alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 18, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-16370

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 04-00059-CR-3-LAC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANDOR DONALD BOZSAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

 (July18, 2005)

Before ANDERSON, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Patrick L. Jackson, appointed counsel for Sandor Donald Bozsar in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals
2

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bozsar’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000926287
<NAME> SANGUINE CORPORATION
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            4918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4918  
<PP&E>                                             544
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           618714
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         21291
<OTHER-SE>                                     (634543)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5462
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                160088
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (160088)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (160088)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### THOMAS R. ASKEW v. THOMAS J. CAPEHART and another.

*Praetiee*— Relief *against Erroneous Judgment*— Notice.

1. A party to an action seeking relief against a judgment rendered therein, must do jso by motion m the original action ; he can not maintain a separate action.

2. A motion under C. C. P. § 133 to correct errors and mistakes in a judgment must be made within one year after *rendition of ihe judgment;*the law presumes that every party to an action takes notice of all that occurs in the progress of the action and of the judgment rendered.

*(Lord*v. *Beard, ante*5; *McDaniel*v. *Watkins,*76 N. C. 399; *Mabry*v. *Erwin,*78 N. C. 46, cited and approved.)

*18Civil Actios, tried at Spring Term, 1878, of Bertie Superior Court, before Henry, *J.*

This action was heard upon complaint and demurrer upon the state of facts set out in the opinion. In answer to the objection that the proceeding should be by a motion in the cause, the plaintiff avowed his willingness to have his complaint in the action considered as such motion upon such terms as the Court might impose, but His Honor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action, and the plaintiff .appealed.

*Mr. P. H.*Winston, for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Gilliam Gatling,*for defendants.

ByNüm, J.

This action must be dismissed upon two grounds:—

1. If the plaintiff is entitled to relief, it is by a motion in the Cause and not by a new action. One Mitchell was-.the administrator on the estate of Charles Capehart, deceased, and the plaintiff was the surety on his administration bond. In 1873 the defendants, who are two of the distribu-tees of the estate, brought an action against the administrator and his surety upon the bond for their share of the estate, and in the spring of 1874 obtained a judgment, and this original action was begun in the fall of 1875 to correct certain alleged errors and mistakes in the judgment, and for an injunction against the execution issued thereon. *Lord*v. *Beard, ante*5, is an express authority that such an action will not be sustained.

2. By C. O. P,, § 133, if we could take jurisdiction of this action, as a motion in the cause, the motion must be made “ within one year after notice thereof.” The motion was not made until more than a year had elapsed after the rendition of the judgment. The plaintiff, however, alleges that he did not discover the mistake until a few months before the institution of this action. But he was a party defendant to the action wherein the alleged mistake occur*19red. The law presumes that he took notice of all that occurred in the progress of the action, and of the judgment rendered. He has neither shown nor alléged any excuse in rebuttal of this presumption. It was his duty to take notice. This also is decided: *McDaniel*v. *Watkins,*76 N. C., 399; *Mabry*v. *Erwin,*78 N. C., 46. C. C. P., § 132, has no application to this ease but applies only to amendments made before or at the trial, and not at a time subsequent.

No error.

Pee Citriam. Judgment affirmed.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 304 

Recognizing November 28, 2015, as ‘‘Small Business Saturday’’ and supporting efforts to increase awareness of the value of locally owned small 

businesses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2015 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. COONS, Mr. RUBIO, 

Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. PETERS, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. CARDIN, 

Mr. ENZI, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. SCOTT, Ms. 

HIRONO, Mrs. ERNST, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. 

UDALL, Ms. HEITKAMP, Mr. KING, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DAINES, Mr. 

INHOFE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. TESTER, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. MANCHIN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing November 28, 2015, as ‘‘Small Business Saturday’’ and supporting efforts to increase awareness of 

the value of locally owned small businesses. 

Whereas there are 28,443,856 small businesses in the United 

States; 

Whereas small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all businesses with employees in the United States; 

Whereas small businesses employ over 48.5 percent of the 

employees in the private sector in the United States; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 304 ATS 

Whereas small businesses pay over 42 percent of the total 

payroll of the employees in the private sector in the 

United States; 

Whereas small businesses constitute 97.7 percent of firms exporting goods; 

Whereas small businesses are responsible for more than 46 

percent of private sector output; 

Whereas small businesses generated 63 percent of net new 

jobs created over the past 20 years; 

Whereas 87 percent of consumers in the United States agree 

that the success of small businesses is critical to the overall economic health of the United States; 

Whereas 89 percent of consumers in the United States agree 

that small businesses contribute positively to local communities by supplying jobs and generating tax revenue; 

Whereas 93 percent of consumers in the United States agree 

that it is important to support the small businesses in 

their communities; and 

Whereas November 28, 2015, is an appropriate day to recognize ‘‘Small Business Saturday’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes and encourages the observance of 

3 ‘‘Small Business Saturday’’ on November 28, 2015; 

4 and 

5 (2) supports efforts— 

6 (A) to encourage consumers to shop lo7 cally; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 304 ATS 

