alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SIOUX CITY AND ST. PAUL RAILROAD COMPANY *v.*UNITED STATES.

PETITION FOR REHEARING.

Received December 17, 1895.

Decided January 13, 1896.

The court adheres to its opinion and decision in this case, 159 U. S. 349, and corrects an error in statement in it, which does not, in any degree, affect the conclusions which were there reached..

The case is stated in the opinion,

*Mr. J. H. Swan*and *Mr. George B. Young*for petitioners.

Mr. Jhstioe Harlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

In the opinion of this court, 159 U. S. 349, 367, it was said: “ Upon examination of the certified list of lands, *based on the*
      *687
      *diagram originally furnished by the railroad company to the Secretary of the Interior*and transmitted by the General Land Office to the local land office on the' 26th of August, 1867, it is found that the actual area of the odd-numbered sections within the place limits of the Sioux City road, *excluding*odd-numbered sections within the conflicting place limits of the two roads, contained only 247,476.85 acres; and the actual area within the conflicting place limits of the two roads, *according to the same diagram,*was 70,705.29 acres.” This was not strictly correct. The diagram referred to was prepared in the Department of the Interior, but it was based on the original survey made and furnished by the railroad company. Other sentences in the same connection are subject to the like criticism. But this inaccuracy of statement does not affect in any degree the grounds upon which the court readied the conclusion that the diagram of 1867 should not control, and that the measurement and diagram of 1887 should be taken as the basis for determining the area of the odd-numbered sections within place limits.

None of the other matters mentioned in the petition for a rehearing require special notice. The views therein presented were fully considered''by the court before the original opinion was filed. The point now pressed by counsel as to errors in the matter of addition is immaterial, even if it be well taken ; for whatever the excess in the quantity of land received by the railroad company, the result, in the present case, will be the same as stated in the opinion, namely, that the railroad company is not entitled to any of the lands *here in dispute,*whatever may be the aggregate quantity of acres.

The application for rehearing is

*Denied.*
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RAM ON RUAN O- SAND OV AL, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 71698 A ge nc yN o. A 035- 792- 393 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R am on R uano -S ando val , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rs um m a r i l ya f f i rm i ng a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s r e m ova lor de r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de 

# FI LED FEB 28 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS05- 71698 2 n o v o q u e s tio n s o f

la w , Cast i l lo-Cruz v . H older , 58 1 F . 3d 11 54 , 11 58 -59 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he agency properl y det erm i ned thatR uano -S ando val i s r em ov abl e a s an a lie n c o n v ic te do f

ac r im e o f

d o m e s tic v io le n c e u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( E ) ( i) b a s e do n h is 1 9 9 7 c o n v ic tio n f o rv io la tin g C a lif

o rn iaP e n a l C o d e § 2 7 3 .5 ( a ) . See B an uelos-Ayon v. H

older , 6 1 1 F .3 d1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ; see a l so C isner os-P er ezv. G on zales , 4 6 5 F . 3 d3 8 6 , 3 9 0 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (p etty o ffen se e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t ap p lyto c r im e s o f d o m e s tic v io le n c e ) . B e c aus e R uano- S a ndova l ’ s 1986 c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on of

m a r i j ua naf or sa l e i n v i ol at i on of C al i forni a H ea l th & S af ety C od e § 11 35 9 con st i tut es an a g g r a v a te df

e lo n ya s d e f

in e din 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) , se e R endo n v. Mukasey , 520 F . 3d 967, 975- 76 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , the a ge nc ydi d note rri n c onc l udi ng tha the w a s s t a tut or i l yi ne l i gi bl e f oraw a i ve rof

i na dm i s s i bi l i tyunde rs e c t i on 212( h) of the I m m ig r a tio n a n dN a tio n a lityA c t. See B ec ke r v . G on zales , 473 F . 3d 1000, 1004 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; A lvarez-B araj as v. G on zales , 41 8 F . 3d 10 50 , 10 54 -55 (9th C i r. 20 05 )A s th e s e tw o c o n v ic tio n s r e n d e rR u a n o - S a n d o v a l r e m o v ab le a n din e lig ib le f o rr e lie f , w e d o n o t r e a c h h is r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Exhibit 32.1


                             AMERICAN SKIING COMPANY

                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Skiing Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
J. Fair, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.

