alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re PRESCOTT et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

May 8, 1894.)

Justices of the Peace—Removal—Supreme Court. . Rev. St. (Birdseye’s Ed.) p. 1770, §§ 283, 284, authorizing the removal of a justice of the peace by the county judge, having been repealed by Laws 1890, c. 589, § 243, such removal can be made only by the general term of i the supreme court as provided by Code Cr. Proc. § 132.

Appeal from order of Franklin county judge.

Application by L. J. Prescott and others for the removal of Richard Donovan, a justice of the peace, from office. From- an order of removal, said Donovan appeals. Reversed.

Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.

Cantwell & Cantwell (Wm. P. Cantwell, of counsel), for appellant.

Jacob W. Webb, for respondents.

HERRICK, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the county judge of Franklin county removing Richard Donovan from the office of justice of the peace. The proceeding before the county judge for the removal of said Donovan from office was founded upon section 35, pt. 1, c. 5, tit. 4, art. 4, Rev. St. (Birdseye’s St. 1770, '§§ 283, 284). These provisions of the Revised Statutes were repealed by chapter 569 of the Laws of 1890. See section 243, Schedule of Laws Repealed. Section 18 of article 6 of the constitution provides that justices of the peace may be removed from office by such courts as may be prescribed by law, and the legislature by law prescribed the general term of the supreme court as the court to be vested with such power (see section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), and it is the only court that the legislature has vested with such power. The county judge had, therefore, no jurisdiction over the proceedings to remove said Donovan from the office of justice of the peace, and the order appealed from should therefore be reversed, with the costs, printing, and other disbursements of this appeal, and of the proceedings before the county judge. All concur.
----

**EXHIBIT      32-2**

**CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.      1350)**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                 Harel Goldstein                                                                          |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Harel                Goldstein Director                and Chief Financial OfficerJanuary                31, 2007 |   |

----
#### OHIO OIL COMPANY *v.*INDIANA

(NO. 2).

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA.

No. 83.

Argued December 18, 19, 1899.

Decided April 9, 1900.

The judgment below in this case is affirmed for the reasons given in *Ohio Oil Company*v. *Indiana, ante,*page 190.

This case was argued with No. 84, *ante,*190, and by the same counsel.

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant below was sued for the sum of certain penalties imposed by law for allowing gas to escape into the atmospheric air from an oil and gas well. The statute by which the penalties wrere imposed is the one we have considered and passed on in an opinion .this dajr delivered in *Ohio Oil Co.*v. *Indiana, No.*84, of this term. The defendant demurred to the complaint, and when the demurrer was overruled answered. The answer alleged that the statute imposing the penalties was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, on the same grounds which we have to-day disposed of in the case .referred to: From a judgment awarding the penalties, *213which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, this writ of error is prosecuted. For the reasons given in case No. 84 the judgment is

*Affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-148758) and S-8
(Nos. 333-138631, 333-145232, 333-155115) of Metabolix, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2009 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
March 12, 2009

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6322

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GREGORY WHYTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-91-

357-MJG)

Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 20, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Whyte, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Whyte appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000) for an adjustment of his

criminal sentence imposed in 1992. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Whyte, No. CR-91-357-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2002). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, T. Kendall Hunt,
certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, 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, 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/ T. Kendall Hunt                                           
|                                                              
|T. Kendall Hunt                                               
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors
|November 7, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21286-21287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10553]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 20


International Customized Mail Service

<BD>AGENCY: <RM>Postal Service.

<BD>ACTION: <RM>Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

<BD>SUMMARY: <RM>The Postal Service adopts the proposed changes to its 
International Customized Mail Service to reduce the volume or revenue 
requirements.

<BD>DATES: <RM>Effective April 30, 2001.

<BD>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: <RM>Robert E. Michelson, (703) 
292-3605.