1 (B) to increase awareness of the value of 

2 locally owned small businesses and the impact 

3 of locally owned small businesses on the econ4 omy of the United States. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

[LOGO]
CONSTELLATION 3D, INC.
www.c-3d.net
------------

                                               Please respond to:
                                               -----------------
                                               805 Third Avenue - 14/th/ Floor
                                               New York, NY 10022
                                               Tel. (212) 308-3572
                                               Fax  (212) 308-3573
                                               E-mail: rtellini@c-3d.net

Mr. David Craven
Winnburn Advisory
World Trade Center
10, route de l'Aeroport
P. O. Box 691
1215 Geneva 15, Switzerland
Fax: (+41) 022 799 0801

Re:  Amendment of Purchase Price Adjustments in Sec. 7.1
     of Common Stock Investment Agreement of August 23, 2000
     -------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Craven:

     In the context of the current round of financing the Company has concluded
that the existing investment agreements may be ambiguous and should be updated
in order to facilitate the financing. To that end the Company would appreciate
your cooperation in achieving the financing. Therefore, in exchange for 409,511
shares of the Company's common stock (which, if lawful and practicable shall be
registered on the Company's next filed registration statement and/or such shares
shall be included on a registration statement filed within 60 days of the
Company's receipt of a demand registration notice), you hereby irrevocably agree
to the following changes to the Common Stock Investor's Agreement and Appendices
thereto (terminating Article VII thereof):

     Amendment: "Article VII of the Common Stock Investment Agreement is hereby
eliminated and no shares shall issue as a result of Article VII and Article VII
shall be deemed to have no legal effect, past or prospective."

     This letter shall act as confirmation of your irrevocable agreement to the
above amendment.

CONSTELLATION 3D, INC.                   ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


By: /s/ Raymond Tellini                  WINNBURN ADVISORY
Raymond Peter Tellini
Vice President of Finance                By: /s/ David Craven
schedule602.htm






SCHEDULE 6.02


TO THE CREDIT AGREEMENT







 


EXISTING LIENS


 







 


Lien on Invision Automotive Systems, Inc. Inventory







Equipment Leases:







Audiovox Corporation:








	
  State

	
Jurisdiction

	
Expiration Date

	
Original File Date

	
File Number

	
Secured Party


	
DE

	
SOS

	
10/21/2010

	
10/21/2005

	
53277341

	
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance


	
DE

	
SOS

	
2/16/2012

	
2/16/2007

	
70621325

	
US Express Leasing Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
2/21/2012

	
2/21/2007

	
70662907

	
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance


	
DE

	
SOS

	
6/22/2012

	
6/22/2007

	
72371416

	
Wells Fargo Financial Leasing Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
4/30/2013

	
4/30/2008

	
81495819

	
Key Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
4/30/2013

	
4/30/200/

	
81496312

	
Key Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
6/20/2013

	
6/20/2008

	
82125126

	
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
6/30/2013

	
6/30/2008

	
82235693

	
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
10/9/2013

	
10/9/2008

	
83421656

	
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
10/21/2013

	
10/21/200/

	
83545678

	
Popular Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
1/21/2014

	
1/21/2009

	
90208139

	
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
1/21/2014

	
1/21/2009

	
90208253

	
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
1/21/2014

	
1/21/2009

	
90208352

	
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
2/11/2014

	
2/11/2009

	
90455763

	
Wells Fargo Financial Leasing Inc.


	
DE

	
SOS

	
3/26/2014

	
3/26/2009

	
9095522

	
Heartland Business Credit


	
DE

	
SOS

	
3/27/2014

	
3/27//2009

	
91074969

	
AEL Financial LLC


	
DE

	
SOS

	
5/28/2014

	
5/28/2009

	
91678660

	
Heartland Business Credit


	
DE

	
SOS

	
6/19/2014

	
6/19/2009

	
91958138

	
Heartland Business Credit


	
DE

	
SOS

	
7/1/2014

	
7/1/2009

	
92118856

	
IBM Credit LLC


	
DE

	
SOS

	
8/7/2014

	
8/7/2009

	
92534318

	
Heartland Business Credit


	
DE

	
SOS

	
8/27/2014

	
8/27/2009

	
92767579

	
IB M Credit LLC


	
DE

	
SOS

	
9/30/2014

	
9/30/2009

	
93136170

	
Heartland Business Credit


	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
Audiovox Electronics Corpooration

	  	  
	
DE

	
SOS

	
Continuation


3/3/2009

	
8/30/2004

	
42439943

	
 Bank One, NA


	
DE

	
SOS

	
6/23/2014

	
6/23/2009

	
92003322

	
California First Leasing Corporation


	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
Technuity Inc.


	
IN

	
SOS

	
4/25/2011

	
4/25/2006

	
200600003937464

	
Citicorp Leasing, Inc.


	
IN

	
SOS

	
6/4/2013

	
6/4/2008

	
200800005219512

	
US Bancorp
Exhibit 99.2

 Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
Quarter Ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") by Vizacom Inc. ("Registrant"),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies 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 Registrant.