Date: June 14, 2006

                                       By:  /s/ William J. Fair
                                       ----------------------------
                                       William J. Fair
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                                 GENE LOGIC INC.
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED          SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                         JUNE 30,                   JUNE 30,
                                                   --------------------       --------------------
                                                     1998         1997          1998         1997
                                                   -------      -------       -------      -------
<S>                                                <C>          <C>           <C>          <C>     
 BASIC AND DILUTED:
 Weighted average common shares outstanding .       14,219          638        14,060          638
 Net Loss ...................................      $(1,458)     $(1,484)      $(3,568)     $(2,815)
 Accretion of mandatory redeemable value of
    convertible preferred stock .............           --          182            --          368
                                                   -------      -------       -------      -------
 Net loss attributable to common stockholders      $(1,458)     $(1,666)      $(3,568)     $(3,183)
                                                   =======      =======       =======      =======
 Net loss per common share ..................      $ (0.10)     $ (2.61)      $ (0.25)     $ (4.99)
                                                   =======      =======       =======      =======
 PRO FORMA:

Weighted average common shares outstanding ..                       638                        638
Dilutive common stock equivalents:
  Convertible securities, using the
     if-converted method ....................                     4,837                      4,837
                                                                -------                    -------
Common and common  equivalent  shares used in
  the calculation of net loss per share .....                     5,475                      5,475
                                                                -------                    -------
Net loss ....................................                   $(1,484)                   $(2,815)
                                                                =======                    =======
Net loss per  common  and  common  equivalent
   share ....................................                   $ (0.27)                   $ (0.51)
                                                                =======                    =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-57664 and 333-120169) of Third Wave Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the 1995 Incentive StockOption Plan, 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1997 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, 1998 IncentiveStock Option Plan, 1999 Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1999 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, 2000Stock Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and in the related prospectuses of our reportdated March 4, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ThirdWave Technologies, Inc., as of December 31, 2004 and for theyears ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2005.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John K. Penver, Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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), 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



/s/ John K. PenverJohn K. PenverVice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryJuly 27, 2007
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID W. PRICE, )

a/k/a DAVID WAYNE PRICE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-570

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed January 18, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Charlotte County; George C. Richards, 

Judge. 

David W. Price, pro se. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondents, v Herbert Ochs, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Charde, J.), rendered June 20, 1985, convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s ruling that the prosecutor could cross-examine the defendant about a 1976 robbery conviction was not an abuse of discretion. The act of robbery is probative on the issue of credibility *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371; *People v Smalls,*128 AD2d 907).

Further, we find no merit in the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s conduct and the trial court’s rulings in response to that conduct deprived him of a fair trial. The court’s *284instructions to the jury were sufficient to eliminate any possible prejudice to the defendant.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence upon the defendant as a second felony offender. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00596-CR

Harvey Granado, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0996464, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury found appellant Harvey Granado guilty of possessing less than one gram of

heroin. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West Supp. 2001). The jury assessed

punishment, enhanced by previous felony convictions, at imprisonment for ten years and a $7000 fine.

See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.41(a)(2) (West Supp. 2001).

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements ofAnders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by advancing a contention that might arguably support the appeal. See also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516

S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);
2

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After examining the record, appellant

also filed a pro se brief.

In his pro se brief, appellant contends his rights were violated when the State was

permitted to amend the indictment on the day trial began. The indictment returned by the grand jury

alleged that appellant possessed one gram or more but less than four grams of heroin. Immediately

before jury selection began, the State announced that it was going to proceed on the lesser included

offense of possession of less than one gram. Such an alteration of the charging instrument is not an

amendment to which articles 28.10 and 28.11, cited by appellant, apply. Eastep v. State, 941 S.W.2d

130, 134-35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 28.10, .11 (West 1989).

Appellant’s first pro se issue is without merit.

