alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jack PARKS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23046.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1966.

*782Ernest May, Shirley W. Maclin, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.

Robert S. Travis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Melvin M. Diggs, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before BROWN, COLEMAN, and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of causing the interstate transportation of falsely made and forged American Express money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and of conspiring to commit that offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Asa part of the chain of evidence that the money order forms had been taken from the rightful custodians and thereafter completed by forgery the Government was allowed, in considerable detail, to show that possession passed to unauthorized persons by means of burglary and robbery. The burglars and robbers were not identified; it was not claimed that Parks was one of them. We are of the opinion that the proof went only so far as to leave no doubt that by these means the money order forms did fall into the hands of those who had no authority to complete them. For this purpose it was competent. Since there was no intimation that appellant was an actual participant in the robberies or burglaries we are not presented with prejudicial proof of other offenses'for which the defendant was not on trial.

An element of hearsay was allowed to creep into the proof concerning the identification of appellant’s voice in a certain telephone conversation. Counsel for appellant resisted admission on other than hearsay grounds. We do not consider this to fall within the plain error classification, nor could it be held prejudicial in the light of convincing proof aliunde the hearsay item.

Appellant likewise complains of the order of proof, specifically that statements of co-conspirators made in furtherance of the conspiracy were admitted in advance of positive proof of Parks’ acts, statements, and conduct establishing his participation therein. We perceive no abuse of discretion in this regard, United States v. Sansone, 2 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 887, cert. den. 351 U.S. 987, 76 S.Ct. 1055, 100 L.Ed. 1500; United States v. Copeland, 4 Cir., 1961, 295 F.2d 635, cert. den. 368 U.S. 955, 82 S.Ct. 398, 7 L.Ed.2d 388.

The jury was fully and adequately charged. We cannot agree that there was reversible error in this particular.

Affirmed.
#### SAISELU *&*ILI'ILI, Plaintiffs v. TAE of Vaitogi, Defendant

No. 1-1923

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” name: “Faleafine”]

March 21, 1929

JAMES M. FOXALL, LUTU and PELE, *Judges*

To try the right of Tae of Vaitogi to register “Matai” Name “Faleafine”

JUDGMENT

The above case came on to be heard before the High Court, with Judges Foxall, Lutu and Pele sitting, at Leone, Tutuila, American Samoa at 10:00 A.M. of March 21, 1929.

The court inquired as to whether or not the parties to *417the controversy had been able to reach an agreement as to who should hold the “Matai” Name “Faleafine.”

Ufuti, representing Tae, and Pagofia, representing Saiselu, both requested the Court to dismiss the case without decision.

It is therefore adjudged and decreed that the within case, to determine the right of Tae of Vaitogi to register the “Matai” Name “Faleafine” be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
#### Emmanuel C. GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NEW LIFE VENTURES, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant

2016-2622

2017-1092

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 21, 2017

Michael Scott Fuller, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Aso represented by Paul Donsy Lein.

Nicholas A. Brown, Greenberg Traurig LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-cross appellant.

*512(Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 86.
#### Eric FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. MOORE; M. Roesler; Jesus Peralta, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-20587

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 26, 2017

Erie Flores, Pro Se

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eric Flores, Texas prisoner # 2051801, moves for authorization to proceed *in for-ma pauperis*(“IFP”) following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Because Flores has raised only fanciful allegations, including claims that he has already been executed and that the defendants have utilized deadly technology to torture him and his parents, he has failed to show that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or that his appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue. *See Banos v. O’Guin,*144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); *Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied.

The facts surrounding the IFP request are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Flores is WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions. *218Flores is DIRECTED to review all pending matters and to move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the forty weeks ended January 2, 2001
included in this report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2001
<CASH>                                           35600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   264300
<ALLOWANCES>                                      5000
<INVENTORY>                                      93300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                478300
<PP&E>                                         1651500
<DEPRECIATION>                                  772700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2277200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           362900
<BONDS>                                         688000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                      642400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2277200
<SALES>                                        1984900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1984900
<CGS>                                          1082600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1082600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  9900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               59100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  16400
<INCOME-TAX>                                      9000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6800
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only:  As presented, data is rounded to the
nearest $100 except for per share data.  Per share data is not stated in
thousands.
</FN>


</TABLE>
ex10_2.htm














BONDS.COM GROUP, INC.







FIRST AMENDMENT TO 2011 EQUITY PLAN







Dated May 10, 2012







In accordance with Section 16(a) of the 2011 Equity Plan (the “Plan”) of Bonds.com Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the Company amends the Plan as set forth below.







1. Amendment to Section 3(a) the Plan. The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to increase the number of shares available for issuance pursuant to the Plan by deleting the number “72,850,000” and replacing it with the number “125,000,000”.







2. Amendment to Section 3(b) the Plan. The first sentence of Section 3(b) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the number “72,850,000” and replacing it with the number “125,000,000”.







3. No Other Amendments.  Except as specifically set forth in this First Amendment to the Plan, no other changes or amendments are made to the Plan.







4. Effective Date; Shareholder Approval. This First Amendment to the Plan is effective on the date set forth above.







* * * * *




 




	Adopted by the Board of Directors on May 10, 2012	  	
BONDS.COM GROUP, INC.,


	  	  	                                a Delaware corporation
	 	 	 
	  	  	
By:

	
/s/John Ryan


	  	  	
Name:

	John Ryan
	  	  	
Title:

	Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Kevin McCarthy is the President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o (d)) and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement
be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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



|                 |  |                                                               
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|November 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Kevin McCarthy                                            
|Dated            |  | Kevin McCarthy President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director
AMENDMENTS TO THE INDUS GROUP, INC.
                             1992 STOCK OPTION PLAN


Section 11.1 of the 1992 Stock Option Plan is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

         11.1 Option Term. Any Option issued under this Plan shall terminate and
may no longer be exercised upon the first to occur of: (i) the tenth anniversary
date of the Date of Grant;  (ii) thirty days after the cessation or  termination
of the Optionee's  employment  with the Company for any reason other than death;
(iii) the dissolution of the Company; or (iv) the consummation of an Acquisition
or  Reorganization,  where  there is no  provision  in the  transaction  for the
continuance  of the  Plan  and  for the  assumption  of the  Option,  or for the
substitution of new options  covering the securities of a successor  corporation
or a parent or subsidiary thereof.

In addition,  the 1992 Stock Option Plan is amended to add the following Section
11.3:

         11.3 Death of Optionee.  In the event of the death of an Optionee,  the
Option may be exercised at any time within 90 days  following  the date of death
(but in no event later than the  expiration of the term of such Option),  by the
Optionee's  estate or by a person who  acquired the right to exercise the Option
by bequest or inheritance, but only to the extent that the Optionee was entitled
to exercise the Option at the date of death.
**EXHIBIT31.01**

**RULE13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Benjamin Weston,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund L.P.;

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

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

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 14, 2006                  |                 |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                   |                 |
| By                                     | /s/ BENJAMIN  WESTON |   |
| Benjamin Weston                        |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |
|                                        |                      |  |  |  |

 

----
#### PEOPLE *v.*ROCHA.

1. Criminal Law — Appointment of Counsel — Indigency.

• Trial judge’s denial of assigned counsel to criminal defendant is proper only if reeord discloses that defendant was financially able to provide counsel and the importance of circumstances in each case makes it impracticable for Court of Appeals to establish guide lines for such a decision (GCR 1963, 785.3[1]).

2. Same — Appointment op Counsel — Indigency.

Refusal of trial judge, when asked, to appoint counsel for defendant charged with felonious assault *held,*improper where record failed to demonstrate defendant’s financial ability to retain counsel (CL 1948, § 750.82).

References for Points in Headnotes

[1, 2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 318 *et scq.*

Appeal from Lenawee, Martin (Rex B.), J.

Submitted Division 2 October 8, 1968, at Lansing

(Docket No. 4,549.)

Decided October 21, 1968.

Librado Rocha was convicted of felonious assault. Defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

*F‘¥ank'"j. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengosld,*Solicitor General, and *Harvey A. Koselka,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Hammond, Baker $ Kralick,*for defendant on appeal.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was tried by a jury on a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon, CL *5971948, §750.82 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.277), and lie was convicted. Defendant represented himself at trial because the trial judge denied a request for appointed counsel. On appeal, defendant questions the propriety of this denial. It is only proper if the record discloses that defendant was financially able to provide counsel. GrCR 1963, 785.3(1).

"We are unable to' say on this ré'córd that defendant was financially able to hire his own attorney. In spite of the commendable efforts'of the trial judge and the prosecuting attorney to assuré defendant a fair trial, the record before us demonstrates this did not occur. ' :■

The problem presented by this appeal has been, is and will be one of the most recurrent and troublesome that the trial bench must face. Any attempt by this Court to furnish guide lines in this area would create more problems than it would solve. Each case is a separate problem, and adequate review is only possible on an adequate record. Trial of a criminal defendant without counsel always entails risk.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Vander Wal, JJ., concurred.
**SPAR        Group, Inc.**

 

EXHIBIT        32.1

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In        connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March        31, 2008 (this “report”), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the “registrant”),        the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.         The report fully        complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of        1934, as amended, and

2.         The information        contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition        and results of operations of the registrant.

 

|   | /s/ Gary S. RaymondGary S. RaymondPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2008 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

Ex-3
# Официален вестник C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0855
  doi:10.3000/19770855.CA2014.011.bul |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 11A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 5715 януари 2014 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

doi:10.3000/19770855.CA2014.011.bul

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 11A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 5715 януари 2014 г.

---

| Известие No | Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Поправки |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Поправка на Обявата за свободно работно място за изпълнителен директор на Европейската железопътна агенция (ERA) със седалище във Франция (срочно нает служител — степен AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (ОВ C 6 A, 10.1.2014 г.) | 1 |

Известие No

Съдържание

Страница

Поправки

2014/C 011A/01

Поправка на Обявата за свободно работно място за изпълнителен директор на Европейската железопътна агенция (ERA) със седалище във Франция (срочно нает служител — степен AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (ОВ C 6 A, 10.1.2014 г.)

(ОВ C 6 A, 10.1.2014 г.)

1

ПРЕГЛЕД НА БРОЕВЕТЕ НА ОВ СЕРИЯ С А КОНКУРСИ

По-долу е даден списък на броевете от серия С А, публикувани през настоящата година.

Освен ако не е посочено друго, броевете на ОВ са публикувани във всички езикови версии.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

Поправки

| 15.1.2014 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 11/1

---

Поправка на Обявата за свободно работно място за изпълнителен директор на Европейската железопътна агенция (ERA) със седалище във Франция

(срочно нает служител — степен AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  Официален вестник на Европейския съюз C 6 А от 10 януари 2014 г.
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

На страница 4 в раздела „Процедура за кандидатстване“ уебадресът в третия параграф да се чете, както следва:

„https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/“.

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 63 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish certain family 

separation as an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Ms. JACKSON LEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish 

certain family separation as an exceptional and extremely 

unusual hardship, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Grant Relief for Amer5 ican Children’s Elevation Act of 2023’’ or the ‘‘GRACE 

6 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 63 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTREMELY UNUSUAL HARD2 SHIP. 

3 Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 

4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘(7) EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTREMELY UNUSUAL

7 HARDSHIP DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term 

8 ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ shall 

9 include hardship resulting from separating a family 

10 member who is a United States citizen, a lawful per11 manent resident or an individual lawfully admitted 

12 to the United States and a family member who is 

13 subject to deportation or removal from the United 

14 States.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Eugene R. Durkee et al., Respondents, *v.*Elizabeth R. Bowne, Appellant.

(Argued April 26, 1872;

decided May 3, 1872.)

*James Emoti*for the appellant.

*Samuel Hand*for the respondents.

Agree to affirm. No opinion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.