<BD>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: <RM>On March 8, 2001, the Postal Service 
published in the <CS>Federal Register <RM>(66 FR 13868) a notice of 
proposed changes to International Customized Mail Service. These 
proposed changes would reduce the required volume or revenue that a 
mailer of non-letter-post items (including Global Priority Mail) must 
meet to qualify for International Customized Mail service. The volume 
requirement would be reduced from 1 million pounds of international 
mail to 600 pieces, on an annualized basis. The revenue requirement 
would be reduced from $2 million in international postage to $12,000, 
on an annualized basis.
    The Postal Service invited public comment by April 9, 2001. The 
Postal Service did not receive any comments by that date. Accordingly, 
the Postal Service is adopting the proposed rule.
    The Postal Service adopts the following amendments to the 
International Mail Manual (IMM), which is incorporated by reference in 
the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20

    Foreign relations.

PART 20--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citations for 39 CFR part 20 continue to read as 
follows:

    <CS>Authority: <RM>5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 407, 
408.

    2. The International Mail Manual (IMM) is amended to incorporate 
the following changes:
2  CONDITIONS FOR MAILING
* * * * *

290  Commercial Services

* * * * *

297  International Customized Mail

* * * * *

297.2 Qualifying Mailers

    To qualify for ICM service, a mailer must tender all of its ICM 
mail to the Postal Service and must be capable, on an annualized basis, 
of either:
    a. Tendering at least 1 million pounds of international letter-post 
mail (excluding Global Priority Mail) to the Postal Service, or paying 
at least $2 million in international letter-post postage to the Postal 
Service.
    b. Tendering at least 600 pieces of international non-letter-post 
mail (including Global Priority Mail) to the Postal Service, or paying 
at least

[[Page 21287]]

$12,000 in international non-letter-post postage to the Postal Service.
* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 01-10553 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-U 7710-12
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 625 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 625

 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of 
 Homeland Security to require, as a condition of receiving a homeland 
     security grant, that a grant recipient submit reports on each 
                  expenditure made using grant funds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2009

  Mr. Weiner (for himself, Mr. Flake, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr. 
  Gonzalez) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of 
 Homeland Security to require, as a condition of receiving a homeland 
     security grant, that a grant recipient submit reports on each 
                  expenditure made using grant funds.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland Security Transparency Act 
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EXPENDITURE REPORTS AS A CONDITION OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS.

    (a) In General.--Subtitle H of title VIII of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``SEC. 890A. EXPENDITURE REPORTS AS A CONDITION OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
              GRANTS.

    ``(a) Quarterly Reports Required as a Condition of Homeland 
Security Grants.--
            ``(1) Expenditure reports required.--As a condition of 
        receiving a grant administered by the Secretary, the Secretary 
        shall require the grant recipient to submit quarterly reports 
        to the Secretary describing the nature and amount of each 
        expenditure made by the recipient using grant funds.
            ``(2) Deadline for reports.--Each report required under 
        paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than 30 days after 
        the last day of a fiscal quarter and shall cover expenditures 
        made during that fiscal quarter.
    ``(b) Publication of Expenditures.--Not later than one week after 
receiving a report under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish 
and make publicly available on the Internet website of the Department a 
description of the nature and amount of each expenditure covered by the 
report.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of 
such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to such 
subtitle the following:

``Sec. 890A. Expenditure reports as a condition of homeland security 
                            grants.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,622
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,524
<INVENTORY>                                      6,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,931
<PP&E>                                         122,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,841
<BONDS>                                        133,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   335,821
<SALES>                                         66,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,271
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,988
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,550
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,019
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,531
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00285

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF C.E., A C HILD §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 355th District Court

of Hood County ( P2021009 )

J a nuary 12, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is reversed and t he case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings

addressing conservatorship

. The trial court must commence a new trial no later than

180 days after the date th is court issues the mandate in this appeal.

