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

*J. Michael Eakin, Assistant District Attorney,*for Commonwealth.

*LeRoy Smigel,*for defendant.

*152May 19, 1977

SHUGHART, P. *J.,*

Defendant filed an appeal ifom conviction of a violation of section 1002 of The Vehicle Code of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 P.S. §1002, charging the operation of a motor vehicle too fast for conditions. Following an appeal to this court, he filed a motion to quash on the ground that the citation delivered to defendant át the time of his arrest failed to specify the speed at which he was operating.

Counsel has cited a number of lower court cases which have held that the failure to specify the speed in an information charging a violation of section 1002(a) is fatal and the information must be quashed. Although not cited by either the Commonwealth or the defense, our own case of Commonwealth v. Hollinger, 7 Cumb. 205 (1957), stands for this same proposition. This case, however, as well as all of the cases cited by defendant, involve proceedings instituted by information under The Vehicle Code rather than the procedure now employed pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P. 52 et seq. As we pointed out in Commonwealth v. Woloson, 25 Cumb. 121, 122 (1974): “. . . Although a citation must include the specific section of the statute violated, it need only show a summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offense charged, notifying him of the pending prosecution and affording him a chance to defend himself. Commonwealth v. Yarnell, 57 D. & C. 2d 541, 544 (Lebanon Co., 1972); Commonwealth v. Colbert, 56 D. & C. 2d 419, 423 (Bucks Co., 1972); Pa. R. Crim. P. § 52(e). This lenient description of the offense is all that is necessary because the defendant must be served upon issuance of the citation, giving him immediate notification of the alleged infraction when he is *153best able to observe and recall facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. See Pa. R. Crim P. § 54(a). Thus, we conclude that the description of the offense on a citation is adequate so long as it advises the defendant of the nature of the charge.”

It is readily apparent that since defendant in a citation procedure must be handed a copy of the citation, he has an immediate and clear opportunity to clarify the nature of the charge. Under these circumstances, technical objections cannot be encouraged.

Since we indicated at the time of trial that we were satisfied of the guilt of defendant except for the validity of the motion to quash, we now find defendant guilty as charged.

ORDER OF COURT

And now, May 19, 1977, defendant is found guilty as charged and is directed to appear before the court on Tuesday, May 31, 1977, unless prior thereto he shall have caused the costs and fine to be paid to the proper county official.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth
below is being submitted in connection with this annual on Form 10-K (the report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a14(b) or Rule 15d14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Ray C.
Dillon, the Chief Executive Officer, and Clefton D. Vaughan, the Chief Financial Officer, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Deltic Timber Corporation.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Ray C. DillonRay C. Dillon Chief Executive Officer March 11, 2004




/s/ Clefton D. VaughanClefton D. Vaughan Chief Financial Officer March 11, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 9084]

The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy. The Committee serves in a solely advisory capacity concerning major issues and problems in international economic policy. The Committee provides information and advice on the effective integration of economic interests into overall foreign policy and on the Department of State's role in advancing U.S. economic and commercial interests in a competitive global economy. The Committee also appraises the role and limits of international economic institutions and advises on the formulation of U.S. economic policy and positions.

This Committee includes representatives of U.S. organizations and institutions having an interest in international economic policy, including representatives of U.S. business, state and local government, labor unions, public interest groups, and trade and professional associations.

For further information, please call Gregory Maggio, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 647-2231.

Dated: March 20, 2015.

Gregory F. Maggio.

Designated Federal Officer, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2015-07949 Filed 4-6-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE CODE 4710-07-P
#### Kolb’s Estate.

*Practice, O. C.*— One *proceeding involving two estates*— Removal *of executor and trustee.*

It is improper practice to file a petition in the Orphans’ Court for the removal of an executor and trustee, where it appears that the petition embraces within it a complaint concerning the management of two estates.

Petition for removal of executor and trustee. O. C. Schuylkill Co.

*R. J. Graeff,*for petitioners; *John McGurl,*for demurrer.

March 6, 1922.

Wilhelm, P. J.,

This is the petition of Julius Kolb and George Kolb, legatees under the last will and testament of Philip Kolb, Sr., for an order removing Otto Kolb as one of the executors of said will, and removing him as one of the trustees to whom was devised the interest of Philip Kolb, Jr., in the estate of Philip Kolb, Sr.

