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

No. 22786.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1944.

*525Art Schlofman, of Dalhart, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a driving-while-intoxicated case, which arose and was tried in Sherman County. The jury found appellant guilty and assessed “his punishment at ten (10) ■days in the county jail.”

Upon the verdict, the trial court entered judgment directing that appellant “be committed to the custody of the Sheriff, who shall forthwith confine him in the jail of Moore County, Texas (there being no safe jail in this, Sherman County) for ten (10) days from this date, and until said costs .are fully paid.”

Appellant insists that the trial court was without authority to direct that he be confined in the Moore County jail, or in any other jail save and except the county jail of Sherman County, and that, by reason thereof, the judgment rendered is invalid.

Ordinarily, the particular place where a prisoner is to be confined is an administrative detail, and not one for the judiciary. Where a jail sentence is imposed, it is the duty of the sheriff to see that the prisoner is confined in the jail of the county where the conviction was obtained. If there be no jail in said county, or if the jail therein provided be insuffi■cient for any reason, then the sheriff may confine the prisoner in some jail that is adequate. 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, page 1246, § 2000.

It follows, from what has been ■said, that, in the instant case, the judgment of the trial court is reformed so as to provide that appellant be confined in the Sherman County jail for a period of ten days. If there be no adequate or sufficient jail in Sherman County, the sheriff may confine appellant in the jail of some other county that is adequate, for the period of time *mentioned.*

As so reformed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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.
q.Z2-/s REC'D IN COURT OF APPEALS

12th Court nf Appeals District 

### /T ^T /ryl o\^dc\ w\uS /*H T6^ atoK - Sry Led PAM ESTES, CLi UJC

3/ <-( fC . f A 4- InOf Ls-*l L^hol 3. Q bo <jf 

# 3) x ,t ,. M °* **" M>'^;? 

### 'ry. 

## SiVtceceky Shori* C*,'h H^3 72&Y
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                               REMEDY CORPORATION
 
                           COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME
                     PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS
                                                                  ENDED         SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                JUNE 30,            JUNE 30,
                                                            -----------------   -----------------
                                                             1997      1996      1997      1996
                                                            -------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                                         <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
PRIMARY
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding....   27,326    28,276    27,150    26,088
  Incremental common shares attributable to shares
     issuable under employee stock plans..................    2,869     3,656     3,135     3,772
                                                            -------   -------   -------   -------
          Total shares....................................   30,195    30,136    30,286    29,860
                                                            =======   =======   =======   =======
Net income:
  Amount..................................................  $ 6,183   $ 3,380   $10,948   $ 5,647
                                                            =======   =======   =======   =======
  Per share...............................................  $  0.20   $  0.11   $  0.36   $  0.19
                                                            =======   =======   =======   =======
FULLY DILUTED
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding....   27,326    26,277    27,150    26,088
  Incremental common shares attributable to shares
     issuable under employee stock plans..................    3,050     3,861     3,226     3,880
                                                            -------   -------   -------   -------
          Total shares....................................   30,376    30,138    30,376    29,968
                                                            =======   =======   =======   =======
Net income:
  Amount..................................................  $ 6,163   $ 3,380   $10,948   $ 5,647
                                                            =======   =======   =======   =======
  Per share...............................................  $  0.20   $  0.11   $  0.36   $  0.18
                                                            =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
 
                                       17
Letter of Resignation of Leslie Hudson, sent March 7, 2006


  

			
		  	 EXHIBIT 10.1
  

		  	 Mr. Ben Currier,
Chairman,

 Board of Directors,

 Hooper Holmes Inc.,

 Basking Ridge, NJ.


