alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sheboygan County, Respondent, vs. Town of Sheboygan Falls, Appellant.

*February 22*

March *10, 1908.*

*Support of pauper: Sufficiency of evidence.*

In an action to recover money paid for the support of a pauper alleged to have a legal settlement in defendant town, there being credible evidence to support the finding of the jury that the money furnished by the defendant was received by recipient as a pauper, the verdict will not be disturbed.

Abbeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Sheboy-gan county: Michael KiewaN, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Francis*Williams, and for the respondent on that of *Fd-ward*Voigt, district attorney. •

ReewiN, J.

The town of Plymouth, in this state, furnished aid to one Christina Eade and presented a bill to the plaintiff, which was paid. The plaintiff then brought this action against the defendant, claiming that Christina Bade was a pauper of defendant town. The case was here on former appeal, and reversed and sent back for a new trial on the ground that all the issues had not been passed upon by the jury. *Sheboygan Co. v. Sheboygan Falls,*130 Wis. 93, 109 N. W. 1030. A special verdict was returned on the last trial below and all the issues found by the jury in favor of the plaintiff, and the only question before ns upon this appeal is whether the verdict is supported by the evidence.

The rule is well established in this court that if there is any credible evidence to support a verdict it cannot be disturbed. After a careful examination of the evidence we cannot say that the verdict is unsupported by the evidence. Therefore the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Cowrt.*— The judgment is affirmed.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1038/2006

of 7 July 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 July 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 July 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 7 July 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
ex4_11.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
4.11

    


    


    Section
5(g) of the Master Trust Agreement was amended, effective August 29, 2008, and
now reads as follows:

    


    (g)  Interest
Income Fund

    


    All
transactions involving the Master Trust Investments in the Interest Income Fund
shall be in accordance with a separate agreement between the Master Trustee or
its affiliate, and Galliard Capital Management.
<PAGE>
 
                           ON Technology Corporation

                                 EXHIBIT 21.0.

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Leprechaun Software International, Ltd., a Georgia corporation
ON Securities Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation
ON Technology U.K. Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of England
ON Technology Foreign Sales Corporation, a U.S. Virgin Island corporation
Purview Technologies, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
Wilma 96 Vermogensuerwaltungs, a German GmbH
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

118 U.S.C. § 152.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.96-20838

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRILBY DEAN MAY, also known as 

Denny May,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(96-CR-35-1)

May 29, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Trilby Dean May appeals the sentence imposed following her conviction for

concealing assets in contemplation of bankruptcy,1contending that the district court
2

erred in determining the amount of loss sustained by the bankruptcy trustee and, thus,

incorrectly calculated her offense level. May maintains that because the trustee reached

a settlement agreement with her, the trustee conceded that his actual loss was the

$25,000 for which the parties settled and not the $65,012 that the trustee originally

claimed as his loss. That the trustee agreed to settle for an amount less than that

originally claimed was not an admission that the lesser sum more accurately reflected

the actual loss. 

The record contains no evidence suggesting that $65,012 was not the amount of

actual loss sustained by the trustee. The district court did not commit reversible error

in using that amount for sentencing purposes. Furthermore, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in ordering May to pay restitution in the amount equal to the

difference between the actual loss and the amount the trustee received in the settlement

agreement. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,260,569
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          745,291
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            745,291
<EQUITIES>                                     166,092
<MORTGAGE>                                       5,525
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,441,131
<CASH>                                           9,190
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             314,472
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         475,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,281,648
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                341,813
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          1,596,467
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 607,690
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            8,817
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                147,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     99,160
<COMMON>                                        43,199
<OTHER-SE>                                     923,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,281,648
<PREMIUMS>                                     356,964
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             39,387
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               3,001
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  12,540
<BENEFITS>                                     116,264
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,676
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,006
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,006
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

    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 Boykin Lodging Company (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shereen P. Jones,
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Investment Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Shereen P. Jones
--------------------------------
Shereen P. Jones
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Investment Officer
March 15, 2005
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.3
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
  As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included or made a part of this
registration statement.
 
                                     /s/ Hege Kramer Connell Murphy &
                                     Goldkamp, P.C.
                                     Hege Kramer Connell Murphy & Goldkamp,
                                     P.C.
 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
   
December 9, 1998
**EXHIBIT31.3**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN**

 

I, James E. Hyman, certify that:

 

1.                   I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of Cornell Companies, Inc. (the “registrant”);

 

2.                   Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                   Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.