Appellant’s second contention is that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

object to the amendment of the indictment, and that his attorney on appeal was ineffective for failing

to raise the amendment issue and the ineffective assistance issue. As we have explained, however,

the State’s abandonment of the greater offense was not an objectionable amendment. No

ineffectiveness of counsel, at trial or on appeal, is shown. We also note that trial counsel had no

reason to object to the State’s decision, since it was entirely to appellant’s benefit. Had appellant

been tried and convicted for the original offense, he would have faced a minimum term of

imprisonment of twenty-five years and a maximum term of life. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(d)

(West Supp. 2001).
3

Having reviewed the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: October 4, 2001

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5837 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
   2d Session
                                H. R. 5837

   To require persons to certify that they have not violated foreign 
 corrupt practices statutes before being awarded Government contracts, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2010

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require persons to certify that they have not violated foreign 
 corrupt practices statutes before being awarded Government contracts, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUIRED CERTIFICATION BY PERSONS PRIOR TO AWARD OF FEDERAL 
              CONTRACTS.

    (a) Prohibition.--An Executive agency--
            (1) may not enter into a contract for the procurement of 
        goods or services with any person or entity unless that person 
        or entity has certified that the person or entity, and each of 
        its officers, employees, and agents, have not violated section 
        30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 104 or 104A 
        of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, or any comparable 
        law of any other country; and
            (2) may not allow any contractor awarded a contract by the 
        agency to enter into a subcontract (at any tier) under the 
        contract with any person or entity that has not made the 
        certification described in paragraph (1).
    (b) Executive Agency Defined.--In this Act, the term ``Executive 
agency'' has the meaning provided in section 105 of title 5, United 
States Code.
    (c) Applicability.--Subsection (a) applies--
            (1) to contracts entered into after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act; and
            (2) to subcontracts (at any tier) awarded under such 
        contracts.
                                 <all>
```
China Packaging Technologies, Inc. - Exhibit 10.10 - Filed by
   newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.10  

Form of Purchase Agreement 

(English Summary) 

	Parties to Contract 	
                         Great
      Shengda as Buyer and Hangzhou Changgang Paper Co., Ltd. as Vendor
  

	 	
       

	Details of Products 	
                     
         White paper, 145-200g, unit of ton, approximately 6,000 ton
      of 2009. 

	 	
       

	Price 	
                     
         Market price, to be determined by the parties price every
      month. 

	 	
       

	Purchase 	
                         According
      to the “Guideline of Raw Material” provided by the Vendor (Provided to the
      Buyer when signing the Contract) 

	 	
       

	Transportation 	
                     
         The Vendor delivers the products to the warehouse of the
      Buyer. 




	Time limit of objection 	1. 	
      The Buyer shall check the product on delivery according
      to the quality standard, if there’s any problem, the parties can negotiate
      to solve. 

		2. 	
      Any problem about quantity or color should be raised on
      delivery, other problems should be raised in written in 1 month after
      delivery. 

		3. 	
      Any quality problem raised after the product has been
      used over 600 meters, the Vendor will refuse to accept. 

		4. 	
      If there’s any dispute about the result of the test, it
      will be judged by the provincial office of The National Paper Quality
      Control & Inspection Centre. 




	Payment 	
                     
         Monthly payment at 46 days by T/T, Bank Draft or Bank
      Acceptance. 

	  	
       

	Obligations 	
                         If
      the Vendor misses the deadline of Purchase, or the Buyer refuses to check
      and accept the products without any reason as well as does not settle in
      time, the obligations of breaking contracts become effective. Any party
      that breaks the contract will pay 3% of the penalty if the time of
      breaking the contract more than 10 days. 

	  	
       

	Dispute Resolution 	
                         All
      disputes arising from or in connection with this Contract or the execution
      thereof shall be settled friendly through negotiation. In case no payment
      can be reached through negotiation, such disputes may then be submitted to
      the compete court through litigation proceedings.
Third Department,

July, 1989

(July 6, 1989)

#### In the Matter of Richard S. Feldman, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Respondent, a Saratoga County attorney, was admitted to practice in this department in 1975.

On May 26 of this year, respondent was convicted in Sara-toga County Court upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the *762crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]) and obstructing governmental administration, second degree, a class A misdemeanor (Penal Law § 195.05). He was subsequently sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

Petitioner now moves to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys by reason of his felony conviction (Judiciary Law § 90 [4]).

Respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law upon his felony conviction (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a]). Petitioner’s motion to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys is, accordingly, granted (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [b]).

Motion granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys, effective immediately. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.