 Dear Ben, 
 I wish to
submit my resignation from membership of the Board of Directors of Hooper Holmes. 
 My initial recruitment to the Board was motivated by the business
strategy of Hooper Holmes which included an aspiration to move into new business areas, in particular, expansion of the Company’s business base towards the support of clinical trials and data processing that would be of value to the
pharmaceutical industry. Early in the summer of 2005 the Board and previous CEO of Hooper Holmes made the decision that the Company’s balance sheet and expertise base did not support an early entry into the activities for which my
expertise had been sought.
 As a Board Member, and by that time able to understand the Company’s challenges with greater clarity, I fully supported the
decision. Thereafter, I tended my resignation to you as Chairman of the Board, as my knowledge of the insurance industry business process is minimal. After a discussion with you, I agreed to stay on the Board until a new CEO was appointed,
thus avoiding the impression that I did not fully support the actions of the Board. 
 In large part through your own excellent efforts, we set in place a
transition process and secured a new CEO who has the experience and qualifications to provide the Company with excellent leadership. I feel that I have fulfilled my undertaking to you and the Board and so have decided to resign upon the 12
month anniversary of my election which will be May 23, 2006. 
 With my kind personal regards, 
 Yours sincerely, 
 Les. 
 Dr. Leslie Hudson 
 President & CEO 
 DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc. 
 433 Hackensack Avenue 
 Hackensack NJ 07601
#### STEVENS v. W. J. LACKEY & CO.

No. 11405.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 20, 1944.

L. D. Griffin, of Alice, for appellant.

Lon D. Herbert, of Alice, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is a suit upon a paving certificate. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, W. J. Lackey, d. b. a. W. J. Lackey & Co., and against defendant, Ed Stevens. The plaintiff conceded in the court below that he was not entitled to a foreclosure of a purported lien against certain real property involved, hence none was ordered.

Stevens has appealed and here presents three points.

Appellant s first and second points are without merit. The notice prescribed by statute was given. Article 1105b, Section 9, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. While the ordinance of the City of Alice directs that notice by registered mail shall also be given to property owners, it also expressly provides that notice by advertisement (as provided by statute) shall be legally sufficient in itself to fix liability against the various property owners involved. We overrule appellant’s first and second points. Realty Trust Co. v. Lindsey, 129 Tex. 516, 105 S.W.2d 210.

Appellant’s third point involves the two-year statute of limitations. Article 5526, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. The principal indebtedness of defendant amounted to $225, as evidenced by paving certificate dated June 20, 1940, and payable in five equal installments of $45 each, on June 30, 1940, June 20, 1941, June 20, 1942, June 20, 1943, and June 20, 1944, respectively. Accelerated maturity of unpaid installments in case of default in payment of one or. more installments at the option of the certificate holder was also provided for. This suit was filed on October 15, 1942, at which time appellee, as the holder of the paving certificate, elected to declare all installments due and payable. The installment due on June 30, 1940, was then barred by the two-year statute, as the indebtedness was not evidenced by a written contractual obligation executed by appellant. Bauer v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 122; McTaggart v. Texas Bitulithic Co., Tex.Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 436.

The judgment of the trial court will be reformed so as to allow appellee a recovery from appellant of $180, together with interest thereon at the rate provided in the paving certificate (eight per cent, per annum) from June 20, 1940, to the date of the trial court’s judgment, November 26, 1943, making a total of $229.40, together with interest thereon until paid at the rate of eight per cent, per annum. The award of costs against appellant in the trial court will not be disturbed. Costs of appeal will be taxed against appellee.

The judgment of the trial court as reformed will be affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 and in connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended December31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer, President and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certifies that:

 

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

 

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

 
| /s/ THOMAS E. NOONAN    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Thomas E. Noonan        |
| Chairman, President and |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| March 6, 2006           |

 

----
#### Sam BARNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27183.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1954.

*879Cunningham, Cole & Southerland, Bon-ham, H. A. Cunningham, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State..

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for aggravated assault by an adult male upon a female; the punishment, a fine of $150 and six months in jail.

In his brief, the appellant correctly asserts that the sole question presented for review relates to the action of the trial ■court in - overruling his amended motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evi--dénce. ■

The motion for new trial, as it appears in this record, was not sworn to by appellant •or his attorneys. There was attached to the motion the affidavit of the alleged newly discovered witness.

.[1,2] A motion for new trial because of newly discovered evidence must be sworn to. Authorities attesting- the rule stated are replete and will be found collated under Art. 756, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., among which is that of Cartwright v. State, Tex. •Cr.App., 255 S.W.2d 878, where the rule was applied notwithstanding the affidavit of the alleged newly discovered witness was attached to the unsworn motion.

The fact that the trial court, as here, heard evidence upon the motion does not relieve the defect, as the motion must be sufficient as a pleading to present the question. Vowell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 493,-244 S.W.2d 214.

