the tractor. It is not shown whether his death resulted from injuries received in the accident or whether he drowned, but it is agreed that his death was accidental.

Walker is the owner of the 150-acre farm where Ginn lived. He is also the owner of á fa'rm approximately two and one-half miles from the one Ginn operated. That farm, consists of about 250 acres, and is operated by him and his two sons. The rental contract between Walker and Ginn was on a fifty-fifty basis. Walker also paid Ginn an average of $5 or $6 per day when he did other work for him. Payment was not in cash,- but was based on an exchange of work. Walker said he had entered into a compensation agreement with Ginn and that notice of the agreement was *841posted on the farm rented by Ginn. Ginn also signed a compensation register.

The appellant’s contention that Walker and his insurance carrier are estopped to deny liability does not concern us here. We have concluded that Ginn was not covered by the Compensation Act because he and Walker had not complied with the provisions of KRS 342.005(2). The work Ginn was doing was agricultural in nature. Under KRS 342.005(2), he and Walker were required to file a joint application in writing for permission to operate under the provisions of the Compensation. Act for a stated period. There is no proof that such an application was filed. Walker filed an application to operate under the Act, but this application was only on his behalf and was not signed by Ginn. They were required also to file a written application because Walker had less than three employees. The Board properly found that Ginn was not covered by the Compensation Act.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Federal Register: September 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 179)]
[Notices]               
[Page 56651-56652]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16se10-115]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 
ITS Joint Program Office; Trucking Industry Mobility & Technology 
Coalition Annual Meeting

AGENCY: Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Trucking Industry Mobility & Technology Coalition (TIMTC) 
Annual

[[Page 56652]]