It is further ordered that Appellee C. E. shall pay all of the costs of this appeal

,

for which let execution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
#### *In re*CONNELLY, Paul George

(MR 21017)

Schaumburg, IL

Order of the Court:

The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to impose discipline on consent pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(b) is allowed, and respondent Paul George Con-*687nelly is suspended from the practice of law for two years and until further order of the Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lewis M. Williams, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Any error committed by the court in refusing to grant an adjournment of defendant’s probation violation hearing was harmless. The proof against defendant was overwhelming and the record demonstrates that defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to grant an adjournment.

On December 22, 1987, an amended information was filed charging defendant with a violation of probation for having *942sold cocaine to an undercover officer on October 22, 1987. A second amended information filed January 7, 1988 added the allegation that defendant sold cocaine to the same undercover officer on October 14, 1987. This second amended information was received by defense counsel on February 3, 1988. Defendant was arraigned on the first amended information on December 23, 1987, but was not arraigned on the second amended information until the date of the hearing, on July 22, 1988. Although defendant had not previously been arraigned on the charge based on the sale of cocaine on October 14, 1987, the record shows that defense counsel was fully prepared at the hearing to defend that charge. The sale of October 14, 1987 and the sale of October 22 both involved sales of cocaine to the same undercover police officer. Defense counsel had been served with the second amended information more than five months before the date of the hearing. He had been representing defendant as counsel on the criminal charges resulting from the indictments handed down by the Grand Jury relating to both sales and had conducted extensive plea negotiations concerning the indictments. He was familiar with all of the facts and at the hearing he had full discovery material concerning both of the sales. The hearing minutes show that he presented a competent defense and there is no indication he was unprepared for the hearing or that he needed additional time for preparation.

The evidence at the hearing was sufficient to support the court’s determination that defendant had violated his probation by selling cocaine to an undercover officer on October 14, 1987. The testimony of the undercover officer who made an in-court identification of defendant, together with the photographs of defendant as he was leaning into the window of the unmarked police car, proved the violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — violation of probation.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
---

---

Exhibit 8.1

# List of Subsidiaries

|Company                                     | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Ceragon Networks (Aus) Pty Ltd              | Australia                    
|Ceragon Networks do Brasil Limitada         | Brazil                       
|Ceragon Networks (UK) Limited               | England                      
|Ceragon Networks SARL                       | France                       
|Ceragon Networks (HK) Limited               | Hong Kong                    
|Ceragon Networks (India) Private Limited    | India                        
|Ceragon Networks, S.A. de C.V.              | Mexico                       
|Ceragon Networks, Inc.                      | New Jersey                   
|Ceragon Networks (Nigeria) Limited          | Nigeria                      
|Ceragon Networks (Philippines), Inc.        | Philippines                  
|Ceragon Networks APAC (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. | Singapore                    



---

---
(August 21, 1989)

#### Gustave Allmacher et al., Appellants, v Charles Digiacomo et al., Individually and as the Town Board of the Town of Cortlandt, et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring an amendment to the Town of Cortlandt Code of Ethics unconstitutional, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered April 3, 1989, which denied their application for a preliminary injunction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that preliminary injunctive relief will not issue absent a showing by the movant of (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury to the *652movant absent the granting of a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor *(see, Nalitt v City of New York,*138 AD2d 580). Inasmuch as the record fails to demonstrate a likelihood that the plaintiffs will ultimately succeed on the merits of their action *(see, Broadrick v Oklahoma,*413 US 601; *Belle v Town Bd.,*61 AD2d 352), the plaintiffs have not established a clear right to preliminary injunctive relief *(see, County of Orange v Lockey,*111 AD2d 896). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the application. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 235 

To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2015 

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. COHEN, and Mr. 

MARINO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act. 

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 ‘‘Permanent Internet 

5 Tax Freedom Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON INTERNET ACCESS 

7 TAXES AND MULTIPLE AND DISCRIMINATORY 

8 TAXES ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1101(a) of the Internet 

10 Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 235 IH

1 striking ‘‘during the period beginning November 1, 2003, 

2 and ending October 1, 2015’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxes imposed after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS