alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN DANTZLER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 352 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Clark v. Reardon.

*Taxation of costs-*— Jury *fee*— WitTiesses’ *fees*— Service *of subpmna.*

1. A plaintiff may have his costs taxed on obtaining a verdict, before he has paid the jury fee-and had judgment entered, but costs can only be collected after the case is finally disposed of.

2. Witness fees are properly charged for witnesses who were notified not to appear but failed to receive the notices, and for witnesses who were present but not called, and for serving a subpoena where the case was afterwards continued.

Appeal from taxation of costs. C. P. Lancaster Co., Feb. T., 1920, No. 16.

*John A. Coyle, B. F. Davis*and *K. L. Shirk,*for defendant and appeal.

*Charles W. Eaby,*contra.

July 2, 1921.

HassleR, J.,

This is an appeal from taxation of costs. Both parties were present before the prothonotary when the costs were taxed. It is contended that the taxation of costs was premature, in that the jury fee was not paid, and, therefore, no final judgment was entered in the case. We do not agree with this. The parties were entitled to have their costs taxed after the verdict, but can only collect them after the case is finally disposed of.

No proof is offered to show that the finding of the prothonotary in regard to the witness costs was erroneous. It is contended that the witnesses at one of the terms, when it is claimed the case was continued before that week, were notified, but did not receive the notices and attended court. Under these circumstances, of course, the costs would follow the verdict. The same is true of the service of the subpoena. It was the duty of the plaintiff to subpoena such witnesses as she thought she needed at the trial, and if, before the time of trial, she discovered that some of them were not needed, we think the defendant should not complain that the witnesses were excused, as this saved the additional expense which would have been incurred by their attendance at court. It is also objected that three witnesses were subpoenaed to court, but not heard. At the trial, it is possible that the plaintiff found that she did not need these witnesses. In the absence of proof that they were not proper witnesses or that there was some abuse in having them attend court, we cannot refuse to allow the plaintiff their fees.

The appeal is dismissed and the finding of the prothonotary confirmed.

From George Ross Eshleman, Lancaster, Pa.
AFS-15-806-E March 20, 2015

Exemption No. 7897G Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12728

Mr. Douglas Carr

Vice President National Business Aviation Association, Inc. 1200 G Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Carr:

This letter is to inform you that we have extended Exemption No. 7897, as amended, for 12 months. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 10, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of the National Business Aviation Asso ciation, Inc. (NBAA) for an extension of Exemption No. 7897. That exemption from §§ 91.409(e) and 91.501(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows NBAA to operate small civil airplanes and helicopters of United States registry under the operational rules of §§ 91.503 through 91.535 and to select an inspection program as described in § 91.409(f).

You also requested the FAA remove condition number 6 so the exemption would be valid for operations outside of the United States. In accordance with § 11.83, the FAA must verify that the exemption would be in compliance with the Standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

The FAA has determined that good cause exis ts for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested amendment of the exem ption would not set a precedent.
#### Lower Providence Township v. Moyer’s Landfill, Inc.

*Frederic Wentz,*for township.

*Steven H. Lupin,*for defendant.

August 31, 1978

TREDINNICK, J.,

Defendant operates a sanitary landfill in Lower Providence *498Township. It was charged with violating an ordinance regulating such operations in that it permitted dumping at the landfill between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on a certain date. On conviction before a district justice, an appeal was perfected to this court. We find defendant not guilty. However, since defendant asserted a number of defenses, including that of unconstitutionality of the ordinance, we will briefly state the basis for this determination.

The ordinance which defendant is alleged to have violated is ordinance no. 84. However, the conduct which constitutes the supposed violation is proscribed not by the ordinance, but by section 14 of a *resolution*adopted by the board of supervisors, purportedly under authority of the ordinance.

Townships are given specific power to “regulate or prohibit” dumping: The Second Class Township Code of May 1, 1933, P.L. 103, art. VII, sec. 702, as amended, 53 P.S. §65708. That power is exercisable through the adoption of *ordinances,*not resolutions. This is particularly so in the case of legislation which is penal in nature, as this is.

Therefore, since the regulation involved is not properly part of an ordinance, it is invalid, and defendant cannot be charged with its violation.

This determination makes it unnecessary to pass upon the constitutionality of the ordinance in any particular and we specifically make no determination of that issue.

