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

*New trial*— Improper *remarks of counsel*— Practice, *Q. S.*

In the trial of a criminal action, counsel for the Commonwealth, in his address to the jury, said: “On one side of this ease all of the parties are Americans, and on the other side of this case all of the parties are Italians.” The court at once stopped the argument and instructed counsel for the Commonwealth and the jury that such argument was not permissible. The court also instructed the jury that there should be no favor or prejudice on one side or on the other because of the nationality of the parties or witnesses, and that they should not be influenced by such argument: *Held,*on motion for new trial, that the rights of defendants were properly guarded. Motion overruled.

Motion for a new trial. Q. S. Dauphin Co., June Sess., 1921, Nos. 98 and 99.

*W. Justin Carter,*for motion; *Maurice R. Metzger,*contra.

Jan. 25, 1922.

Fox, J.,

In the above stated cases, one motion in both cases was made by the defendants for a new trial.

With respect to the first four reasons therefor, there was sufficient evidence produced by the Commonwealth to justify the jury in finding the defendants guilty in manner and form as they stood indicted, and the verdict was not against the charge of the court.

With respect to the fifth and sixth reasons, that the counsel on behalf of the Commonwealth, in his argument, said to the jury, “on one side of this case, all of the parties are Americans, and on the other side of this ease, all of the parties are Italians,” the court at once stopped the argument, and instructed counsel for the Commonwealth and the jury that such argument was not permissible, and put a stop to it, and carefully instructed the jury that there should be no favor or prejudice on one side or on the other because cf the nationality or birthplace of any of the parties or witnesses, and that the jury should not be influenced by any such argument, statement or thought.

We think this was properly and completely cared for by the court, and that the jury was uninfluenced by the remark. The remark was improper and should not have been made, but we think the reprimand and charge of the court completely eliminated from the jurors’ minds any favor or prejudice which may have been created by the remark.

The motion is, therefore, overruled, and the district attorney is directed to call the defendants for sentence.

From George K. Barnett, Harrisburg, Pa.
NO. SCWC-11-0000054

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

 

ASSOCIATION OF CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS OF TROPICS AT WAIKELE,

by its Board of Directors, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

PATSY NAOMI SAKUMA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

and

FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK, a Hawaiʻi Corporation; and

WAIKELE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a Hawaiʻi nonprofit corporation,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. CAAP-11-0000054; CIV. NO. 07-1-1487)

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ. and

Circuit Judge Perkins, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

Petitioner/defendant-appellant Patsy Naomi Sakuma's

application for writ of certiorari, filed on November 4, 2011,

was filed more than ninety days after the filing of the ICA’s

August 3, 2011 dismissal order. The application is untimely. 

See HRS § 602-59(c) (Supp. 2010) ("An application for writ of

certiorari may be filed with the supreme court no later than

ninety days after the filing of the judgment or dismissal order

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-11-0000054

22-NOV-2011

09:51 AM
of the intermediate appellate court."). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for writ of

certiorari is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 22, 2011.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard K. Perkins

2
EX-10.5





 Exhibit 10.5 

SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT 

TO:    The Directors of OPY Acquisition Corp. I (the “Company”). 

The undersigned hereby subscribes for 2,875,000 shares of common stock (the “Shares”) of the Company. In consideration for the issue of the Shares,
the undersigned hereby agrees and undertakes to pay $25,000 to the Company. 
 We agree to take the Shares subject to the Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws of the Company and we authorize you to enter the following name and address in the stockholders ledger of the Company: 
  

							
	                        	  	 Name:
 Address:
	  	 OPY ACQUISITION I LLC
 c/o
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc
 85 Broad Street, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10004
	  	

 OPY ACQUISITION I LLC] 

Signed:     /s/ Robert S. Lowenthal 

Name: Robert S. Lowenthal 
 Title: President 

Dated:    August 20, 2020 
 Accepted: 

OPY ACQUISITION CORP. I 
 Signed:    /s/
Dennis P. McNamara  
 Name: Dennis P. McNamara 
 Title:
Senior Vice President and Secretary 
 Dated:    August 20, 2020
October December 9, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12­140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition to amend Exemption No. 12645, Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014­0804

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform

Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Allied Drones, developer and operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft

Systems (“sUAS”) equipped to conduct aerial infrastructure inspections and surveys for the

bridge, tower, and building construction and maintenance industries hereby petitions to amend

Exemption No. 12645​by adding several additional sUAS platforms to the Exemption.

As described in detail below, the requested amendments would include several sUAS

types as well as a wider range of operations beyond those listed in its original Grant of

Exemption.

The name and address of the Applicant is:

Allied Drones

Attn: Joshua Kornoff

Ph:714­473­2911

Email:josh@allieddrones.com

Address: 3480 W. Warner Avenue, Unit A, Santa Ana, California 92704

The requested additional sUAS are not substantially different than those than have been

previously granted in other Commercial UAV 333 exemption applications.

The UAVs Allied Drones would like to add to its exemption are:

DJI Phantom 3 Pro

DJI Inspire 1

DJI Matrice M100

3DR Aero

Align M480L

Sensefly eBee

Allied Drones 3480 W. Warner Avenue, Unit A, Santa Ana, California 92704 714­473­2911 info@allieddrones.com
In additonal to the listed vehicles, Allied Drones would like to request that any

“new/updated” models produced by these manufacturers also be part of our Grant of Exemption

in the future if they are substantially the same. For example, if DJI were to produce a “Phantom

4” or an “Inspire 2” that are essentially progressive updates to the same vehicle type, we would

like to be able to operate that vehicle without having to submit another Petition to Amend. Allied

Drones would update operations manuals and vehicle registrations for these new models in

accordance with the Conditions and Limitations already set forth in its 333 exemption including

serialization and registration.

Allied Drones would also like to amend its range of operations​to include:

­Aerial infrastructure inspections and surveys for the bridge, tower, and building

construction and maintenance industries

­Aerial services for the utilities markets, emergency services, conservation and

humanitarian services, real estate, marketing, agriculture and all other legal civilian purposes.

Allied Drones has submitted the following operations and maintenance manuals info

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014­0804 for the various vehicles it would like to add to its

exemption including:

­AeroM Operation Manual v1

­AT44 Combined Manual

­Manual eBee v16

­Inspire 1 Combined Manuals

­M100 Combined Manuals

­Phantom 3 Pro Combined Manuals

Sincerely,

Joshua J. Kornoff

President, Allied Drones

Allied Drones 3480 W. Warner Avenue, Unit A, Santa Ana, California 92704 714­473­2911 info@allieddrones.com
#### Cunningham v. Cunningham.

*Divorce*— Jurisdiction—Residence *of libellant.*

In a divorce case, it is the residence of the libellant at the time the libel Is filed that determines the forum of the action.

In Divorce. C. P. Fayette Co., March T., 1920, No. 421.

*John Duggan, Jr.,*for libellant.

April 16, 1921.

Van Swearingen, P. J.,

We are of opinion that a decree of divorce in this case must be refused because this court is without jurisdiction to grant it. The libellant is the wife, who alleges that her husband deserted her while the parties were living together at Masontown, in this county, and it is shown by the testimony taken before the master that, following the alleged desertion, the libellant left Masontown and went back to the home of her parents at Greensboro, which is in Greene County, where she resided for a little more than two years before filing her libel in this county.

By section 2 of the Act of March 13, 1815, 6 Sm. Laws, 286, it is provided that a libel for divorce must be presented to the judges of the Court of Common Pleas of the county wherein the libellant resides. In her testimony before the master the libellant said: “I am living in Uniontown at present.” Uniontown is the county seat of this county. But in her libel she alleged the place of her residence to be Greensboro, in Greene County; and her mother, when on the witness-stand at the hearing before the master, when asked where the libellant and her husband were living then, replied: “They are not living together; she is at Greensboro with me, and I believe he is at Mason-town.” And when asked where her daughter had resided and made her home since her husband deserted her, she answered: “Greensboro, Greene County, Pa.,” saying further, “she is working in a confectionery and post-office at Greensboro at present.”

