alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kent *v.*Jefferson Mortgage Company *et al.*

Bell, Justice.

1. This was a suit to enjoin eviction of the plaintiff under a dispossessory warrant issued against him as a tenant holding over. It was agreed upon the trial that the only issue for determination was whether the relation- of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and the defendant company at the time the warrant was issued; it being contended by the plaintiff that the contract on which the relationship depended was procured by fraud and duress on the part of that defendant, which contended that the plaintiff had read and understood the terms of the contract, and that it was executed freely and volun*644tarily by him. On examination of the pleadings and the evidence, *held*that there were issues of fact which should have been submitted to the jury, and therefore that the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant, and in thereafter overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. *Georgia Cotton Growers Co-operative Association*v. *Smith,*163 *Ga.*761 (137 S. E. 233) ; *Smith*v. *Coker,*110 *Ga.*654 (2) (36 S. E. 107) ; *Whitt*v. *Blount,*124 *Ga.*671 (2) (53 S. E. 205). The ease differs in material respects from *Lewis*v. *Foy,*189 *Ga.*596 (6 S. E. 2d, 788), and *Lee*v. *Loveland,*43 *Ga. App.*5 (2) (157 S. E. 707).

No. 13263.

July 13, 1940.

2. The evidence did not demand a finding that any payments were made by the plaintiff after discovery of the alleged fraud; and hence the defendant was not entitled, as a matter of law, to a verdict on the theory of waiver or ratification. Contrast *Monk*v. *Holden,*186 *Ga.*549 (2) (198 S. E. 697).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices conewr, except Reid, C. J., and Buck-worth, J., who dissent.*

*648
      *Lowndes Calhoun,*for plaintiff.

*Lyman II. Hilliard*and *Scott Candler,*for defendants.
#### Robert HEARD, Appellant v. Donald J. TRUMP, Former President Elect, Appellee

No. 17-5060

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: July 21, 2017

Robert Heard, Gainsville, GA, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: Tatel and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 84(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 14, 2017 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed as moot appellant’s complaint seeking injunctive relief to stop appellee from assuming the Presidency. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 460 n.10, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (actual controversy must exist “at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed”); True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS, 831 F.3d 551, 558 (D.C. Cir. 2016). And, to the extent appellant might also have challenged the President’s continuation in office, he failed to satisfy the stringent standards for obtaining the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 MDU Communications International, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2007 (the “Report”),
      I, Sheldon Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
      (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/  SHELDON
                NELSONSheldon
                Nelson*Chief
                Executive Officer and**Chief
                Financial Officer*MDU
                Communications International, Inc.December
                21, 2007Totowa,
                New Jersey





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




1
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Aisha L. Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific Review Official, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (404) 639-6473,                         *AWilkes@cdc.gov.*      ( print page 10367)    

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2022-03871 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, James A. Schoeneck, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Depomed, Inc.; and

 

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.

 
| December 18, 2015 |   |                      |
|-------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|              |   |                      |
|              | By:    | /s/ James A. Schoeneck    |
|              |   | James A. Schoeneck        |
|              |   | Chief   Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Joseph Phillips, Respondent, *v.*Albert Speyers, Appellant.

(Argued February 27, 1872;

decided March 26, 1872.)

Action for conversion of $500 in gold. The judgment below was for the value of the gold in currency at time of demand. Held, that the verdict should have been in gold dollars, not currency, on authority of *Kellogg*v. *Sweeney*(46 N. Y., 291).

*William A. Beach*for the appellant.

*Samuel Hand*for the respondent.

*654Pegkham, J.,

reads for modifying judgment and mating it for $500, with interest from January 5, 1865, payable in gold, with costs in the court below, payable in currency, without costs to either party in this court.

All concur; Rapallo, J., of counsel, not voting.

Judgment accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004990
<NAME> N/A
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  177,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,532
<INVENTORY>                                     48,442
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,757
<PP&E>                                          75,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 647,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,263
<BONDS>                                        278,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           201
<OTHER-SE>                                     294,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   647,999
<SALES>                                        172,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,846
<CGS>                                          128,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   147
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,887
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,584
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
ex10-12.htm




Exhibit 10.12

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5
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 WPCS International Incorporated (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph
Heater, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and 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.





Date:  July
      29, 2008
            By:/s/ JOSEPH
      HEATERJoseph
      HeaterChief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Higgins, Chief Financial
Officer, Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
                  indicated.

Date: May 14, 2003

/s/ John L. Higgins
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Higgins
Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development
Chief Financial Officer
### Lewistown Municipal Airport From: Curtis Hershberger [curther@ttc-cmc.net] Sent: Friday, April12, 2013 9:24AM To: 

### Cc: Lewistown Municipal Airport 185heresh@gmail.com Subject: Fw: EAS service

United States ofAmerica Department ofTransportation Office ofSecretary Washington, D.C.

Docket DOS-OST-1997-2605

Order ofShow Cause Letter The low amount ofpassenger boarding's at the Lewistown Airport reflects the feelings ofthe population in the Central Montana Area. We have found the service offered to Lewistown, with flights to Billings on Silver Airways is sometimes impossible to use, with it beingvery difficultto bookflights on Silver on athrough flight. In the beginningthe airline did not even have a listed phone number, with many calls coming in to the airport managers office asking howto get a ticket. Anyone tryingto do an internet search forflights could not book through to Lewistown without their search going through Billings. Where most ofthe Lewistown and Miles City travel was out ofthe state and notto Billings, unlike many ofthe other EAS Airports. Manyflights were late or canceled, making for long layovers in Billings or missed connections. Silver Airways planes are not even equipped with proper GPS to utilizethe new instrument approaches into LWT in poor weather conditions. The current way that Essential Air Service is being offered is notworking, and is in Fact awaste ofTax Payer money. That does not diminish the fact that Lewistown and the surrounding communities NEED air service. Going back and looking at the boarding's, when we had dependable service to Denver, Lewistown was well within the EAS subsidy guide lines. I have had many conversations with people in our community about howto restore service to a hub like Denver. Some feel that without dependable air service to Lewistown itwill and has already affected real estate and business development and to lose this only connection to other states will definitely have an economic impact on this area. Iwould please ask the DOT to not enforce the removal of Lewistown from the EAS system at this time and to give us a chance to work with the air carrierthat is chosen to getthe service that will meet the needs ofthe Central Montana Airtraveler. I am also concerned about howstoppingflights to LWT and MLS will affectthe remainingfive airports and the whole EAS service to Montana. By keeping Essential Air Service to LWT and 

### 4112/2013 Page 1of2

### Page 2 of2 MLS we can worktogetherto find a way to increase passenger boarding's. That will be good for all seven communitiesthat are serviced by the EAS system. In summary, Lewistown has notfailed to use the Essential Air Service, it has just responded to an unusable product being offered to the community. We very much need a wayto move people in and out ofCentral Montana ifwantto see economic growth here. Respectfully Yours, Curtis Hershberger Central Montana EAS Representative Former LWT Airport Board Chairman 

### No virus found inthis message. Checkedby AVG

- www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 

### IVirus Database: 3162/6240- Release Date: 04112/13

4/12/2013
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick WIGLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1555

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 14, 2016

Filed: June 5, 2017

William W. Mickle, II, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Berry, Jr., Berry Law Firm, Lincoln, NE, for'Defendant-Appellant

Patrick Wigley, Pro Se

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Wigley and an associate robbed a credit union in Kearney, Nebraska. Wig-ley pleaded guilty to bank robbery pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court1 adopted the recommendation of a magistrate judge to accept the plea, and the court then- sentenced Wigley to 212 months’ imprisonment. Wigley appeals the sentence, arguing that the court should have departed or varied downward from the advisory guideline range.

*445The government contends that Wigley waived his right to appeal the sentence, and we agree. The plea agreement stated that Wigley “knowingly and expressly waives any and all rights to appeal [his] conviction and sentence, ... including review pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 of any sentence imposed,” except for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. At Wig-ley’s change-of-plea hearing, the magistrate judge reviewed the appeal waiver, and Wigley acknowledged that he was giving up his right to appeal the forthcoming sentence. Wigley also testified that his counsel explained the plea agreement to him and that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol when he signed it. He further averred that he had not been threatened to plead guilty and had not received any promises in exchange for his plea.

We will generally enforce a defendant’s waiver if “the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver” and “both the. waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily.” *United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The record described above shows that the government has established these prerequisites. Our cases say that we will not enforce a waiver that would result in a “miscarriage of justice,” such as an “illegal sentence.” *Andis,*333 F.3d at 891-92. But the illegal sentence exception to an appeal waiver is “extremely narrow” and does not apply to a sentence like Wigley’s that is within the statutory range. *Id.*at 892. We therefore conclude that Wigley waived his right to bring this appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Cheryl R, Zwart, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.
##### 



DEFERRAL AGREEMENT
  Annual deferred compensation credits:
    
    Up to $50,000Duration of deferral agreement:
    
    4 yearsFirst compensation credit:
    
    Up to $50,000 fully vested and credited effective 09/30/2004Second compensation credit:
    
    Up to $50,000 fully vested and credited effective 09/30/2005Third compensation credit:
    
    Up to $50,000 fully vested and
credited effective 09/30/2006Fourth compensation credit:
    
    Up to $50,000 fully vested and credited effective 09/30/2007Total credits over deferral period:
    
    Up to $200,000Expiration date:
    
    09/30/2007
       /s/
Ashok S. Bhatnagar
Participant
    
    
    
    9/17/04
Date/s/
W. Anthony Conkin forJohn E. Long, Jr.
Chief Officer
    
    
    
    9/28/04
Date
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. LEOPOLDO ARTEAGA-REYNA, a .k.a . Le opoldo Re yna Arte a ga , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10661

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-01290-R C C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Linda R . R e a de , Distric t Judge , Pre siding ** Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 18, 2014 *** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Le opoldo Arte a ga -R e yna a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s im position of a

41- m onth se nte nc e following his guilty ple a to re e ntry

a fte r de porta

tion, in viola

tion 

# F IL ED DEC 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Linda R . R e a de , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa tion. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Arte a ga -R e y

na c onte n ds tha

t the distric t

c ourt e rre d in a

pply ing a 16-le ve l e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) be c a use his prior c o nvic tion unde r C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode § 211 is not a c rim e of viole nc e . Arte a g a -R e yna ’ s argum e nt is fore c l ose d. S e eUnite d State

s v . Flore s-Me jia , 687 F.3d 1213, 1214- 16 (9th C ir. 2012), c e rt. de nie d , 133 S. C t. 958 (2013). Arte a ga -R e y

na a lso a lle g e s tha

t his 41-month se nte nc e is substa ntive l y unre a s ona

ble in light of his history

and c ha ra c te ristic s. W e re vie wthe substa ntive re a s ona ble ne s s of a

se nte n c e for a

buse of disc re tion. S

e eUnite d State

s v . Aute ry , 555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th C ir. 2009). The re is a n a buse of disc re tion whe n the distric t c o urt “ m ak e s a

n e rror of la

w , whe n it re sts its de c ision on c le a rly e rrone ous findings of fa c t , or whe n we are le ft with a de finite and firm c onvic t ion tha t the distric t c o urt c om

m itte d a c l e ar e rror of judgm e nt.” Unite d State s v . Re s sam , 679 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ) (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). W e find no a

buse of disc re tion in this c a se be c a use the 41-m onth se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing fa c t ors a n d the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s. Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRM E D.
1 3 - 1 0 6 6 1 2