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

Upon the trial of an indictment charging the defendant with the larceny of goods, the property of A. proof that the defendant was guilty of the larceny of goods, the joint property of A and B, is a fatal variance between the *allegata*and *t\\a probata.*

It is not strictly regular to take the objection to straMflWfcbtnnft. after verdict, upon a motion in arrest of judgment; but where ti1® court can see from the record that there was a fatal variance between till charge and the proof, a *venire de nozo*will be awarded.

INDICTMENT for larceny, tried before bis Ilonor Judge *Cannon,*at Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Clay county.

The defendant was charged with the larceny of a pair of shoes, the property of Joshua Brooks.

Henry Brooks, a witness for the State, testified that a pair of ladies’ shoes, the property in qnestion, were taken from the shop of William Brooks & Sons, by some person, to him unknown ; that the firm of William Brooks & Sons was composed of William Brooks, Joshua Brooks and himself. On cross-examination, the witness stated that the shoes belonged to one Hagler; that Hagler had furnished the leather and William Brooks *&*Son had made the shoes for him; the firm had no property or claim upon them except that they were in the possession of the firm when taken, and a lien upon the shoes for making them.

The counsel for the defendant requested the court to charge the jury : That if they believed the testimony of Brooks, the shoes were the property of Hagler and the defendant must be acquitted.

The court declined to give the instruction, and charged the jury: That if they believed Henry Brooks, the property was properly laid in Joshua Brooks as a baileee.

To the refusal of his Honor to charge as requested, and to *273the charge of his Honor as above set forth, the defendant excepted.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was overruled; th& defendant then moved in arrest of judgment, alleging a variance between the *alhajat t*and the *probata.*Motion overruled by the ’¡court, and defendant appealed.

No counsel in this court for the defendant.

*Attorney General*llanjiuo<•, for the State.

Reade, J.

The *probata*does not correspond with the *aVeynt. ,*and that is always fatal. If one is charged with-, stealing the property of A, it will not do to prove that he¡ .stole the joint property of A and B.

It was not strictly regular to take the objection after verdict on a motion in arrest of judgment; it ought to have been, taken on the trial; but still we see from the record that there was a fatal variance between the charge and the proof, and! that the defendant ought not to have been convicted. And therefore there was error.

There is error.

Peb Curiam. *Venire de novo.*
From: vaughn
To: Finamore, Robert (OST) Subject: Re: Norwegian"s DOT application
Date: Friday, January 24, 2014 8:47:45 AM

Thanks for the feedback Bob.

FYI, there is a concern that the DOT will not act in the best interest of the traveling public.

Best,
Vaughn

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, < Robert.Finamore@dot.gov > wrote:

Dear Mr. Cordle,

Because a number of interested parties have filed responsive pleadings to NAI’s application and this matter is currently pending before the Department, I cannot comment on the merits of NAI’s request or otherwise engage in any substantive discussion on the matter. As is our standard practice, I am placing a copy of your e-mail and my response in Docket DOT-OST-2013-0204, as a contact outside the record of this case. You may track the progress of this case and view the publicly available documents filed in the docket by accessing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.regulations.gov and searching for Docket DOT-OST-2013-0204.

Regards,

Bob Finamore

From: vaughn [mailto: vaughn@ionospherecapital.com ] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 1:59 PM To: Vaughn Cordle, CFA Subject: Norwegian's DOT application

Hi,

We have been working for the last several weeks with a couple of analysts in Europe on Norwegian's business model and financial outlook. The purpose of thework is to value the airline and write an investment opinion for several institutional investors.

I've also examined the contractor that will hire and manage pilots for the new B787 base and estimated the labor and unit cost savings [with key European and U.S. Airlines] over a three year time horizon.

The business model is unique and the introduction of low-cost, low-fare flights between Europe and the U.S. will no doubt come at the expense of higher cost US and European airlines.

Any thoughts about whether or not the application with the DOT will be accepted?

Any feedback will be kept confidential and I'll share some of the work we produce if you are interested.

