alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A92A1541.

#### DODD et al. v. THE STATE.

(422 SE2d 313)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendants were convicted of racing and they appeal, enumerating error upon the general grounds. Viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the State, we find the following:

On September 9, 1991, at approximately 1:39 p.m., two City of Gainesville police officers were parked next to each other in a parking lot. As the officers talked, they heard the sound of two automobiles accelerating at a high rate of speed. The noise got louder as the automobiles approached the officers and the officers watched the automobiles go by at approximately 50 to 55 mph. (The speed limit was 35 mph.) The acceleration noise continued after the automobiles passed the officers.

The automobiles were going east, in separate lanes, on Jesse Jewel Parkway. One automobile, a Chevelle with a 454 cubic inch engine, was being driven by defendant Goss. The other automobile, a Camaro with a 350 cubic inch engine, was being driven by defendant Dodd. The officers gave chase and the automobiles went four or five blocks until they came to a stop at a stoplight.

The officers observed the automobiles for about 45 seconds. The officers testified at trial that, during that time, the Chevelle was trying to “outrun” the Camaro and it appeared to be pulling ahead. They admitted, however, that the distance between the two automobiles basically stayed the same.

Defendants testified that they had driven their automobiles at a drag racing strip and knew that they were capable of going between 120 and 140 mph. The officers acknowledged that the automobiles were capable of going much faster than 50 or 55 mph. *Held:*

OCGA § 40-6-186 (b) provides: “No person shall drive any vehicle on a highway in this state in any race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, exhibition of speed or acceleration, or for the purpose of making a speed record, and no person shall in any manner participate in any such race, competition of speed, contest of speed or test or exhibition of speed.” Racing is defined in OCGA § 40-6-186 (a) (2) as “the use of one or more vehicles in an attempt to outgain, outdistance, or prevent another vehicle from passing, to arrive at a given destination ahead of another vehicle or vehicles, or to test the physical stamina or endurance of drivers over long-distance driving routes.”

In our view, the evidence was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find defendants guilty of violating OCGA § 40-6-186 (“Racing”), beyond a reasonable doubt. See *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560). It is not significant, legally speaking, that the automobiles were capable of going faster than they *473were or that the distance between the automobiles basically stayed the same.

Decided September 11, 1992.

*L. Eddie Benton, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Jerry Rylee, Solicitor, Graham McKinnon IV, Assistant Solicitor,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Sognier, C. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          29,046
<SECURITIES>                                    34,190
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,611
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          23,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,075,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        375,092
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,690
<OTHER-SE>                                     299,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,075,941
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200,067
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,838
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,466
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,134
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,332
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,332
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*GREGORY HERNANDEZ

*Louis S. Avitabile,*in support of the petition.

*Jessica Probolus,*special deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 31, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 464 (AC 23384), is denied.
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 8 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 8 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1

 

Consent of Independent Auditors

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) ofBMC Industries, Inc. of our report dated January 26, 2001, included in the 2000Annual Report to Stockholders of BMC Industries, Inc.

Ouraudits also included the financial statement schedule of BMC Industries, Inc.listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule isthe responsibility of the Company’s management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on ouraudits.  In our opinion, the financialstatement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basicfinancial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respectsthe information set forth therein.

Wealso consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Form S-8, No. 33-2613, No. 33-32389 and No. 33-60937) pertaining to the BMCIndustries, Inc. 1984 Omnibus Stock Program, in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 33-55089) pertaining to the BMC Industries, Inc. 1994 StockIncentive Plan and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8, No. 33-38684)pertaining to the BMC Industries, Inc. Restated and Amended 1994 StockIncentive Plan of our report dated January 26, 2001 with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of BMC Industries, Inc. incorporated hereinby reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respectto the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)of BMC Industries, Inc.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis,MinnesotaMarch 27, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                              NEWPORT CORPORATION
                          Subsidiaries of Registrant


                                                            State or Country of
Name of Subsidiary                                             Incorporation
------------------                                             -------------

Newport Domestic International Sales Corporation (Inactive)    California

Newport European Distribution Company                          California

Newport Government Systems, Inc. (Inactive)                    California

Environmental Optical Sensors, Inc.                            Colorado

Newport Precision Optics Corporation                           New York

Newport Photonics Packaging Services Corporation               Delaware

Micro-Controle Benelux S.A. (Inactive)                         Belgium

Newport Instruments Canada Corporation                         Canada

MC Holding S.A.                                                France

Micro-Controle S.A.                                            France

Newport GmbH                                                   Germany

Micro-Controle Italia S.r.l.                                   Italy

Newport BV                                                     Netherlands

Newport Instruments AG                                         Switzerland

Newport Ltd.                                                   United Kingdom

Micro-Controle Holdings Ltd. (Inactive)                        United Kingdom

Micro-Controle Ltd. (Inactive)                                 United Kingdom

Micro-Controle UK Ltd. (Inactive)                              United Kingdom

Newport Foreign Sales Corporation                              Barbados
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 17 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 17 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 3576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1146]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-205-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

January 9, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2000, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Attachment A to the 
filing, with an effective date of February 1, 2001.
    Southern states that the purpose of the filing is to permit 
Southern to charge negotiated rates for its storage and transportation 
services in accordance with the Statement of Policy issued by the 
Commission on January 31, 1996 in Docket No. RP95-6-000 (Policy 
Statement). Southern states that the tariff sheets include a new 
Section to its General Terms and Conditions describing the terms and 
conditions under which it would perform negotiated rate transactions 
and conforming language to other sections of the Tariff to reflect the 
ability of Southern to charge negotiated rates.
    Southern states that copies of the filing will be served upon its 
shippers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing maybe viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-1146 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6043

