alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG AND JAMES CITY COUNTY

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Roderick Lee Rivers

March 27, 1992

Case No. 7308-00

By Judge William L. Person, Jr.

On March 10, 1992, the Court heard the evidence in the case of Mr. Roderick Lee Rivers who was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The Court deferred a decision at that time to do some research and reflect on the issue as to whether the defendant was operating the vehicle as defined by the statutes and case law. Based on the evidence, the Court finds that the defendant was operating the vehicle. The defendant, the sole occupant, was found asleep in the car with the lower portion of his body in the seat behind the wheel and his feet near the operating pedals. The car was stopped in the middle of the road, with the doors locked, the headlights on, and the key in the ignition in the “on” position. Although the engine was not running, the car was in the “drive” position.

Although the word “operate” is not defined under § 18.2-266 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the word “operator” is defined, in part, in § 46.2-100 as “every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.” This definition of “operator” has been approved for the purpose of determining whether one “operates” a motor vehicle within the meaning of § 18.2-266. *See, Nicolls v. Commonwealth,*212 Va. 257 (1971); *Lyon v. City of Petersburg,*221 Va. 10 (1980); and *Overbee*v. *Commonwealth,*227 Va. 238 (1984). Moreover, the word “operate” is not limited to the *265movement of the vehicle. *Nicolls v. Commonwealth.*Therefore, no actual movement of the vehicle must take place for the defendant to operate the vehicle under § 18.2-266.

Based on the above, the Court finds that the defendant was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle and therefore did operate the vehicle. The Court finds the defendant *guilty*of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and fixes the punishment as follows: a fine of $500.00; 90 day jail sentence with 85 days suspended; six months revocation of operator’s license; and two years probation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,232
<SECURITIES>                                    18,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,283
<PP&E>                                           2,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,451
<SALES>                                         10,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,631
<CGS>                                            7,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,762
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.38)
        

</TABLE>
| Jul. 30, 2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| F | Strategic Advisers Growth Multi-Manager Fund                                                                                                                                                                             |
| **Supplement to the Strategic Advisers® Growth Multi-Manager Fund Class F July 30, 2015 Prospectus***Effective October 1, 2015, the fund changed its classification from a non-diversified fund to a diversified fund.* |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Supplement Text Block.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**frst_SupplementTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**frst_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_DocumentInformationDocumentAxis=frst_FMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
| X                                                                                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_LegalEntityAxis=frst_S000034419Member**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: NOVAK & NOVAK TRADING CO., INC. ET AL. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 186 

DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 186 

Name: Novak & Novak Trading Co., Inc. et al. 

Effective October 1, 1972 

4. Respondents Jay A. Novak and Novak & Novak Trading Co., Inc., individually 

and collectively, shall cease and desist from: 

(a) Engaging as futures commission merchant, within the meaning of the 

Commodity Exchange Act, without meeting the minimum financial requirements under 

the Act and the regulations thereunder. 

(b) Failing to keep full, complete and systematic records of transactions 

relating to the business of dealing in commodity futures as required by 

[ILLEGIBLE TEXT] 1.35 of the regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 

CFR 1.35). 

(c) Submitting to the Commodity Exchange Authority financial reports 

purporting to represent the true financial condition of a registrant under the 

Act which do not accurately represent such financial condition. 

(d) Wilfully causing, aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding or inducing 

any futures commission merchant to engage in activities which if engaged in by 

the respondents Jay A. Novak or Novak & Novak Trading Co., Inc., would be in 

violation of this paragraph. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

SEP 11 1972 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
# FCM DATA FEBRUARY 2009
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GREAT WESTERN DISTRIBUTORS, INC., NATHANIEL E. HESS, CHARLES S. BORDEN, 

THOMAS F. HAYNES, AND HARTLEY L. HARRIS 

CITATION: 10 Agric. Dec. 966 

DOCKET NUMBER: 48 

DATE: JULY 17, 1951 

DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF STAY ORDER 

(No. 2851) 

In re GREAT WESTERN DISTRIBUTORS, INC., NATHANIEL E. HESS, CHARLES S. BORDEN, 

THOMAS F. HAYNES, AND HARTLEY L. HARRIS. CEA Doc. No. 48. Decided July 17, 

1951. 

Notice of Stay Order

Order of June 20, 1951, stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit pending final disposition of an appeal filed by respondents in 

the above entitled proceeding. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

NOTICE OF STAY ORDER

On July 12, 1951, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

entered an order staying the order entered in this proceeding on June 20, 1951, 

pending final disposition of an appeal filed in The Great Western Food 

Distributors, Inc., Nathaniel E. Hess and Charles S. Borden, Petitioners, vs. 

Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture, and Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial 

Officer by Appointment of the Secretary of Agriculture, Respondents, Cause No. 

10449. A copy hereof shall be sent to each contract market by registered mail. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
Exhibit
10.1


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Second Amendment”) entered into as of May 3, 2016 (“Effective
Date”), by LIFELOGGER TECHNOLOGIES CORP., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on the one hand, and PIXORIAL,
INC., a Colorado corporation (“Pixorial”), and ANDRES ESPINIERA (“Andres”), on the other. Each of the
Company, Pixorial and Andres may also be referred to herein as a “Party, and, collectively, as the “Parties.”


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated November 10, 2015 (the “Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into the First Amendment to Asset Purchase Agreement that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated March 30,
2016 (the “First Amendment”). The Agreement and the First Amendment are collectively referred to as the “Agreement”.


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties wish to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements contained in this Second Amendment, and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties, hereby agree as follows:


 


 1. Amendment. Article 3., Closing, Section 3.1, Closing, is hereby amended to read as follows:




 


3.1Closing.
The closing (the “Closing” or “Closing Date”) of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall
take place no later than June 15, 2016 at such place designated by the Company subject to the satisfaction of all conditions precedent
described in Sections 8 and 9 hereof.


 


2.This
Second Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions to the contrary contained
in the Agreement. All initial capitalized terms used in this Second Amendment shall have the same meaning as set forth in the
Agreement unless otherwise provided. Except as specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Agreement which are
not in conflict with the terms of the Second Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


 


	Lifelogger
    Technologies Corp.	 	Pixorial,
    Inc.
	a
    Nevada corporation	 	a
    Colorado corporation
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Stewart Garner	 	By:	/s/
    Andres Espineira
	 	Stewart
    Garner	 	Name:	Andres
    Espineira
	 	Chief
    Executive Officer	 	Title:	CEO
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	/s/ Andres Espineira
	 	 	 	Andres Espineira
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 Dutch Oven Gold Group Inc.
(F/K/A Nexam Acquisition Corp.) (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for three month
period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.J. de Klerk, 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 and belief:

       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.

Dated: October 18, 2010

                                         By:  /s/ G.J. de Klerk
                                              -------------------------------
                                              G.J. de Klerk
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JOSEPH EARL BAILEY, SR., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 260 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JOSEPH EARL BAILEY, SR., 

 Petitioner 

 No. 261 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JOSEPH EARL BAILEY, SR., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 262 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 
[260 MAL 2016, 261 MAL 2016 and 262 MAL 2016] - 2 

AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### Barbara Gail WILLIAMS, also known as Barbara Gail Brice, also known as Barbara Gail Preston, also known as Barbara Gail Willis, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.

No. 09-3673.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 6, 2010.

Filed: July 8, 2010.

*586Barbara Gail Williams, North Little Rock, AR, pro se.

Stacey E. McCord, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Natalie Olszewski, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, TX, for Ap-pellee.

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Gail Williams appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Williams alleged disability from several conditions, including depression, bipolar disorder, asthma, comprehension problems, and pain in her stomach, joints, feet, legs, and hands. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that her history of depression with cocaine dependency in apparent remission, tension/migraine headaches, cartilage damage with meniscal tears in the knee, and mild disc bulges with lumbar spine degenerative changes were severe in combination; (2) her impairments alone or combined did not, however, meet or equal the requirements of any listing; (3) her subjective complaints were less than fully credible; and (4) while her residual functional capacity (RFC) for less than the full range of light work precluded her past relevant work, she could perform other jobs that a vocational expert identified in response to a hypothetical. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we also affirm. *See Van Vickle v. Astrue,*539 F.3d 825, 828 & n. 2 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review).

We reject Williams’s challenge to the ALJ’s adverse credibility findings, because those findings were based on multiple valid reasons, *see Finch v. Astrue,*547 F.3d 933, 935-36 (8th Cir.2008); and we also reject her related challenge to the ALJ’s RFC determination, which we find to be consistent with the record, *see Davidson v. Astrue,*578 F.3d 838, 844 (8th Cir.2009) (ALJ should determine RFC based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of her limitations).2 Accordingly, we affirm.