 

 
| Date: April 22, 2005 | /s/ James E. Hyman                 |   |
|----------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | James E. Hyman, Chief  Executive   |
|                 | Officer and Chairman of  the Board |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Richard A. Packer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ZOLL Medical Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficienciesand 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 20, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6954

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEE B. PHILLIPS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-93-331, CA-96-1347-HNM)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee B. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

To the extent that Appellant raises issues for the first time on

appeal, we decline to address the issues. See Muth v. United

States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Regarding Appellant's

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct that were raised in the district court, we have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Phillips, Nos. CR-93-331; CA-96-1347-HNM (D. Md. July 1,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00108-CV

MICHAEL MCCANN

v.

D. MONTOOTH, ET AL.

On Appeal from the

156th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-12-1228-CV-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. No costs are assessed as appellant 

filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 5, 2013
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .gov**
A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Search
Search

Search

-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Mission & Combat Support             
  -  Cybersecurity             
  -  Signals Intelligence             
  -  Central Security Service             
  -  Locations             
  -  Research             
  -  Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility             
  -  Cybersecurity Collaboration Center      -  Collaborative Partnerships             
    -  Enduring Security Framework             
    -  DIB Cybersecurity Services             
    -  Standards and Certifications             
    -  Artificial Intelligence Security Center 
-  Press Room    -  Press Releases & Statements             
  -  News & Highlights             
  -  Declassification & Transparency Initiatives             
  -  Cybersecurity Advisories & Guidance             
  -  Telework and Mobile Security Guidance             
  -  DoD Microelectronics Guidance             
  -  Research Publications 
-  Careers    -  Unique Pathways             
  -  Innovation 
-  History    -  National Cryptologic Museum             
  -  Cryptologic History             
  -  National Cryptologic Memorial 

# Year in Review

HomeCybersecurityYear in Review

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Document Date
                              - Title

NSA 2023 Cybersecurity Year in Review

NSA Cybersecurity Year in Review 2022

2021 NSA Cybersecurity Year in Review

NSA Cybersecurity 2020 Year In Review
#### Abram, Respondent, vs. Keierleber, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county dated July 28, 1927: E. T. Fairchild, Judge.

Building contract. Judgment for plaintiff owner, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Oscar Kroesing*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Carl H. Juergens*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-64,017-05

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER EUGENE WIMBERLEY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 54,705-E IN THE 27 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM BELL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Wimberly v. State, No. 03-03-00726-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 13, 2005)(not

designated for publication).

Applicant contends that he is actually innocent, basing his claim on the confession of another

person. We order that this application be filed and set for submission to determine whether: (1) the 
newly confessing party, Tones’, affidavit is consistent with his testimony at the habeas hearing and

any prior statements he has made regarding any of his convictions; (2) whether Tones’ confession

is consistent with the testimony from witnesses to the robbery who testified at Applicant’s original

trial; and (3) whether the original eyewitnesses descriptions of the robber match Applicant, Tones,

or both. The parties shall brief these issues. Oral argument is permitted.

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. Applicant’s brief shall be filed with this

Court within 30 days of the date of this order. The State’s response shall be filed within 30 days after

the filing of Applicant’s brief. 

Filed: May 25, 2016

Do not publish
NRO SATELLITE SUCCESSFULLY 

LAUNCHED ABOARD ATLAS V

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #01-10

Contact: (703) 808-5050 September 20, 2010

A National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) payload, aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V 

launch vehicle, was successfully launched from Space Launch Complex-3 on Vandenberg Air 

Force Base (VAFB), California, at 9:03 p.m. PDT, September 20, 2010. 

“Congratulations to the whole, hard working team! We stood at home plate and not only hit a 

home run, but hit it to the one special seat high up in center field, which made our mission 

successful,” said Col Alan Davis, Director of the NRO’s Office of Space Launch and NRO 

Mission Director. 

This is the first in a series of six launches that will take place during the 50th anniversary of the 

NRO. This mission is the first five-meter Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle mission to 

launch from VAFB; the third Atlas V mission, and the second NRO mission to launch from 

United Launch Alliance’s Space Launch Complex-3.

The NRO is a joint Department of Defense-Intelligence Community organization responsible for 

developing, launching, and operating America’s signals, imagery, and communications satellites

to meet the needs of our nation. 

-NRO-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         146,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,055,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                    63,096
<INVENTORY>                                    627,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,783,672
<PP&E>                                       6,254,274
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,921,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,116,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,715,890
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,674
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,907,901)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,116,374
<SALES>                                      3,140,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,140,765
<CGS>                                        1,373,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,440,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,662,404)<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             347,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,015,747
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,015,747
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,015,747
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES GAIN ON SALE OF ASSET.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>