ORDER

And now, August 31, 1978, defendant is found not guilty.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                           <C>           <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS         6-MOS         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997   DEC-31-1997   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997   JAN-01-1997   JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1997   JUN-30-1997   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                        1,687         8,126         9,885
<SECURITIES>                  0             0             0
<RECEIVABLES>                 20,197        31,405        35,567
<ALLOWANCES>                  2,187         3,309         3,551
<INVENTORY>                   5,380         8,133         8,241
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              27,173        48,717        54,870
<PP&E>                        254,474       395,842       402,677
<DEPRECIATION>                117,778       197,173       202,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                171,476       267,901       276,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         27,172        41,346        46,469
<BONDS>                       0             0             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0             0             0
<PREFERRED>                   0             0             0
<COMMON>                      181           181           181
<OTHER-SE>                    95,401        98,468        104,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  171,476       267,901       276,233
<SALES>                       5,105         11,940        21,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              31,156        68,844        124,684
<CGS>                         2,729         6,642         11,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 15,829        36,438        63,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0             0             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              43            109           368
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            956           2,249         4,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>               5,173         9,389         20,531
<INCOME-TAX>                  1,655         3,005         6,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           3,518         6,384         13,961
<DISCONTINUED>                0             0             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0             0             0
<CHANGES>                     0             0             0
<NET-INCOME>                  3,518         6,384         13,961
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .19           .35           .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .18           .33           .72
        


</TABLE>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1158 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 018 - AD NPRM Revision response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued ? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21E0008. ALEXUS NICOLE STEWART v. QUINCY BOOKER.

Alexus Nicole Stewart has filed an “Emergency Motion for Supersedeas and

Other Relief Pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 40 (b).” This Court has authority to

issue emergency orders under Rule 40 (b) “as may be necessary to preserve

jurisdiction of an appeal or to prevent the contested issue from becoming moot.” As

stated in the rule, this Courtshall exercise this power “sparingly.” Because Stewart’s

motion fails to meet the aforementioned criteria, her 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.

August 27, 2020

08/27/2020
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David L. Osborn, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Hudson's Grill International, 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.	I am 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 to ensure that material information
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 procedures as
of the end of the periods presented in this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)	presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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.

|Date:	August 15, 2005 | /s/David L. Osborn

[Signature]

President
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------

f\sec\o01.050815
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-2085

Filed October 24, 2018

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ERIC McINTOSH JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Joel D. Yates, 

Judge.

Eric McIntosh Jr. challenges his conviction for delivery of 

methamphetamine. AFFIRMED.

Eric D. Tindal of Keegan & Farnsworth, Iowa City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson and Tyler J. Buller, 

Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

BOWER, Judge.

On November 15, 2017, Eric McIntosh Jr. was convicted by a jury of a class 

“B” felony, delivery of methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa Code sections 

124.401(1)(b)(7) (2017) and 124.413. McIntosh’s sole claim on appeal is his trial 

counsel was ineffective for not asserting an affirmative defense of sentencing 

entrapment.

Sentencing entrapment is a federal defense where a defendant who would 

otherwise have commited a lesser offense is entrapped into delivering a higher 

quantity of drugs, resulting in an increased sentence. See United States v. Booker, 

639 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2011). McIntosh concedes Iowa courts have not 

recognized sentencing entrapment as a valid affirmative defense and that counsel 

cannot be held ineffective for not raising an issue not available under Iowa law. 

See State v. Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526, 532 (Iowa 2000); State v. Phillips, No. 99-

444, 2000 WL 328074, at *1–2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2000). We agree, and 

counsel therefore did not breach a duty by not asserting sentencing entrapment as 

an affirmative defense. 

Even if sentencing entrapment were recognized by Iowa courts, it would fail

in McIntosh’s case. McIntosh offered to sell law enforcement four ounces of 

methampthetamine, approximately 112 grams, and law enforcement then 

requested five ounces, approximately 140 grams. McIntosh delivered 

approximately 125 grams of “ice” methamphetamine to law enforcement in a 

controlled buy. The quantities of four ounces and five ounces both fall within the

class “B” felony for delivery of methamphetamine under Iowa law and carry the 
3

same sentence.1 The quantity increase requested by law enforcement had no 

effect on McIntosh’s offense or sentence.

We hold McIntosh’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by not 

asserting sentencing entrapment as an affirmative defense.

AFFIRMED.

 

1

 The class “B” felony quantity range for methamphetamine is five grams to five kilograms. 

Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(b)(7).
John Bujan                                                         EXHIBIT 10.10
VP, General Counsel and Secretary
ONTRACK Data International, Inc.
9023 Columbine Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347

Re:      Amendment to employment letter of February 28, 1996

Dear John:

I am writing to express Ontrack's agreement on your employment situation
following the termination of the merger between ONTRACK and Legato.

