alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Avara *v.*The State.

Arraignment and Plea.—A conviction must be set aside in a capital case when the record shows neither an arraignment of the accused nor a plea of not guilty. In such a case, arraignment and plea cannot be considered as waived, nor their omission as cured, by any other proceedings had upon the trial:

Appeal from the Criminal Court of the city of Marshall, Harrison county. Tried below before the Hon. J. L. Camp.

The deceased was a child of four or five years of age, and, according to a witness for the accused, was his child. The child died on a night early in July, 1875, a few hours after the defendant had given him a severe whipping or beating. Some nineteen days after the death of the child, its body *420was exhumed and a *post-mortem*examination made by a physician, who testified to finding bruises and injuries on the body, which were inflicted during life, and were adequate to cause death. Other physicians were of opinion that an examination made so long after death could not with certainty determine whether injuries were inflicted during life- or not.

*W. H. Pope,*for the appellant.

*George McCormick,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, J.

The appellant in this case was indicted in the criminal court of the city of Marshall, at the October term, A. D. 1875, for the murder of one Henry, whose surname was to the grand jury unknown. He was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree, with his punishment affixed at thirty-two years’ confinement to hard labor in the state penitentiary.

The judgment will have to b.e reversed because the record does not show that defendant was either arraigned or that he pleaded to the indictment. In a capital case, when the record fails to show that the accused was arraigned or that .he pleaded not guilty, the conviction will be set aside.. Want of arraignment and plea both cannot be considered as waived or cured by any proceedings had upon the trial. *Early*v. *The State,*1 Texas Ct. of App. 248; *Smith*v. *The State,*1 Texas Ct. of App. 408; and several other cases decided by this court since that term, in which the rule thus laid down is sustained and reaffirmed.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

*Reversed and remanded.*
Bobby Wayne STONE, petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 17-5756.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

Unit Investment Agreement among Registrant, Ballsbridge Finance, Limited and
The Watley Group LLC dated March 20, 2000.

This document is confidential and has been omitted from this Form 10-K. It has
been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
HUMBLE SURGICAL HOSPITAL, LLC, petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 17-1325.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Fredy FIGUEROA-MONTES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5896.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF William Lee ANDREWS, III.

No. D-3025.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
# L_2010145EN.01001801.xml

| 11.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 145/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/18

---

DECISION No 4/2010 OF THE ACP-EU COMMITTEE OF AMBASSADORS

of 19 May 2010

on the appointment of the Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE)

(2010/326/EU)

THE ACP-EU COMMITTEE OF AMBASSADORS,

Having regard to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as revised by the Agreement amending the said Partnership Agreement, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2), and in particular Article 2(7) of Annex III thereto,

Whereas:

| (1) | The previous Deputy Director’s term of office expired on 28 February 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The previous Deputy Director’s term of office expired on 28 February 2010.

| (2) | At the end of its proceedings, a joint selection committee established by both sides proposed the appointment of Ms Jyoti JEETUN (Mauritius) as Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

At the end of its proceedings, a joint selection committee established by both sides proposed the appointment of Ms Jyoti JEETUN (Mauritius) as Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Sole Article

Without prejudice to any subsequent decisions that the Committee might have to take under its prerogatives, Ms Jyoti JEETUN (Mauritius) is hereby appointed Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise with effect from 1 September 2010 until 28 February 2015.

Done at Brussels, 19 May 2010.

For the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors

The Chairman

René MAKONGO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 27.

2

---
Robert P. TUERK, petitioner, v. THE FLORIDA BAR.

No. 17-1240.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Elbert A. WALTON, Jr.

No. D-2981.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Disbarment order entered.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSHUA DURNEY,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § No. 144, 2017 § § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 1208013413 (K) § §
Submitted: July 13, 2017 Decided: August 3, 2017

Before VAUGHN , SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices.

O R D E R

This 3 rd day of August 2017, after careful c onsideration of the opening brief,
the State’s motion to affirm, and the reco rd, it is clear that the judgment below
should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons stated in, the Superior

Court’s well-reasoned decision dated March 8, 2017. The Superior Court did not
err in concluding that the appellant’s second motion for postc onviction relief was
subject to summary dismissal under Superi or Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED th at the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
Carston Carrell WOODSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8265.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
FILED

April 8, 1999

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

MARCH 1999 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) NO. 01C01-9807-CR-00312

Appellee, )

) SUMNER COUNTY No. 5311-D

VS. )

) HON. JANE WHEATCRAFT,

JOSEPH FRANK LYLES, ) JUDGE

)

Appellant. ) (Violation of Probation)

)

) AFFIRMED - RULE 20

O R D E R

Appellant, Joseph Frank Lyles, was charged with committing an aggravated

assault on November 5, 1997, while on probation from an earlier felony conviction.

A probation violation warrant was filed on December 7, 1997. The trial court

conducted a full hearing and found appellant in violation. As a result, appellant’s

probation was extended an additional six months. Appellant challenges that

extension of his probation. 

The trial court found that the appellant intentionally intimidated and frightened

the employees of Cumberland Electric by his use of threatening language while

displaying a baseball bat. The trial court rejected appellant’s innocent explanation

of the event. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s ruling.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by extending appellant’s probation. Tenn.

Code Ann. § 40-35-308(c).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee

Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing that the appellant is indigent, costs shall be

taxed to the state. 

So ordered. Enter:
2

_______________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE 

CONCUR:

____________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

____________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
Vory V. COPELAND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5875.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### J. W. Parry, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. William Lever, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Decision filed April 15, 1929.