. The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

. We specifically decline to consider the new issues Williams raises on appeal, *see Flynn v.*
        *587
        *Chater,*107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir.1997), or the new allegedly disabling impairments she identifies.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: WEBSTER E. COLLINS 

CITATION: 28 Agric. Dec. 120 

DOCKET NUMBER: 142 

DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1969 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER 

(No. 12,286) 

In re WEBSTER E. COLLINS. CEA Docket No. 142. Decided February 28, 1969. 

Effective date of sanctions -- March 31, 1969 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

The order entered in this proceeding on February 25, 1969, directing contract 

markets to refuse all trading privileges to respondent shall become effective on 

March 31, 1969, instead of March 17, 1969, as stated in the February 25th order. 

Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties and the contract markets. 

LOAD-DATE: June 10, 2008 
Page 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: COTTON PRODUCTS CO., INC., 

DOCKET NUMBER: 53 

DATE: JANUARY 24, 1950 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

January 24, 1950 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CE-A DOCKET NO. 53 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing was signed by the Acting Secretary of 

Agriculture on January 20, 1950, charging 

COTTON PRODUCTS CO., INC., and its Officers 

with violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Complaints are issued under the Commodity Exchange Act for the purpose of 

notifying respondents that the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe 

that respondents have violated the Act and to advise them of the time and place 

of hearings to be held to determine whether the charges are correct. The 

issuance of a complaint does not, of course, constitute proof of violation of 

the law. Such violation is established only when the Judicial Officer of the 

Department has made a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. 

Complaints are filed in the office of the hearing clerk of the Solicitor of 

the Department of Agriculture and are thereupon a matter of public record. 

Copies are filed in the Washington office and the field offices of the Commodity 

Exchange Authority. 

In cases where the Judicial Officer determines that a violation has occurred 

the resulting order will be served upon all contract markets and circularized 

among all registered futures commission merchants for their information and 

guidance. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer it is the policy of the 

Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate upon the charges 

contained in complaints or discuss the evidence upon which they are based. 

LOAD-DATE: June 11, 2008 
Page 2
H. Res. 1462 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 1, 2010. 

Whereas, on May 29, 2010, Guatemala, Honduras, and El 

Salvador experienced devastating floods and mudslides 

brought on by Tropical Storm Agatha; 

Whereas Tropical Storm Agatha has left 174 dead and 

62,827 families were directly affected in Guatemala; 

Whereas Tropical Storm Agatha has left 22dead and 7,998 

in shelters in Honduras; 

Whereas Tropical Storm Agatha has left 11 dead and 12,000 

in shelters in El Salvador; 

Whereas over 2,000 Guatemalans were displaced with little 

forewarning following the eruption of the Pacaya volcano; 

Whereas the combination of Tropical Storm Agatha and the 

eruption of the Pacaya volcano have devastated Guatemala’s landscape leaving behind sinkholes and mudslides 

across the country; 

Whereas, due to recent droughts, erratic rainfall, high food 

prices, and a sharp drop in remittances, Guatemala has 

suffered severe food insecurity that will increase in the 

wake of Tropical Storm Agatha; 

Whereas Guatemalan officials are estimating that damages 

will surpass $475,000,000; 
2 

•HRES 1462 EH 

Whereas the loss in the agriculture sector could be close to 

$18,500,000 in Honduras; 

Whereas 380 schools have been affected in El Salvador; 

Whereas critical infrastructure relating to water and sanitation has been destroyed; 

Whereas the United States has provided relief for the victims 

of Tropical Storm Agatha by deploying United States 

Southern Command support helicopters and frigates for 

assistance with the transport of food, water, and emergency supplies; 

Whereas countries and organizations around the world have 

contributed millions of dollars in medicines and aid, and 

humanitarian aid agencies in the United States and 

around the world are mobilizing to provide much needed 

assistance to the relief and recovery efforts; and 

Whereas Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have begun 

the process of recovering from these natural disasters: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) mourns the loss of life and expresses solidarity 

with all people affected by Tropical Storm Agatha; 

(2) commends the brave efforts of the people of 

Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador as they recover 

from Tropical Storm Agatha; 

(3) recognizes the assistance of the international 

community during the recovery effort in providing relief 

to the people of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador; 

and 
3 

•HRES 1462 EH 

(4) urges the Secretary of State, in coordination 

with the Administrator of the United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID), to continue to develop a strategic plan to promote food security and recovery efforts with the goal of mitigating the current 

and future effects of the recent natural disasters that 

have devastated Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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 ImmunoBiotics, Inc. (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vithal
J. Rajadhyaksha , certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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) 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
Registrant.











/s/
      Vithal J. RajadhyakshaVithal
      J. Rajadhyaksha
              Chief
      Financial Officer








November
20, 2009