It so happens that said petitioners are two of the three executors appointed by said will of Philip Kolb, Sr., the other executor being Otto Kolb, and the interest of Philip Kolb, Jr., was bequeathed to said three executors in trust.

It will be noted, therefore, that the petition has embraced within it a complaint concerning the management of two estates. This is not good practice, because the complaint may be sustained by testimony as to one estate and not sustained as to the other, and it is improper to embrace in one and the same petition proceedings that are independent. It is important that pleadings should be intelligible, and the complaint in the demurrer that it is impossible to ascertion which estate is embraced within several paragraphs in the petition is well founded.

Therefore, it is unnecessary at this time to discuss the averments contained in the petition, and the demurrer should be sustained.

The demurrer is sustained and the petition is dismissed without prejudice.

From M. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00066-CV

MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF TEXAS, 

INC., MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, AND 

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,

Appellants

v.

WILLIAM PAUL CRISP, JR. AND J. NICOLE 

CRISP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES 

OF THE ESTATE OF LAUREN BAILEY CRISP 

AND DENISE WHITAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF 

DENTON JAMES WARD,

Appellees

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-003034-CV-361

ORDER

The parties’ “Joint Request for Extension of the Mediation Deadline” is granted. The 

time period for mediation to occur is extended through January 20, 2016. All other terms 

of the Order of Referral to Mediation issued on November 16, 2016 remain in effect 
McDonald's v. Crisp Page 2

through the date of extension.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Mediation extended

Order issued and filed December 7, 2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40034

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO ALBERTO CUEVAS-PENA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1266-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario Alberto 

Cuevas-Pena has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cuevas-Pena has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40034 Document: 00513783752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2016
No. 16-40034

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40034 Document: 00513783752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50113

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE ALEJANDRO ORTIZ-VALDES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-2329-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Alejandro Ortiz-Valdes, federal prisoner # 86843-380, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 70-

month sentence for possession of more than five kilograms of cocaine with 

intent to distribute. Ortiz-Valdes sought a modification of his sentence based 

on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50113 Document: 00513788636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
No. 16-50113

2

Ortiz-Valdes argues that the district court erred in refusing to reduce his 

sentence because it did not properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, 

gave excessive weight to his criminal history and relevant conduct, and did not 

adequately consider the other § 3553(a) factors or his mitigating arguments. 

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce 

a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 

(5th Cir. 2009).

The district court is not required to provide reasons for its denial of a 

§ 3582 motion or to explain its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and is 

“under no obligation to reduce” a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2). 

Evans, 587 F.3d at 673-74 (quote at 673). In the instant case, the record shows 

that the district court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c) motion as a 

whole, considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, and contemplated Ortiz-Valdes’s 

mitigating arguments, including his positive post-sentence rehabilitation 

efforts; thus, there is no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Henderson, 

636 F.3d 713, 718 (5th Cir. 2011); Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73; United States v. 

Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50113 Document: 00513788636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Planton Tzouvalis, hereby 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Acrongenomics Inc.
      (the Registrant) for the period ended March 31, 2010 (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 Registrant.                                                                                       

Date: May 17, 2010



| | */s/ Platon Tzouvalis*       
| | -----------------------------
| | Platon Tzouvalis             
| | President                    
| | (Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Acrongenomics
Inc. and will be retained by Acrongenomics Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
PROJCS["NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N",GEOGCS["GCS_North_American_1983",DATUM["D_North_American_1983",SPHEROID["GRS_1980",6378137.0,298.257222101]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",500000.0],PARAMETER["False_Northing",0.0],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",-81.0],PARAMETER["Scale_Factor",0.9996],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",0.0],UNIT["Meter",1.0]]
II 

Calendar No. 39 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 314 

[Report No. 117–11] 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2021 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

APRIL 14, 2021 

Reported by Mr. SCHATZ, without amendment 

A BILL 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

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 ‘‘Klamath Tribe Judg5 ment Fund Repeal Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 314 RS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

2 Public Law 89–224 (commonly known as the ‘‘Klam3 ath Tribe Judgment Fund Act’’) (79 Stat. 897) is re4 pealed. 

5 SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS. 

6 Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89–224 

7 (79 Stat. 897) (as in effect on the day before the date 

8 of enactment of this Act) relating to the distribution or 

9 use of funds, as soon as practicable after the date of enact10 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall dis11 burse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, 

12 on or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appro13 priated or deposited into the trust accounts for remaining 

14 legal fees and administration and per capita trust ac15 counts, as identified by the Secretary of the Interior, 

16 under that Act (as in effect on the day before the date 

17 of enactment of this Act). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 39 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 314 

[Report No. 117–11] 

A BILL 

To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act. 