1.       You will continue to hold the executive officer positions of Vice
         President, General Counsel and Secretary.
2.       You will have a new base salary effective 2/1/00 of $166,002 per year.
3.       Your severance package is confirmed at one year post-termination salary
         continuation and benefits at your base salary level just prior to
         termination.
4.       In addition to your present severance benefits, any decrease in salary,
         or change in reporting responsibility or duties or title without your
         consent due to a change in control of Ontrack will be the equivalent of
         a "termination" entitling you to the severance set forth in number 3
         above (excluding gross misconduct, criminal behavior in work-related
         areas, or violation of your non-competition and confidentiality
         obligations under written agreement.
5.       Your options under the '95 Option Plan will be deemed amended to
         conform to the "change in control" accelerated vesting provisions of
         your other options under the '96 Stock Incentive Plan. Your option
         agreements under any plan will be modified if necessary to state that
         in the event of change in control of the Company, all options become
         100% vested. The exercise period in the event of a change in control
         will be one of the following:
         a)       If you elect to stay with the new company in a new position,
                  the exercise period will coincide with the normal expiration
                  of each individual option grant.
         b)       If you leave the Company as part of the severance arrangement
                  in item 4 above, you will have a period of 3 years from the
                  last date of employment to exercise your stock options.
6.       You will be offered 30,000 additional Ontrack options effective the
         date of this letter after market close.

All other terms and conditions to remain the same.

Sincerely,

Mike Rogers
CEO and Chairman

Agreed:   /s/ John Bujan
          ------------------------
          John Bujan
          February 2, 2000
2000-KA-00606-SCT
EXHIBIT
10.6


 


NSU
RESOURCES INC


 


MINUTES
of a Meeting of the Board of Directors of NSU Resources Inc., (the “Company”) held via Teleconference, on the
21th of April 2013 at 19:00 Standard Eastern Time with Dr Williams in Montreal, Canada and Dr Duchesne in Toronto Canada.


 


Present:
Dr Robert Williams, Dr. Luc C Duchesne, via teleconference. Constituting a quorum of the members of the Board of Directors.


 


The
Directors waived notice of the Meeting: The Meeting was called to discuss the sale of NSU’s rare earth elements extraction
technology for 10,000,000 common shares of Great Rock Development Corporation which will bear a Rule 144 restricted legend for
2 years, plus one dollar and 8% smelter royalties “The Transaction.”


 


BE
IT RESOLVED THAT NSU approves the transaction with Great Rock Development Corporation


 


There
being no further business to discuss, the meeting was terminated.






	Date:  April 29, 2013	NSU Resources
	 	By	/s/ Luc C Duchesne Abstains from voting
	 	 	Name: Luc C. Duchesne
Title: Director




 


 






	Date:  April 29, 2013	Great Rock Development Corporation
	 	By	/s/ Robert Williams 
	 	 	Name: Robert Williams
Title: Director
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07759]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary


All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers United 
States City Average

    Pursuant to Section 112 of the 1976 amendments to the Federal 
Election Campaign Act (Pub. L. 94-283), 2 U.S.C. 441a(c)(1)-(2), the 
Secretary of Labor has certified to the Chairman of the Federal 
Election Commission and publishes this notice in the Federal Register 
that the United States City Average All Items Consumer Price Index for 
All Urban Consumers (1967=100) increased 380.1 percent from its 1974 
annual average of 147.7 to its 2014 annual average of 709.156 and that 
it increased 33.7 percent from its 2001 annual average of 530.4 to its 
2014 annual average of 709.156 Using 1974 as a base (1974=100), I 
certify that the United States City Average All Items Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers increased 380.1 percent from its 1974 
annual average of 100 to its 2014 annual average of 480.133. Using 2001 
as a base (2001=100), I certify that the United States City Average All 
Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers increased 33.7 
percent from its 2001 annual average of 100 to its 2014 annual average 
of 133.702. Using 2006 as a base (2006=100), I certify that the CPI 
increased 17.4 percent from its 2006 annual average of 100 to its 2014 
annual average of 117.429.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on the 25th day of March 2015.
Thomas E. Perez,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2015-07759 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
**Exhibit 23.3**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-16115,No. 333-16117, No. 333-16121, No. 333-44000, No. 333-76631, No. 333-93227, and No. 333-68054 onForm S-8 and in Registration Statements No. 333-85313, No. 333-58202, and No. 333-75146 on Form S-3 ofour report dated March 31, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements of InteliDataTechnologies Corporation and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph raising substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continueas a going concern and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the restatement of the 2003 and2002 consolidated financial statements) and of our report on internal control over financialreporting dated May 2, 2005 (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting due to the existence of material weaknesses) appearing inthe Annual Report on Form 10-K as amended of InteliData Technologies Corporation for the year endedDecember 31, 2004.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
McLean, Virginia