Thanks,

Vaughn

--
Vaughn Cordle, CFA

IONOSPHERE Capital LLC Washington, DC
703 830-1701 (office)
703 946-5474 (mobile) vaughn@ionospherecapital.com

'Proprietary Information-Draft'

The information contained in this document/email is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual named or others who have been specifically authorized to receive such from Ionosphere Capital, LLC. If the recipient is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.-- Vaughn Cordle, CFA IONOSPHERE Capital LLC Washington, DC 703 830-1701 (office) 703 946-5474 (mobile) vaughn@ionospherecapital.com

'Proprietary Information-Draft'

The information contained in this document/email is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual named or others who have been specifically authorized to receive such from Ionosphere Capital, LLC. If the recipient is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 2137

B. JANET PETTI

,

Appellant

v.

OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH;

OCEAN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

( D. N.J. Civil Action No. 3:15

- cv

- 07305 )

District Judge: Hon orable Brian R. Martinotti

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Present: SMITH, Chief Judge , McKEE, AMBRO, CHAGARES, JORDAN,

HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS,

PORTER, MATEY, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

.

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant in the above

- entitled case having

been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the

other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, a nd a majority of the

judges of the circuit in regular se rvice not having voted for rehearing, the petition for

rehearing by the Court en banc is denied.It is hereby ordered that the petition for rehearing by the panel is granted. The

judges who participated in the decision of this Court will issue an amend ed opinion and

judgment.

BY THE COURT,

s/ Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Dated: December 9, 2020

CJG /cc: B. Janet Petti

Elizabeth A. Dalberth, Esq.
#### Tollander, Respondent, vs. Bonneville, Appellant. [Two cases.]

*April 10*

May *5, 1942.*

*501For the appellant there was a brief by *Arthur I. Ringham*of Grantsburg and *Doar & Knowles*of New Richmond, and oral argument by *W. T. Doar.*

For the respondents the cause was submitted on the brief of *Clive J. Strang*of Grantsburg and *Nelton & McGinnis*of Balsam Lake.

Wickhem, J.

There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and the sole question is whether the trial court had the power to increase the damages in favor of plaintiffs, without providing any option to the defendant.

The contention is that where a verdict has been found to be inadequate and the award raised to the lowest sum which a properly instructed jury would probably render, defendant should be given an option to take a new trial or to pay the increased sum, and that this is necessary to protect his right to a jury trial.

The case of *Risch v. Lawhead,*211 Wis. 270, 248 N. W. 127, involved the precise question raised by defendant here, and the ruling was squarely contrary to defendant’s contention. The whole matter was elaborately argued and considered there, and we are not disposed to depart from the conclusions reached.

*By the Court.*— Judgments affirmed.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

49) ll-K- (B) -37 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:49 AM Sheet 49 of 325 
P.2 

~z_t b 

II-K-(B)-37 

FACTORS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE COST ALGORITHMS FOR 

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES. 

Letter from R. Short, EPArSASD to E. Medine, EEA. 

June 6, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-37
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0                  14,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  26,618
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  27,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                   1,761
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                  68,725
<PP&E>                                               0                  26,615
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  10,028
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                  99,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  36,565
<BONDS>                                              0                   2,798
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                      34
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                  60,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                  99,617
<SALES>                                          8,693                  32,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,363                  46,090
<CGS>                                              702                   2,044
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,552                  12,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,659                  57,535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 312                     849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,765)                (23,664)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       121                     186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,886)                (23,850)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,886)                (23,850)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)                  (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)                  (0.72)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of NIC Inc. (the Company) each hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: March 15, 2007

/s/ JEFFERY S.
FRASERJEFFERYS. FRASERChairman of the Board
andChief Executive Officer

/s/ ERIC J. BURERICJ. BURChief Financial Officer

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
or after the date of the Form 10-K, irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing).

82

---
#### JONATHAN WORTH, *Adm'r., against*ALEX GRAY *and others.*

Where certain matters have been set forth in the answer, by the way of plea, and there has been replication to the answer, it is too late to except to the answer for insufficiency.

Appeal from the Court of Equity of Randolph county.

The plaintiff excepted to the defendants’ answer on account of insufficiency. The exceptions were over-ruled, and plaintiff appealed to this Court.

*Graham,*for the plaintiff.

*Morehead,*for the defendants.

PearsoN, C. J.

If replication be taken to a plea, in a suit in equity, the sufficiency of the plea, in respect to the law, is admitted. To take issue on the matters of law, presented by a plea, it should be *set down for argument.*In this case, the plaintiff having taken replication, the only matter open is the truth of the allegations of the plea. It follows that no exception can be sustained, in respect to those parts of the bill, which arc covered by the plea.