                                                /s/ Alan W Schoenbart
                                                ---------------------
                                                Alan W. Schoenbart
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### Van Brocklin, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*December 8, 1928*

January *8, 1929.*

For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by *Reilly <fr O’Brien*of Fond du Lac, and oral argument by *J. E. O’Brien.*

For the defendant in error there was a brief by *Frank B. Keefe,*district attorney of Winnebago county, the *Attorney General,*and *J. E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Keefe*and *Mr. Messerschmidt.*The following opinion was filed January 8, 1929:

Eschweiler, J.

The question now raised as to the validity of the search warrant because it was issued solely upon *22hearsay is the same as that presented and disposed of upon the same search warrant in the companion case of *Farber v. State, ante,*p. 18 (decided herewith). Upon what is there held, the present objection to the search warrant cannot be sustained.

It is also contended that the search warrant was rendered invalid because, after it had been placed in the hands of officers for service, the originally inserted name of the owner of the premises sought to be searched was erased and another name substituted. No substantial reasons are urged, nor do we find any, why such change should be held to prevent the use of the evidence obtained by the search, and that being the only point'on which this objection is presented to us, it cannot, therefore, be sustained.

On the trial the State offered evidence tending to show that the defendant below was directly concerned in a transaction some ten days before the time of the offense alleged in this information, in the removal of the copper still, discovered on the premises described and visited under the search warrant, from other premises in the same city. It is urged that such evidence was improperly received under the general rule that evidence of defendant having committed other offenses cannot properly be received on the trial for the particular offense. The trial court, however, carefully limited the effect of this evidence to the purpose and effect only of consideration by the jury in determining whether or not the defendant below was connected with the ownership or operation of the copper still at the time and place charged in that information, and we cannot see any error in such ruling.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on March 5, 1929.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 23, 2012 

p0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

144230 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144230 

 COA: 301608 

Saginaw CC: 09-032607-FC 

DYTERIUS MICHAEL ROBY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                  5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form  10-QSB for the three  months  ended  December  31,  1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such  Financial  Statements and Notes,
thereto.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                              OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                          953,024
<SECURITIES>                                                  1,752,752
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 8,006,683
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    125,000
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              9,912,957
<PP&E>                                                        1,616,311
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   93,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               13,663,750
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         5,494,953
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                          5,139
<OTHER-SE>                                                    7,714,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 13,663,750
<SALES>                                                      10,213,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             10,213,428
<CGS>                                                         7,768,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 9,484,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               16,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 741,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    334,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             728,992
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    406,907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       .07
        

</TABLE>
#### SARAH H. DULA and another v. ZEPHANIAH YOUNG and C. W. CLARK, Adm’r., &c.

*(Dula*v. Young, 70 N. C. Rep. 450, affirmed.

PetitioN to re-hear this case, which was decided in this Court at January Term, 1874.

The case is fully reported in 70 N. 0. Rep., 450.

Reade, J.

The learned argument of the counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy us that we had mistaken any important fact, or misapplied any principle of law or equity. ¥e must therefore adhere to our decision, and for the reasons stated in the opinion of our learned brother, Justice Settle.

There will be judgment against the petitioner for cost.

Pee Cueiam.

Judgment accordingly.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             ROBERT CRIBBS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 19, 2008

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Speaker, on October 30, 2008, Robert Cribbs 
passed away in the presence of his loving family. Bob was a true 
innovator who successfully developed five high technology companies. He 
was also deeply committed to his personal interests, most notably in 
the area of Egyptian culture. Bob was recognized throughout his life 
for his great work, and his presence as an entrepreneur, professor, 
scientist, father, husband and friend will be sorely missed.
  Bob came to California after graduating from the Carnegie Institute 
of Technology with a degree in physics. He arrived with his wife, 
Donna, and two infant boys, Mark and Bob, to work at Aerojet General 
Corporation. Soon after, Bob and Donna's daughter, Sherry, was born. In 
1967, Bob left Aerojet to form Electra-Physics Laboratories (EPL), 
located in Folsom. After General Electric became interested in EPL and 
purchased the rights to work with part of the company, the remaining 
division was named Folsom Research Inc. (FRI) and moved to Rancho 
Cordova. FRI was bought by Barco, and soon after Bob formed SoniPulse, 
Inc., in El Dorado Hills. Bob also co-founded a medical company, 
LipoSonix, Inc.
  Bob was an expert in ultrasound technology. He used this knowledge 
not only to further important medical research, but also for discovery 
as he explored the pyramids in the Valley of the Kings in search of the 
burial chamber of pharaoh Seti using ultrasound and RF equipment to 
locate the tomb. Bob's keen interest in Egyptian music also led him to 
prove that Pythagoras actually stole the musical scale from the 
Egyptians.
  Bob's life was full of accomplishments, and those of us who were 
fortunate enough to know him will miss him dearly. Our thoughts and 
prayers are with his wife of 51 years, Donna; his children Bob, Mark 
and Sherry; his grandchildren Tensor Chen, Weijing Chen, Jason, Sommer, 
Royce, Anneleise and Gretchen; and his great-grandchild Adam.

                          ____________________
```