alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SAMANA of Leone, Plaintiff v. UO of Leone, Defendant

No. 1-1922

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division

June 16, 1925

S. B. SMITH, *President of the High Court;*LUTU, *Associate Member;*and LEAANA, *Associate Member*

JUDGMENT

It is the unanimous decision of all three Judges that, according to the testimony in this case, the grandfather of Uo probably owned this land originally but the Uo Family turned it over to Fiu, the husband of Peka, and it was through her that Fiu had the possession of and the authority over the land. However, Fiu allowed the Samana *371Family to have possession and allowed them to cultivate the land for at least three generations and this is the first time that Uo has brought the matter to the attention of the High Court.

In other words, the Uo Family, through the grandfather of the present Uo, may have owned the land but through three generations, at least thirty-five years, the Samana Family have had the use and possession of the land with the full knowledge of the Uo Family and therefore, the Court decides that not only the use but the ownership of the land as well is in the present Samana.

The costs of two days in Court in the High Court are Fifty ($50.00) Dollars. That Fifty ($50.00) Dollars will be paid by Uo, the losing party, within sixty days from today.

Given under our hands and the seal of the High Court of American Samoa this sixteenth day of June, A.D., 1925.
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-10938

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

versus

JAIME RAMOS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

(4:92-CR-155-Y)

______________________________________________

September 8, 1997

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Having reviewed the briefs and the pertinent parts of the

record, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-94,427-01

══════════

EX PARTE RENO PRESTON ROBERTS,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cause No. CR15-135A in the 235th District Court

From Cooke County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SLAUGHTER, J., 

joined.

Applicant pled guilty in 2015 to indecency with a child by contact

and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Applicant did not 

appeal his conviction. In November of 2022, Applicant filed an 

application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. In his application, he alleges that his trial 
ROBERTS – 2

counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Applicant’s competency

before Applicant pled guilty. 

Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to 

further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write 

separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and 

its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua 

sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, ___ S.W.3d ___, 

No. WR-89,851-02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) 

(Yeary, J., concurring).

The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this 

one. Applicant pled guilty in 2015, but he did not file this writ 

application until seven years later.1 The record is also silent regarding 

circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some 

explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent 

with this Court’s precedent, the trial court “may sua sponte consider and 

determine whether laches should bar relief.” Smith, 444 S.W.3d at 667.

If the trial court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to 

explain the reasons for the delay and give the State’s prosecutors and/or 

former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether 

Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend 

against Applicant’s claims. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial court 

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the 

diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of 

the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years 

after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 132 S.W.3d 434, 437–39 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)). 
ROBERTS – 3

may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the 

doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order.

With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED: January 25, 2023

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael HASAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3824

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed May 23, 2017

Ranya Elzein, Carmen Evette Henderson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Thomas E. Conway, Law Offices, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellant

BEFORE: CLAY, GIBBONS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

*313PER CURIAM.

The issue presented by this case is whether Michael Hasan’s aggravated-robbery conviction pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.01(A)(1) qualifies as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (“ACCA”) use-of-force clause. On April 3, 2017, we definitively answered that question. In *United States v. Patterson,*853 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2017), a unanimous panel of this court held that a conviction under § 2911.01(A)(1) is categorically a violent felony pursuant to the ACCA’s use-of-force clause because the Ohio statute requires proof of the use, attempted use, or threated use of physical force against another person. That resolves this matter. Accordingly, because his Ohio aggravated-robbery conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense, we affirm the district court’s determination that Hasan is an armed career criminal.
---

---

Exhibit 8.1

Subsidiaries of
AudioCodes Ltd.

AudioCodes Inc.

AudioCodes National Inc.

AudioCodes USA Inc.

AudioCodes California Inc.

AudioCodes San Diego Inc.

AudioCodes Texas Inc.

AudioCodes UK Ltd.

Nuera Communications
Singapore Pte Ltd.

AudioCodes Singapore Pte
Ltd

AudioCodes Europe Ltd.

AudioCodes Brasil
Equipamentos de Voz sobre IP Ltda

AudioCodes Korea Co. Ltd.

AudioCodes Germany GmbH

AudioCodes Argentina SA

AudioCodes India Private
Ltd.

AudioCodes Russ Ltd.

AudioCodes France SAS

AudioCodes Japan K.K.

CTI Squared Ltd.

CTI Squared Inc.



---

---
#### Allison *vs.*Taylor.

November 10,

Error to the Jefferson County Court.

*Writ of Error. Jld quod damnum. Mills. Judgments, final and interlocutory.*Jurisdiction.-

Moxioft, Case 2.

Statement.

Writ of error lies to only final decisions. An ordof of the county court quashing the inquisition ad quod damnum, in a mill case is not such a final decision.

The applicant afteisuch an order may sue another writ, and so on till the leave is granted orap - plication rejected ; when, an'd not before, the cas® may be revis ■ *ed*here-

*Thrustonior*plaintiff; *Guthrie*for defendant,

Chief Justice Boyle

delivered the Opinion of the Court.-

This is a writ of error to an order of the county court of Jefferson county, quashing an inquisition, taken in virtue of a *pluries*writ of *ad quod damnum*issued at the instance of the plaintiff in error, on his application for leave to erect a water grist mill.

It is unnecessary to enquire into the sufficiency of the grounds upon which the county court quashed the inquisition, in as much as we are of opinion that a writ of error does not lie to such an order.

A writ of error lies to only a final judgment or order; and the order quashing the inquisition is evidently not final; it does not dispose of the application for leave to build the mill, and no order which is taken in the progress of the controversy, which does not dispose of the application, by either granting or refusing leave to build the mill, can be' final.

The inquisition is only the means appointed by the law to enable the court to ascertain and determine whether the leave to erect the mill ought to be granted or refused, and although the inquisition may be quashed, the applicant is at liberty still to proceed by issuing another *pluries*writ of *ad quod*damnum, and in virtue thereof cause another inquisition to be taken, and thus prepare the case for the final adjudication of the county court.

Until that is done this court can exercise no cognizance over the case. The writ of error must therefore be quashed.
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-3/June/P-13-0259/p130259.eng.txt[7/2/2013 9:31:47 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0259

Focus Ready Draft 2/25/2013

ENGINEER: Avcin \ REC

PV (kg/yr): 

 
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-3/June/P-13-0259/p130259.eng.txt[7/2/2013 9:31:47 AM]

SAT (concerns) (02/15/2013):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox: Analogs:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T1 .

Health: 1-2 Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 4.00 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0-1

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-3/June/P-13-0259/p130259.eng.txt[7/2/2013 9:31:47 AM]

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0259
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-3/June/P-13-0259/p130259.eng.txt[7/2/2013 9:31:47 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0259
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-3/June/P-13-0259/p130259.eng.txt[7/2/2013 9:31:47 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0259
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-3/June/P-13-0259/p130259.eng.txt[7/2/2013 9:31:47 AM]
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

The numerators and denominators of basic and fully diluted earnings per share are as follows:

                                                                                Period from
                                                                                  Inception
                                      Year Ended          Year Ended    (March 18, 1999) to
                                December 31,2001    December 31,2000      December 31, 1999
                                ----------------    ----------------    -------------------
     <S>                               <C>                 <C>                   <C>
Net loss allocable
  to common
  (numerator)                     $(23,450,980)        $(18,037,480)          $(16,084,535)
                                  =============        =============          =============
Shares used in the
  calculation
  (denominator)
     Weighted average
          shares outstanding               100                  100                    100
       Effect of diluted
          stock options                     --                   --                     --
       Fully diluted shares                100                  100                    100

Basic net loss per share            $ (234,510)          $ (180,375)            $ (160,845)
                                    ===========          ===========            ===========
Fully diluted net loss
     per share                      $ (234,510)          $ (180,375)            $ (160,845)
                                    ===========          ===========            ===========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 31(a)



CERTIFICATION



I, John D. Bair, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Data
Systems, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation;



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report); and



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



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial data; 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: November 14, 2005
|                       
|/s/    JOHN D. BAIR    
|Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                              OF GASCO ENERGY, INC.
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


I, Mark Erickson,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of Gasco Energy,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  hereby certify that the accompanying  report on Form 10K/A for
the period ending  December 31, 2001 and filed with the  Securities and Exchange
Commission  on the date  hereof  pursuant  to  Section  13(a) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 (the  "Report")  by the Company  fully  complies  with the
requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material aspects,  the financial  operations and results of operations of
the Company.




                                     /s/ Mark Erickson
                                    Name:  Mark Erickson
                                    Date:    August 2, 2002
EXHIBIT 21.1

                       Pivotal Corporation - Subsidiaries
                       ----------------------------------

Name of Subsidiary                                         Jurisdiction of
                                                           incorporation
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
Pivotal Corporation                                        Washington
Pivotal Corporation Limited                                U.K.
Pivotal Corporation France S.A. (formerly Transitif S.A.)  France
Exactium Ltd.                                              Israel
 (formerly Arad Systems Ltd.)
Exactium, Inc.                                             Delaware
590813 British Columbia Ltd.                               British Columbia
590822 British Columbia Ltd.                               British Columbia
Pivotal Corporation Ireland                                Ireland
Pivotal Technologies Corporation Limited                   Ireland
Pivotal Corporation (N.I.) Limited                         Northern Ireland
Pivotal GmbH                                               Germany
Pivotal Corporation Australia Pty. Ltd.                    Australia
Nihon Pivotal K.K.                                         Japan
Project One Business Technologies Inc.                     British Columbia
1254590 Ontario Limited (formerly Inform Inc.)]            Ontario
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brian SWARTZ Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4525

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 18, 2017

Filed: July 20, 2017

Lisa C. Williams, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Michael Kevin Lahammer, Lahammer Law Firm, PC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant

Brian Swartz, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[Unpublished]

Brian Swartz pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court -1 determined that his advisory guidelines range was 188 to 235 months in prison, granted the government’s motion for a substantial assistance reduction, and sentenced Swartz to 144 months. He appeals the sentence, and his counsel has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying a mitigating-role reduction, and abused its discretion in denying a downward variance.

After careful review of the record, including Swartz’s admissions of substantial involvément in the conspiracy in the plea agreement, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying a mitigating-role reduction, and did not abuse its discretion in declining a further downward departure or variance. We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5


<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                               11,652,505
<SECURITIES>                            540,234
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,198,199
<ALLOWANCES>                             43,906
<INVENTORY>                              18,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     13,740,981
<PP&E>                                  992,272
<DEPRECIATION>                         (197,053)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       20,210,785
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 4,230,620
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 22,205
<OTHER-SE>                           15,957,960
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         20,210,785
<SALES>                              27,220,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     27,220,240
<CGS>                                17,031,019
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         5,629,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (5,464,629)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       22,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      10,002,287
<INCOME-TAX>                          3,784,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   6,218,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                          6,218,177
<EPS-BASIC>                                0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.24



</TABLE>
#### GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. FANENE, a Samoan, Respondent

No. 52-1902

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Faleseu” in Fagatogo]

December 15, 1902

U. SEBREE, Captain, U.S. Navy, *President of the High Court*

Under the ordinance to regulate the acquisition of land by the Government of the United States for Public Uses.

JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE having been commenced at the instance of the Government of the United States against the above-*76named Respondent, Fanene, for the object of obtaining the lands (the property of the above-named Respondent) hereinafter described, for public uses, for the United States Government, under and by virtue of Ordinance No. 20-1900, being the Ordinance to regulate the acquisition of land by the Government for Public Purposes, and under the provisions contained in said Ordinance, due and proper notice having been given to the said Respondent through the Registrar of Titles, and the Registrar of Titles, by his report to this Court bearing date the 6th day of May, 1901, having informed the Court that the tender of the Respondent herein amounting to Five Hundred Dollars ($500) had been accepted by the Petitioner Government, and recommended that the Government be declared the proprietor of the said lands at and for the said consideration, to be paid by the said Government, IT IS NOW, HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows; to wit:—

> 1. That the Government of the United States of America be, and the same is hereby declared Proprietor of ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND CALLED OR KNOWN AS “FALESEU”, situate in Fagatogo, in the United States Naval Station, Tutuila, bounded towards the north by land called “Fanuatanu”, belonging to the said Government, towards the east by land “Seeti”, also property of the said Government; towards the south by land of the said Fanene, called “Gautavai” and land “Faleulu”, property of the said Government, and towards the west by lands of the said Government, called “Faletoi”, from E. Ripley, and “Lotomua” or the “Malae” of Fagatogo, from T. Meredith, as all the said boundaries are more particularly described and delineated in the plat now on file in the office of the Registrar of Titles for the United States Naval Station, Tutuila.

> -2. That the said Government shall pay, in consideration .of all claims and demands of the said Respondent to said *77land, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) together with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent (8%) per annum from the 7th day of March, 1901 to the 10th day of December, 1902, amounting to $70.33, and shall also pay costs of Attorney, Arbitration, Registrar’s and High Court costs, amounting to $70.50, said sums' amounting to a total of $640.83.

The Registrar of Titles is hereby directed to issue a Certificate of Title to said lands in favor of said Government, according to said Order and Judgment.

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the Court on this 15th day of December, 1902 A.D.