It is not to be doubted, under the evidence, that the residence of the libellant still was at Greensboro at the time of the hearing before the master; but that is of no special importance. Her own allegation in her libel is that she was a resident of Greensboro, Greene County, at the time her libel was filed in this county. Therefore, the filing of her libel here gave us no jurisdiction of the case. The libel should have been filed in Greene County. It is the residence of the libellant at the time the libel is filed that determines the forum of the action. The Act of April 26, 1905, P. L. 309, does not reach this case: Eicher *v.*Eicher, 25 Dist. R. 972.

And now, April 16, 1921, for the reasons stated in the opinion herewith filed, a decree of divorce is refused and the libel is dismissed.

From Luke H. Frasher, Uniontown, Fa.
Corn for Grain 2022

Yield Per Harvested Acre by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Bushels Per Acre

Not Estimated

< 90

90 - 119.9

120 - 149.9

150 - 174.9

175 - 209.9

210 +
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3103 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the statute of limitations 

for the filing of a civil claim for any person who, while a minor, was 

a victim of a violation of section 1589, 1590, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 

2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of such 

title. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2021 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. CORNYN, 

and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate the 

statute of limitations for the filing of a civil claim for 

any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 1589, 1590, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 

2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 

of such title. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminating Limits 

5 to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3103 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

2 Section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(b) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—There shall be no 

6 time limit for the filing of any action commenced under 

7 this section.’’. 

8 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY. 

9 This Act and the amendments made by this Act 

10 shall— 

11 (1) take effect on date of enactment of this Act; 

12 and 

13 (2) apply to— 

14 (A) any claim or action that, as of the date 

15 described in paragraph (1), would not have 

16 been barred under section 2255(b) of title 18, 

17 United States Code, as it read the day before 

18 the date of enactment of this Act; and 

19 (B) any claim or action arising after the 

20 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2016091EN.01000301.xml

| 8.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 March 2016

(2016/C 91/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0953 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4605 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77438 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3309 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0962 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3583 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,056 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,63 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3279 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4623 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2014 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4776 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4652 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5081 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6221 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5138 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 318,99 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8358 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1381 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5783 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 337,48 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4720 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,383 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 78,7226 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,785 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1228 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,5274 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,4825 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0953

JPY

Japanese yen

124,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4605

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77438

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3309

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0962

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3583

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,056

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,63

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3279

RON

Romanian leu

4,4623

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2014

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4776

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4652

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5081

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6221

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5138

KRW

South Korean won

1 318,99

ZAR

South African rand

16,8358

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1381

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5783

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 337,48

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4720

PHP

Philippine peso

51,383

RUB

Russian rouble

78,7226

THB

Thai baht

38,785

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1228

MXN

Mexican peso

19,5274

INR

Indian rupee

73,4825

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-56519), the
Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-91573), the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-82103), and the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-91601), the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 333-85979) and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-18411), all
of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2000
appearing on page 32 of this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

                           /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 29, 2000
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0020. TERNASENA L. STACKHOUSE v. ANDREW CHAPMAN.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT’S motion FOR SUPERSEDEAS in

the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 02, 2016

12/02/2016
Exhibit 31.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, C.W. Gilluly, Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
2004 of Comtex News Network, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact 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 included in 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 officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining 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 material information relating to the registrant, 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 procedures and 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 over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant'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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

        (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

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


February 14, 2005
                                    /s/ C.W. Gilluly
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                    Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130911 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130911 COA: 261993 Muskegon CC: 03-049495-FC 03-049062-FH JAMES A. SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 29, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY
, J., would remand to the Court of App eals for reconsideration in light of Halbert v Michigan , 545 US 605; 125 S Ct 2582 ; 162 L Ed 2d 552 (2005).

s0920 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 27, 2006

Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

72 

KA 09-02646 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DESMOND BONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Teresa D.

Johnson, A.J.), rendered November 5, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of resisting arrest. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30), defendant

contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his

request for an adjournment in order to submit a written motion to

withdraw his plea. We note that the request for an adjournment

occurred after defendant waived his right to appeal and, even

assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was

invalid, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in

denying defendant’s request (see People v Degree, 270 AD2d 847, 847). 

Entered: February 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07033]



[[Page 16386]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than April 13, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Ronald Young Schram, Palm Beach, Florida, and Frank Jay Hessel, 
Coral Gables, Florida, both to retain voting shares of Flagler Bank, 
West Palm Beach, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 24, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-07033 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P