LEE GADSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. GLENN ALEWINE; WERNER BECK, MD; CHARLES

RUSHING, MD; EDSEL T. TAYLOR, Warden; PATRICIA

MCINTOSH, RN; RANDY BLACKMON, Sheriff; MIKE

PEEPLES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-4066-2-17AJ)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Gadson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen P. Hughes, HOWELL, GIBSON &

HUGHES, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina; obert Waller Achurch III,

HOWELL, GIBSON & BONEY, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina; William

Henry Davidson II, James Miller Davis, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Gadson v. Alewine, No. CA95-4066-2-17AJ (D.S.C. Nov. 27, 1996). 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
Notice: This opin ion is subject to form al revision before publication in the Atl antic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal

errors so that correc tions m ay be made before the boun d volum es go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF AP P EALS

No. 1 4- BG- 32 4

IN RE: M ICHAEL C. W ORSHAM,

Res po nd en t.
Ba r Reg is tra tio n No. 4 62 83 0 BDN: 9 6- 14

BEFORE: Bec kwi th , Ass oc ia te Ju dg e, an d Ki ng an d R ei d, Se ni or Ju dg es

.

ORDER (FILED - May 7, 20 15 )

On co ns id erat io n of th e cert ifi ed or de r in de finit el y sus pe ndi ng re spon de nt fr om th e p r a c t i c e of la w in th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Mar y la nd

, th is co ur t’s Apr il 3, 20 14

, or de r su sp en di ng res po nd en t an d di rect in g hi m to sh ow

cau se why reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne sh ou ld no t be im po se d, th e res po ns e an d re spon de nt ’s
affi da vi t as requ ire d by D.C. Bar R. XI, §1 4 (g ) fil ed on May 3, 20 14

, th e st at em en t of Bar Co un se l reg ard in g reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne an d req ue st to st ay th e pr oc eed in g, th is

co ur t’s Ju ne 9, 20 14

, or de r st ay in g th e m at te r un ti l r e s o l ut io n of th e pe nd in g di sc ip li na ry m at te r in th e st at e of Mar y la nd

, a cert ifi ed or de r of th e Co ur t of App eal s of Mar y la nd di sb arri ng res po nd en t fro m th e pr act ic e of law i n th at juri sd ic ti on , se e Att or ne y Gri eva nc e Co m’n of

Mar yl an d v. W

or sh am, 10 5 A.3d 51 5 (Md

. 20 14 ), th is

co ur t’s Ja nu ary 26

, 20 15

, or de r th at va cat ed th e st ay an d di rect ed res po nd en t to sh ow

cau se why reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne of di sb arm en t sh ou ld no t be im po se d, th e st at em en t of Bar Co un se l, an d res po nd en t’s lo dg ed res po ns e to Bar Co un se l th at in cl ud es a
req ue st fo r or al arg um en t, an d it ap pe ari ng th at res po nd en t do es no t rel y on an y of th e

es ta bl is he d b as es for ch al le ng in g re ci pr oc al di sc ip li ne , se e D.C. Bar R. XI § 1 1 (c ),
b u t i s a t te m

pt in g to im

pr op erl y re-l it ig at e th e di sc ip li ne im po se d by th e st at e of

Mar y la nd , see In re Z

dr av ko vi ch , 83 1 A.2 d 9 64 , 96 9 (D.C. 2 00 3) (“ Pu t s im pl y , reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne pr oc eed in gs are no t a fo ru m to rear gu e th e fo rei gn di sc ip li ne ”),
it is

ORDERED th at th e Cl erk sh al l fi le th e lo dg ed res po ns e o f res po nd en t. It isNo. 1 4- BG-3 24

FURTHER ORDERED th at res po nd en t’s re qu es t fo r or al arg um en t i s de ni ed . It i s

FURTHER ORDERED th at Mi ch ael C. W or sh am is he reb y di sb arre d fro m th e
pr act ic e o f la w in th e Dis tri ct of C ol um bi a, nu nc pr o t un c to May 3, 20 14

.

PER CURI AM
[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 of Med Gen, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report'), I, Jack Chien, Chief Financial
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:

(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 result of
     operations of the Company.


/s/ Jack Chien
-------------------------------
Jack Chien,
Chief Financial Officer


July 15, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (01-057)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Biological and Physical Research Advisory Committee, Commercial Advisory Subcommittee.

# DATES:

Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Room MIC-7, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Candace Livingston, Code UM, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202-358-0697.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public to the seating capacity of the room. Advance notice of attendance to the Executive Secretary is requested.

The agenda for the meeting will include the following topics:
    - Maximize Commercial Research within current International Space Station (ISS) accommodations
    - Reducing the cost of accessing the ISS
    - Commercial Hardware Development for use on the ISS
    - Sharing of Commercial Hardware
    - Restructure of the ISS Research Program and Priorities

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

      ( print page 23278)    
Dated: May 3, 2001.

Beth M. McCormick,

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 01-11557 Filed 5-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Dr. Adya S. Tripathi, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tripath Technology, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



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



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;



(b) [omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238];



(c) 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 report based on such evaluation; and



(d) 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) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer 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 the 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 information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: August 9, 2005



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DR. ADYA S. TRIPATHI                                  
|Dr. Adya S. Tripathi President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE,

 Respondent

 v.

ROBERT CLOFINE,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 179 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






Image Entertainment, Inc.


Chatsworth, California




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements, as amended, on Form S-3 (No. 333-138701 and No. 333-121912) and Form S-8 (No. 333-170746, No. 333-160427, No. 333-119187, No. 333-69623, No. 33-65121 and No. 33-59353) of Image Entertainment, Inc. of our report dated June 29, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in this Form 10-K as of and for the year ended March 31, 2011.








/s/ BDO USA, LLP





BDO USA, LLP


Los Angeles, California




June 29, 2011