We have considered the exceptions, in respect to the other parts of the bill, and are of opinion that the answer is sufficiently responsive, and as full as could be expected or required in regard to transactions of such long standing. The irregularity of filing two answers, we think, is fully explained. The first answer is incorporated as a part of the second, and the plaintiff may have the benefit of both.

Per Curiam, Decretal order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)  In connection with the Annual Report of DigitalTown, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended February 28, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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: June 12, 2015   /s/ Robert W. Monster Robert W. Monster Chief Executive Officer Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer
#### *Doe ex dem.*of H. E. MELTON *v.*WILLIAM MONDAY.

In a grant to one Blount, there was an exception of “13735 acres of land, entered by persons, whose names are hereunto annexedamong such names was that of “ Gabriel Eagsdale, 100 acres”; it was shown that this 100 acres was afterwards surveyed, and granted to one Williams, under whom the plaintiff claimed, *Held,*that thereby the exception in the Blount grant, as regards the 100 acres, became as certain as if set out by metes and bounds.

*(Waugh*v. *Richardson,*8he. 470, and *McOormick*v. *Monroe,*1 Jon. 13, cited, distinguished and approved.)

Ejectment, for 100 acres of land, tried before *Heivry, J.,*Spring Terra 1869 of Buncombe Court.

The plaintiff made title by a grant from the State to one Williams, describing the land, and referring to an entry- of the same by Gabriel Eagsdale.

The defendant claimed under an older State-grant, to one Blount.

The plaintiff showed that the Blount grant excepted from its operation *u*13735 acres of land entered by persons whose names are hereunto annexed,” and among those names was that .of *u*Gabriel Eagsdale, 100 acres” ; and that this was the entry under which Williams obtained his grant.

The defendant submitted that such exception was void for uncertainty.

His Honor being of this opinion, there was a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

*F. H. Busbee,*for the appellant.

*Phillips & Merrimon, contra.*

Peanson, C. J.

We are of opinion that the exception in the grant to Blount is valid in respect to the land set out in the declaration. The grant has this *exception,*— u 13735 acres of land, entered by persons whose names are hereunto annexed.” Among the list of names is that of *“*Gabriel Eagsdale, 100 acres.” This 100 acres is described in the. *296entry according to the statute, with certainty to a certain intent in general. A survey is afterwards made, by which the land is described with “ certainty to a certain intent in every particular,” and a grant issues therefor to Williams, which refers to it as the one hundred acres entered by Eags-dale.

By these references the exception of the one hundred acres in controversy, is made as certain as if the land had been set out in the grant to Blount, by metes andbounds. In *Waugh*v. *Richardson,*8 Ire. 470, it is held that an exception of 5000 *acres,*in a large grant, is void for uncertainty. In *McCormick*v. *Monroe,*1 Jon. 13, is held that ah exception of 250 acres *previously granted,*the former grant not being offered in evidence, is ’void for uncertainty. But it is said the exception might have been aided and made valid by means of the former grant, had it been produced. In our case all uncertainty is avoided by direct reference to the entry of Eagsdale, and the subsequent survey and grant to Williams : so it is the same as would have been the case in *McCormick*v. *Monroe,*had the exception been of 250 acres previously granted to-, *setting out the neme of the grantee.*

His Honor erred in setting aside the verdict, and entering judgment for the defendant. That ruling is reversed, and judgment will be entered for the plaintiff, upon the verdict.

Per Curiam. Eeversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NATIONAL
DIAGNOSTICS, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          39,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,099,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                   739,106
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,578,481
<PP&E>                                       9,989,183
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,258,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,809,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,597,463
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           779
<OTHER-SE>                                    (331,720)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,809,763
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,737,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,152,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,255,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                74,704
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             512,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,182,523)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,182,523)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,182,523)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.37)
        

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


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000925524
<NAME> SEEC, INC.
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      23,068,227
<SECURITIES>                                 8,629,030
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,014,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (45,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,884,678
<PP&E>                                       1,532,178
<DEPRECIATION>                               (187,181)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,822,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,787,246
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,765
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,974,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,822,342
<SALES>                                      1,200,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,501,045
<CGS>                                           74,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  851,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,066,173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,814
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,450
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### Will of Bagley: Kinney, Respondent, vs. Hines, Appellant.

For the appellant: *James P. Cullen*of Prairie du Chien, and *W. A. O’Neil*of Boscobel.

For the respondent: *Harry E. Carthew*of Lancaster.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.