*549
      *Hampton & Greene,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*J. I. Triplett, Jr.,*and *D. Gregory Smith,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This canse having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
GOOGLE LLC, petitioner, v. UNWIRED PLANET, LLC.

No. 17-357.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Roger L. WHEELER, petitioner, v. Randy WHITE, Warden.

No. 17-5120.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Joseph Raymond JARAMILLO, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9026.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Xstream Beverage Network,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Theodore
Farnsworth, Chairman and CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS.
1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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/ Theodore Farnsworth
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Theodore Farnsworth, Chairman, CEO,
                                         principal executive officer and
                                         principal financial officer
                                         October 7, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.
Release:#4008-97 (CV-93-0088)

For Release:April 3, 1997

**FEDERAL COURT APPROVES CFTC SETTLEMENT WITH**

**YUAN-YI LAO WHO WAS CHARGED WITH THE UNLAWFUL**

**OFFER AND SALE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FUTURES**

**Lao Agrees to Pay $450,000 to Court-appointed Receiver for    Distribution to the Former Customers of Standard Forex, in Addition to    Other Relief**

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced    today it has agreed to a settlement with **Yuan-Yi Lao** (Lao), a    resident of the People's Republic of China, in connection with a civil    injunctive complaint filed by the CFTC on January 8, 1993, and subsequently    amended on August 16, 1993 (see CFTC News Release 3611-93, January 12,    1993). Lao has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity.

The CFTC alleged in its amended complaint, *inter alia*, that Lao    was a director and controlling person of Standard Forex, Inc., a New York    company that offered and sold illegal off-exchange foreign currency futures    contracts to members of the public in violation of section 4(a) of the    Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and operated as an unregistered futures    commission merchant in violation of section 4d of the CEA. Standard Forex    conducted its operations in Flushing, New York, from March 1992 until    January 8, 1993, when the CFTC brought this action.

Lao, without admitting or denying any of the allegations of the amended    complaint, except jurisdiction and venue, consented to the entry of the    order in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York:

- directing him to pay $450,000 to the court-appointed equity receiver      for distribution to the former customers of Standard Forex and;
- permanently enjoining him from violating sections 4(a) and 4d(1) of      the CEA and CFTC regulation 3.10, as charged.

In addition to Lao, there were 13 other defendants charged in the    amended complaint. Seven have settled with the CFTC, five have defaulted,    and one defendant, James Feng, continues to contest the action.
How Does Blockchain Work? 

CME GROUP © 2016 CME Group. All rights reserved. 1 
CME GROUP © 2016 CME Group. All rights reserved. 

What are Blockchain and Distributed Ledgers? 

2 

Blockchain Permissionless 

Distributed Ledger 

Permissioned 

Distributed Ledger 

(Private Blockchain) 

Features Public key cryptography, cryptographic signatures and hash functions, 

resilient peer-to-peer networks, information communicated to all 

participants at the same time, no intermediaries, irreversible. 

Digital token 

example

Bitcoin Ripple’s token (XRP) Not necessarily 

needed; bespoke

tokens

Agreement Proof-of-work, mining Pseudonymous/

anonymous consensus

Consensus via 

known/trusted 

validators

Open

Source?

Yes Yes No

Support offchain assets?No Sometimes Yes

Examples Bitcoin, Ethereum, 

Blockstream

Ripple, Stellar Ripple, SETL, 

Symbiont, Digital Asset 

Holdings, itBit 
CME GROUP – NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION © 2016 CME Group. All rights reserved. 

Risks to Blockchain Adoption 

• Technology does NOT live up to the potential promise 

o

o

o

o

Scalability issues 

Use cases do not generate efficient processes and cost savings 

Security concerns 

Transaction anonymity and privacy 

•

•

•

Industry standards and harmonization attempts fail 

Exogenous technology threats (e.g. quantum computing or new 

technology overtakes blockchain) 

Regulatory contradictions or ambiguity 

3
Exhibit 4.3


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated June 28, 2018, with respect to the financial statement of Smart Trust 384 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-224171) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


June 28, 2018
James D. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Scott R. FRAKES, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services.

No. 17-8445.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2011340EN.01001702.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)

(Case T-425/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BLAST - Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks)

2011/C 340/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Honda Motor Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Ahlgren, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hendrik Blok (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1097/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Hendrik Blok and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Honda Motor Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Honda Motor Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
Matthew Otis CHARLES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5170.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.20.11

                         FORM OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA


                      (January 1, 1999-December 31, 1999)
            (as amended by the Compensation Committee on 12/08/99)

If the Company's actual net income from January 1, 1999 through December 31,
1999:

 .  exceeds budgeted net income by less than $100,000, the right to purchase
   20,000 shares of Common Stock under the Stock Option shall become immediate
   and the remaining shares of the Stock Option shall become vested on December
   31, 2005;

 .  does not exceed budgeted net income, all shares of Common Stock under the
   Stock Option shall become vested on December 31, 2005.
Relmon H. DAVIS, III, petitioner, v. Dave DAVEY, Warden, et al.

No. 17-5416.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 9 MONTHS ENDED SEPT. 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>       1

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     1
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           1
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             1
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 53,276
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                 320
<OTHER-SE>                                           (53,276)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               1
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      15,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (15,026)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (15,026)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (15,026)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0



</TABLE>
Alvin HOUSTON, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6298.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
# L_2008115EN.01004801.xml

| 29.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 115/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 115/48

---

Corrigendum to information relating to the entry into force of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and Ukraine in relation to export duties

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 112 of 24 April 2008
  )

The publication of this information is annulled.

---
Alexander V. BEARD, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-5510.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District denied.