APRIL 14, 2021 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.20.2


 


PROMISSORY NOTES COMBINED FOURTH EXTENSION
AGREEMENT


 


This Promissory Notes
Combined Fourth Extension Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “Fourth Extension Agreement”, entered into this Twenty
Fourth day of November, 2012, by and among GLOBALWISE INVESTMENT, INC. hereinafter called “Maker” and Ramon M. Shealy,
hereinafter called “Lender”.


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Lender have entered into a Promissory Notes dated March 29, 2012 for the amount of Two Hundred Thirty Eight thousand Dollars ($238,000)
and April 16, 2012 for the amount of Twelve thousand Dollars ($12,000). Both Notes were originally due ninety days from its issuance.
An extension of the $238,000 Note was executed on June 27, 2012 for an additional sixty days to August 27, 2012. An extension of
said Note was executed for the second time on August 27, 2012 for an additional sixty days to October 25, 2012. An extension of
said Note was executed for a third time on October 24, 2012 for an additional 30 days to November 24, 2012. An extension of the
$12,000 Note was executed on July 12, 2012 for an additional sixty days to September 13, 2012. An extension of said Note was executed
for the second time on August 27th, 2012 for an additional sixty days to November 12, 2012. An extension of said Note
was executed on November 11, 2012 for 13 days to November 24, 2012.


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Lender desire to enter into this Notes Combined Fourth Extension Agreement in order to extend the due date of both Notes to January
1, 2014.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, it
is dually agreed by both Maker and Lender to extend the due date of both said Notes to January 1st, 2014.


 


All other provisions
of the original Promissory Note shall prevail unless otherwise written.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned Maker and Lender has duly executed this Third Extension Agreement extending the due date of the Note as of the
day and year above first written.


 


	 	GLOBALWISE INVESTMENT, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	s/ William J. Santiago
	 	 
	 	RAMON M. SHEALY
	 	 
	 	By:	 s/ Ramon Shealy
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 5


TO


CINEDIGM CORP. 2017
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 5, dated as of October 11, 2021 (this “Amendment”), to the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan (as amended, the “Plan”)
of Cinedigm Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Corporation maintains the Plan, effective as of August 31, 2017; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of the Corporation deems it to be in the best interest of the Corporation and its stockholders to amend the Plan
in order to increase the maximum number of shares of the Corporation’s Class A Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, which may be issued
and sold under the Plan from 14,098,270 shares to 18,098,270 shares.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


1. The
first sentence of Section 4.1(a) shall be revised and amended to read as follows:


 


“The
maximum number of Shares available for issuance to Participants under this Plan, inclusive of Shares issued and Shares underlying outstanding
awards granted on or after the Effective Date, is 18,098,270 Shares, which includes 128,270 unused Shares carried over from the Existing
Incentive Plan.”


 


2. This
Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above.


 


3. In
all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed and remains in full force and effect.


 


	 	CINEDIGM CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Gary S. Loffredo
	 	Name:  	Gary S. Loffredo
	 	Title:	President, Chief Operating Officer, General Counsel and Secretary
[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: 2015-07873]


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

FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

[F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 04-15]


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open 
meetings as follows:
    Thursday, April 16, 2015: 10:00 a.m.--Oral hearing on Objection to 
Commission's Proposed Decision in Claim No. IRQ-I-012. 11:30 a.m.--
Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Libya.
    Status: Open
    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance 
notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: 
Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street 
NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.

Brian M. Simkin,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-07873 Filed 4-2-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
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 Quarterly Report of ASIA CORK INC. on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Yi Tong, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Report 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 result of operations of the Company.





November 30, 2009





By: /s/ Yi Tong______________________________

Yi Tong, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer