alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State, *ex rel.*R. C. Maudlin, alias Leroy Howard, and Freeda Valley v. Dan Hardie, Sheriff, Dade County.

154 So. 183.

Division B.

Opinion Filed March 27, 1934.

*Roach & Hoyl*and *W. M. Pope,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Roy Campbell,*Assistant, for Defendant in Error.

Buford, J.

— The writ of error in this case is to a judgment in habeas corpus proceedings remanding the petitioners lo the custody of the sheriff under capias issued on a judgment entered in the criminal court of record in a certain ■cause wherein the petitioners were convicted of being ac*375cessories before the fact of the crime of uttering a false, forged and counterfeited instrument in writing.

The record shows that the principal adjudged guilty on a plea of guilty of committing the forgery involved was adjudged guilty thereof on the day succeeding the day upon which judgment was entered against these petitioners, although she had pleaded guilty prior thereto.

In Killingsworth v. State, 90 Fla. 299, 105 Sou. 834, we held:

> “An accessory may be placed on trial with his principal and both may be found guilty by the jury, one as principal and the other as accessory, but before a judgment of conviction may be entered against the latter the judgment must be entered against the former. It is true that the conviction of the principals is an essential prerequisite, except in certain cases, to the punishment of the accessory. See Bowen v. State, 25 Fla. 645, 6 South Rep. 459; *Ex Parte*Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 South. Rep. 65; Daughtrey v. State, 46 Fla. 109, 35 South. Rep. 397.”

On authority of the case above cited, we hold that the judgment remanding the petitioners to the custody of the sheriff was a proper judgment so far as it went, but it should have gone further and remanded the petitioners to the custody of the sheriff to be by him safely kept until the next succeeding term of the criminal court of record and to have them then presented in that court to receive sentence according to law.

For the reasons stated, the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions that judgment be modified to comply with the suggestion above stated and, when so modified, shall stand affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.

*376Davis,. C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Bankshares Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dennis A. Starliper, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by
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 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Dennis A. StarliperDennis A. Starliper Chief Financial
Officer


May 10, 2006
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

# **Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter63**

**ofTitle 18 of the United States Code**

 

I, William M. Lasky,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Accuride Corporation,certify that to my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for said period fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of AccurideCorporation.

 
| /s/ WILLIAM M. LASKY                             |   | Dated: | November 16, 2009 |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------|
| William M. Lasky                                 |   |
| Chairman, President and  Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

 

I, James H. Woodward, Jr.,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Accuride Corporation,certify that to my knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for said period fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of AccurideCorporation.

 
| /s/ JAMES H. WOODWARD,  JR.                        |   | Dated: | November 16, 2009 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------|
| James H.  Woodward, Jr.                       |   |
| Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
|
|

|Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Potential                                                                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                
|Figure 1. Region within the Arctic Circle (North America is to the left and Eurasia is to the right.  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.
|Figure 1. Region within the Arctic Circle (North America is to the left and Eurasia is to the right.  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.
No. 11-11129.

#### Bowell *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.
No. 11-11040.

#### Greenough *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 23(A)

                     PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-49367, 33-50199, 33-51309, 333-02763 and 333-44991 of Public Service
Electric and Gas Company on Form S-3 of our report dated February 11, 2000,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Public Service Electric and Gas
Company for the year ended December 31, 1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
February 25, 2000
No. 12-5004.

#### Mendez *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022380EN.01001401.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/14

---

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Dz Hyp v SRB

(Case T-402/22)

(2022/C 380/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Hyp AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.

---
No. 11-10710.

#### Zhenghao Liu v. Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10854.

#### Jackson *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022451EN.01002501.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/25

---

Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-642/22)

(2022/C 451/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1355 of 4 August 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1354 of 4 August 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant. The applicant also seeks his costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted at face value, without any attempted verification whatsoever, unsubstantiated and largely historic assertions, allegations and even opinions from various media reports of questionable reliability. The Council presented these claims and accusations as fact, despite the many inaccuracies and inconsistencies identified by the applicant in his observations. The Council should have undertaken further investigation and conducted a proper examination of the sufficiency, credibility, and reliability of the material upon which it relied, but failed to do so. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2022 August Sanctions and they should accordingly be annulled.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 204 I, p. 4.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 204 I, p. 1.

---
EX-10.6




			
	 	  	Exhibit 10.6

 Arastra, Inc., 159 Cowper St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 

Kenneth Duda 
 [home address] 

October 17, 2004 
 Dear Ken, 

On behalf of Arastra, Inc. (“the Company”), I am pleased to offer you a full-time position as Vice President of Engineering, effective
November 1, 2004. The terms of this offer are as follows: 
 1. Salary: The Company will pay you a salary of $130,000 per year in accordance with the
Company’s standard payroll policies. 
 2. Benefits: During the term of your employment, you will be eligible to participate in all of the
Company’s standard vacation and other benefits covering employees. 
 3. Stock: Subject to a separate Stock Option Agreement and approval by the
Company’s board of directors, you will be granted a stock option to purchase 800,000 Shares of the Company’s Common Stock under the Company’s stock option plans. This stock option shall vest over four years with 25% of the shares
vesting upon the first anniversary of your employment and the remainder at the rate of 1/48th per month thereafter. 

Your employment with the Company is “at-will”. This means that it is not for any specified period of time and can be terminated either by you or by
the Company at any time, with or without advance notice, and for any or no particular reason or cause. It also means that your job duties, title, responsibilities, reporting level, compensation and benefits, as well as the Company’s personnel
policies and procedures, may be changed with or without notice at any time in the sole discretion of the Company. The “at-will” nature of your employment is one aspect of our employment relationship that will not change during your tenure
as an employee, except by way of written agreement expressly altering the at-will employment relationship and signed by you and by the Company’s President. 

This offer, and any employment pursuant to this offer, is conditioned on your ability to prove your ability to work in the United States of America, your
signed Employment, Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement, and your consent to reference and background checks. By signing and accepting this offer, you represent and warrant that you are not subject to any other legal
obligation that prevents you to be employed with or to provide services to the Company. 
 This letter and the Arastra Employee Proprietary Information and
Inventions Agreement set forth the terms of your employment with the Company and supersede any prior representations and agreements, whether written and oral. This letter may not be modified or amended, except by a written agreement, signed by both
you and the Company’s president. This agreement is governed by California law. If any provision of this agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Les Poltrack
	Les Poltrack
	President, Arastra, Inc.

  

									
	Accepted:	 	/s/ Kenneth Duda	 		 	Date:	 	11/1/2004
269 P.2d 881]

[L. A. No. 23082.

In Bank.

May 11, 1954.]

#### INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY (a Corporation), Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION and DOYLE WYATT, Respondents.

Leonard, Hanna & Brophy and Edmund D. Leonard for Petitioner.

Everett A. Corten, Gordon W. Winbigler and T. Groesinger for Respondents.

EDMONDS, J.

The question presented in this proceeding to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission is the same as that in *R. E. Spriggs, Inc.*v. *Industrial Acc. Com., ante,*p. 785 [269 P.2d 876].

Doyle Wyatt, a farm laborer in the employ of Norman Potter, doing business as Potter Nursery, sustained a compensable injury as a result of the assertedly negligent operation of an automobile by a third party. Wyatt settled his claim for damages against the third party for $1,000. Of that amount, $215.93 was paid to the employer’s insurer in satisfaction of a lien for previous compensation expenditures. Wyatt’s attorney received $357.50 for attorney’s fees. The Industrial Accident Commission deducted from the credit allowed the employer’s insurer the amount paid by Wyatt as an attorney’s fee, allowing only $426.57 plus a credit of $112.64 for prior disability payments.

For the reasons stated in the Spriggs case, that portion of the award crediting Industrial Indemnity Company with only $539.21 is annulled, with directions to the commission to increase the amount to $896.71; in all other respects, the award is affirmed.

Shenk, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., Spence, J., and Bray, J. pro tem.,* concurred.

*

 Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.

*880CARTER, J.

I dissent for the same reasons stated by me in *R. E. Spriggs, Inc.*v. *Industrial Acc. Com., ante,*p. 785 [269 P.2d 876], In addition, however, this case squarely presents the wholly unjust situation mentioned by me in my dissent in *Dodds*v. *Stellar,*30 Cal.2d 496 [183 P.2d 658]. I there said that as a result of denying the employee the right, to deduct counsel fees incurred in recovering from the tort feasor, the employee might well receive less than the workmen’s compensation payable to him. That result is reached here despite the legislative amendments designed to alleviate the injustice. Here the compensation amounted to $896.71. The employee received $1,000 in settlement from the tort feasor. He had to pay his attorney $357.50 leaving a balance of $642.50, thus receiving less than the compensation to which he was entitled.
#### IN RE: DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Debtor. William F. Holdner, Appellant, v. Amy E. Mitchell, Appellee.

No. 17-35319

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 23, 2018

William F. Holdner, Pro Se

Justin Daniel Leonard, Esquire, Attorney, Leonard Law Group LLC, Portland, OR, Timothy Andrew Solomon, Esquire, Attorney, Sussman Shank LLP, Portland, OR, for Appellee

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order confirming debt- or Data Systems, Inc.’s (“DSI”) chapter 11 plan of reorganization. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and review a bankruptcy court’s decision independently, without deference to the district court’s decision. *In re JTS Corp.,*617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact. *Id.*We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by confirming DSI’s plan of reorganization because Holdner failed to establish any basis to deny confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1129. *See Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall),*721 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).

To the extent Holdner contends that the bankruptcy court erred by approving the second amended disclosure statement, we reject such contention as without merit.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FROM THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         92,897
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         1,904,190
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,291,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        2,677,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (566,505)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,291,541
<SALES>                                        361,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               361,317
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,616)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET; THEREFORE, THE VALUE IS
$0.
<F2>THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE PARTNERSHIP'S FORM 10-Q
FILING.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.01



     March 18, 2002




     We represent that this audit was subject to our quality control system for
     the U. S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance
     that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
     standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen
     personnel working on the audit, availability of national office
     consultation, and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
     Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.

     ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

     s/John L. Giannuzzi
     John L. Giannuzzi
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,206
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,042)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.008)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.008)
        

</TABLE>