Meeting will be held October 18-19, 2010 in conjunction with ATA's 
Management Conference & Exhibition in Phoenix, providing TIMTC members 
with the opportunity to participate in both events simultaneously. 
TIMTC is a U.S. DOT-sponsored forum for public and private sector 
stakeholders that are focused on the latest in truck technology and 
productivity initiatives. TIMTC members will convene in Phoenix this 
October for business and educational meetings focused on today's top 
issues including: Truck IntelliDrive: Beating Gridlock with a Smart 
Grid; U.S. DOT Truck Technology Initiatives; and State and Federal 
Reauthorization Objectives.
    Confirmed speakers include: Anne Ferro, FMCSA Administrator; Jeff 
Lindley, FHWA Associate Administrator for Operations; Allen Biehler, 
Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; David 
Parker, Senior Legal Counsel, Great West Casualty; and other top 
industry executives.
    For more information and your free registration for the TIMTC 
Annual Meeting, please contact Carla Schulz at 770-432-0628 or 
TIMTC@trucking.org. Not yet a member of TIMTC? Membership is free and 
provides the latest information and updates on trucking industry 
initiatives that improve the industry's safety and mobility. Send your 
contact information to TIMTC@trucking.org to receive your free 
membership.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 9th day of September 2010.
John Augustine,
Managing Director, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-22962 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P
```
#### WARREN v. STATE.

No. 22688.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 22, 1943.

J. A. Johnson, of. Stephenville, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with felony theft, and upon conviction was awarded a penalty of two years in the State penitentiary.

The facts show that 40 boxes of cigars consigned by freight to J. A. Stockton at Stephenville, Texas, were by a truck driver for the Santa Fe Railroad, early in the morning, placed on the sidewalk in front of the store of Mr. Stockton, which was also occupied by Mr. Flanery. The box containing such cigars had plainly marked thereon its supposed contents, and J. A. Stockton’s name.

The indictment contained seven counts, but the court only submitted to the jury the first count thereof.

There is but one bill of exceptions in the record, and that relates to the charge of the court, arid it is contended that because the testimony shows that these allegedly stolen cigars were contained in 40 small cigar boxes, each containing only 50 cigars, and each small box being of the value of $2.25, and the fact being shown that such small boxes were concealed within the larger box, that the court should have instructed the jury that before they could convict appellant they should find that he had knowledge of the amount of property concealed in such large box, and the value thereof; or, in other words, that the appellant knew the contents of the large box and its value. We do not think it to be necessary to show that the appellant, at the time he took the box containing the cigars, knew what the contents of such box was, nor the probable value thereof. When he committed the unlawful act, he was charged with the consequences thereof, it being his misfortune perhaps that the amount of property thus taken was valued at more than fifty dollars.

Again, it was contended that Mr. Stockton was not in possession of such goods at the time of their taking. Stockton testified that in the delivery to him of freight it was customary that same would be placed on the sidewalk in front of his place of business, as this shipment was shown to have been placed. He testified that “Merchandise left out in front of my place was in my possession, management and control; nobody else had any right or permission to do anything with the stuff that was left out there in the front of that store.”

*327The first count in the indictment alone was submitted to the jury, it being the one alleging the taking from the possession of J. A. Stockton without his consent, etc., and we think the trial court was correct in thus submitting the same to the jury. We think Mr. Stockton was in possession of such box of cigars at the time it was taken.

We see no error in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                          9,125
<SECURITIES>                                    2,531
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                    7,626
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                         44,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                508,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                       435,916
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       29,570
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  508,077
<SALES>                                        22,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               64,484
<CGS>                                          17,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               24,444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                7,201
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             16,439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,123)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (325)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (325)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)



</TABLE>
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS, DEHUMI DIFIERS, AND COOKING PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

CHAPTE RS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 ANAL YTICAL FRAMEWORK CHAPTER 3 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 4 SCREENING ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CHAPTER 6 ENERGY AND WATER USE DETERMINATION CHAPTER 7 MARKUPS FOR EQUI PMENT PRICE DETERMINATION CHAPTER 8 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS CHAPTER 9 TRIAL ST ANDARD LEVELS CHAPTER 10 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS CHAPTER 11 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS CHAPTER 12 LIFE-CYCLE COST SUB-GROUP ANALYSIS CHAPTER 13 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS CHAPTER 14 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS CHAPTER 15 EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS CHAPTER 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 17 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 5A AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL APPENDIX 6A COOKTOPS AND OVENS: DETERMINATION OF ENERGY-USING COMPONETNS APPENDIX 8A USER INSTRUCTIONS FOR LCC AND PBP SPREADSHEETS APPENDIX 8B UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY APPENDIX 8C LIFETIME DISTRIBUTIONS APPENDIX 8D HOUSEHOLD DISC OUNT RATE DISTRIBUTIONS APPENDIX 10A RELATIVE PRICE ELAS TICITY OF DEMAND FOR APPLIANCES APPENDIX 11A USEER INSTRUCTION FOR SHIPMENTS AND NIA SPREADSHEETS APPENDIX 11B NATIONAL EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING COSTS APPENDIX 13A MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERVIEW GUIDES APPENDIX 13B GOVERNMENT REGULATORY IMPACT MODEL (GRIM) APPENDIX 14A INTERPOLATION OF UT ILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS FROM NEMS-BT OUTPUT APPENDIX 17A REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS SUPPORTING MATERIAL

TOC-i
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                             437,471
<SECURITIES>                                       200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,044,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,539,953
<INVENTORY>                                        259,833
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,957,245
<PP&E>                                             931,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                     119,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,309,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,492,346
<BONDS>                                            352,102
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                        750,000
<COMMON>                                            63,706
<OTHER-SE>                                         651,514
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,309,668
<SALES>                                          5,729,831
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,729,831
<CGS>                                              609,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      609,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  81,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,337,126)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           991
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,338,117)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,338,117)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.23)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ENVIRO-CLEAN
OF AMERICA INC. & SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,833,478
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,539,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                   156,349
<INVENTORY>                                  1,683,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,978,417
<PP&E>                                       1,602,505
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,246,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,985,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,826,447
<BONDS>                                      5,608,399
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,451
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,834,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     995,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,985,700
<SALES>                                      7,281,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,281,408
<CGS>                                        3,788,288
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,203,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             497,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,207,960)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (76,835)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,131,125)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,131,125)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>