The question of newly discovered evidence was not before the trial court.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit 23.2 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8, No. 333-85300 pertaining to the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, as Amended, the Registration Statement on Form S-8, No. 333-61602 pertaining to the American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, as Amended, the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. and the Registration Statement Form S-8, No. 333-129686 pertaining to theAmerican Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 10, 2005, with respect to the statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows of American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2004 and the information for year ended December 31, 2004 included in the related financial statement schedule of American Bank Note Holographics, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

New York, New York 

March 26, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEWAYNE RESHARD ROBINSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big 

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:14-cr-00006-JPJ-1; 2:17-cv-81296-JPJ)

Submitted: July 30, 2020 Decided: August 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dewayne Reshard Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dewayne Reshard Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 92012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Alropa Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Kirchwehm, Appellee. 

(No. 28222

Decided October 2, 1940.)

*Messrs. Bla/nc & Steinberg*and *Messrs. Keifer & Keifer,*for appellant.

*Méssrs. Cole & Hodge,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause. . , ,. . ,

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 24.3

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned hereby appoints Kenneth H. Traub and Mark J. Bonney, and each of
them, any of whom may act without the joinder of the other, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign American
Bank Note Holographics, Inc.s Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and all other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or would
do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them of their or his substitute and substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



/s/ Richard L. RobbinsName: Richard L. Robbins Address: 970 Lily Pond
Lane Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417Date: March 15, 2007




|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15thday of March, 2007
|                                                             
|/s/ Ellen W. Werle                                           
|Notary Public
#### NEELY v. STATE.

No. 22049.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

Rehearing Granted April 22, 1942.

Ennis C. Favors, of Pampa, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for driving' an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The penalty assessed is a fine of $200.

The .record is before us without bills of exception or statement :of. facts. In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable, to appraise the objections addressed to .the charge of. the court.

' No'error having been'presented by the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This case was' submitted without the benefit of brief or oral argument, without statement of facts and with a bill of exception which could not be appraised in the absence of statement of fatts. On motion for rehearing, however, our attention has been called for the first time to a defect in the complaint, the jurat to which reads as follows:

> “Sworn to and subscribed by J. B. .Wilkinson, a credible person, before me, on this the-day of August, A. D. One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-one.

> “Joe Gordon

> “Gray County, Texas.”

The defect is perfectly apparent. The jurat should have shown the official capacity of the party taking the affidavit and also show its date. The exact question was before this court in Shurbert v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 50, 60 S.W.2d 791, which holding is here followed. See also, Stanley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 158 S.W.2d 785; Branch’s Ann.P.C. § 480, and authorities there discussed.

The motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant


1.       Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Georgia)
2.       ISS Group, Inc. (Delaware)
3.       Internet Security Systems Ltd. (United Kingdom)
4.       ISS Investment Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
5.       Internet Security Systems NV (Belgium)
6.       Internet Security Systems KK (Japan)
7.       Internet Security Systems Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
8.       Internet Security Systems Gmbh (Germany)
9.       ISSX Internet Security Systems AG (Switzerland)
10.      Internet Security Systems Iberia Sl (Spain)
11.      Internet Security Systems Nordic AB (Sweden)
12.      Internet Security Systems Sarl (France)
13.      Internet Security Systems Srl (Italy)
14.      Internet Security Systems Ltda. (Brazil)
15.      Internet Security Systems (Latin America), Inc. (Florida)
16.      Internet Security Systems; S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico)
17.      ISS Internet Security Solutions Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
18.      Network ICE Corporation (California)
19.      TriSecurity Holdings Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
20.      TriSecurity Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
21.      vCIS, Inc. (California)
22.      vCIS, Pty. Ltd (Australia)
23.      Internet Security Systems BV (Netherlands)
24.      ISS Middle East, LLC (Egypt)
25.      Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer required
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and furnished herewith
pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238


                            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 Axeda Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended  December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 29, 2004 (the Report),  the undersigned,  Robert M.
Russell Jr.,  Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company
and Thomas J. Fogarty,  Executive 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, 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 Company.

Dated: April 29, 2004    By:  /s/ Robert M. Russell Jr.
                              --------------------------
                                  Robert M. Russell Jr.
                                   Chairman of the Board and
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                  (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: April 29, 2004      By:  /s/ Thomas J. Fogarty
                                --------------------------
                                    Thomas J. Fogarty
                                     Executive Vice President and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


This  certification  is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided to Axeda  Systems Inc. and will be retained by Axeda Systems Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.