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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1745

JOE HILLIARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ANN VENEMAN, Secretary, United States

Department of Agriculture; KENNETH RENTIERS,

State Executive Director, Farm Service Agency;

HAYNES CULLER, Orangeburg County Farm Service

Agency,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (CA-04-22431-5)

Submitted: February 8, 2006 Decided: February 24, 2006

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Hilliard, Appellant Pro Se. Christie Newman, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joe Hilliard appeals the district court's order

dismissing his civil action for failure to comply with the court’s

order. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of

discretion. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).

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

Hilliard v. Veneman, No. CA-04-22431-5 (D.S.C. June 14, 2005). 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
Antywane Eric WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Jeffrey S. COX, Judge, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, et al.

No. 18M41.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
[Cite as In re Whitacre , 2024

- Ohio

- 3274.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} On June 11, 2024, a hearing was held in this matter before a M agistrate of

this court. On July 16, 2024, the M agistrate issued a D ecision wherein s he found that

applicant ’s January 8, 2024 application for reparations, regarding an incident that

occurred on June 30, 2019, was barred by the applicable three

- year statute of limitations

found in R.C. 2743.60(A)(2). The Magistrate concluded that the Final Decision of the

Attor ney General was reasonable and lawful and recommended that it be affirmed.

{¶2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a

magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the

court has adopted the decision during that fourteen

- day period as permitted by Civ .R.

53(D)(4)(e)(i).” No objections were filed.

{¶3} Upon review of the claim file, and the M agistrate’s D ecision, it is the C ourt’s

finding that the M agistrate was correct in her analysis of the issues and application of the

law. Accordingly, this court adopts the M agistrate’s D ecision and recommendation as its

own.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

{¶4} The July 16, 2024 D ecision of the M agistrate is ADOPTED;

{¶5} The March 6 , 2024 Final Decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED ;

{¶6} This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for State o f Ohio;

{¶7} Costs assumed by the reparations fund. IN RE: CARL E. WHITACRE

CARL E. WHITACRE

Applicant Case No. 2024

- 00281VI

Judge Lisa L. Sadler

ORDERCase No. 2024

- 00281VI

- 2

- ORDER

LISA L. SADLER
Judge

Filed 08/01/24
Sent to S.C. Reporter 08/26/24
**EXHIBIT10.13**

 

**Amendment #2 to SupplementaryAgreement to the OEM Manufacturing**

**Contract executed on December 12, 2002**

 

 

**Amendment #2of the Supplementary Agreement to the OEM Manufacturing**

**Contract dated March 27, 2002**

 

Between 

 

Shandong Xiaoya Group Company Limited (hereinafter referred toas “Xiaoya”) 

 

And 

 

TurboChef Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as“TurboChef”) 

 

After friendly negotiations, both Xioayaand TurboChef agree to make the following legal supplement to the Supplementary Agreement to the OEM Manufacturing Contract dated March 27, 2002 (the “Agreement”). 

 
 1. The date “Aug. 2003” set forth in Section 1 of the Agreement shall be replaced by “Aug 2004” and Schedule B to the Agreement shall be deleted inits entirety. 
 
 2. TurboChef will purchase 200 units per month, through Aug 2004. 
 
 3. All other terms and conditions will remain in effect. 
 

SHANDONG XIAOYA GROUP CO. LTD. 

 

/s/ ZhouYouzhi                                                

ZHOU YOUZHI—CHAIRMAN 

 

 

TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

 

/s/ JohnShortley                                              

JOHN SHORTLEY—TREASURER
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin J. PHILLIPPI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-2630.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 13, 1981.

Decided July 29, 1981.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 2,1981.

See 102 S.Ct. 526.

Thomas E. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant-appellant.

Elizabeth L. Adelman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.

*793Before CUMMINGS and PELL, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, Senior District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Earl R. Larson, Senior District Judge for the District of Minnesota, is sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged in Count 2 of the indictment with a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(c) in that he assaulted another with a dangerous weapon to do bodily harm. He allegedly placed a large knife at the throat of Lynn Peters and cut her neck. The jury found defendant guilty on Count 2 and acquitted defendant on Count 1, in which he was charged with kidnapping.

The only issue on appeal is whether an indictment charging assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) is defective when it fails to allege that the defendant committed the assault without just cause or excuse.

The Magistrate in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss Count 2 relied on an earlier decision by Judge Gordon, who presided at this trial, in *U. S. v. Peters,*476 F.Supp. 259 (E.D.Wis.1979). In *Peters*Judge Gordon decided that the prosecution was not obliged to include a reference to “just cause or excuse” in the indictment. *Id.*at 262.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in *Hockenberry v. U. S.,*442 F.2d 171, 173 (1970), decided that it was not necessary to recite in the indictment that the assault was “without just cause or excuse.”

We agree with the Ninth Circuit in *Hock-enberry*and with Judge Gordon in *Peters.*

The judgment of conviction on Count 2 is therefore affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

                            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 Annual Report of Delta Galil Industries Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to his knowledge:

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

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

Date:  March 30, 2007


/S/ AVIRAM LAHAV
----------------------------
Aviram Lahav
Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit31.1**

**SIGNATURES**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Nidal Z Zayed, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Telesource International,Inc.;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (thefourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Dated: April 2, 2007 |   | /s/ Nidal Z Zayed                      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

----
Tramain Deon PRICE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6073.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 1:23-CR-22

'

SERGIO SALDANA-GARCIA (2), '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He further 

recommended that the court adjudge the Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment filed 

against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the 

plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Sergio Saldana-Garcia (2), is 

Case 1:23-cr-00022-MAC-ZJH Document 31 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 70
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

111(a)(1) (Assault, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers or Employees).

Case 1:23-cr-00022-MAC-ZJH Document 31 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 71
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/17/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       59,788
COMMITMENTS
   6,435    1,901    8,178   45,171   49,707   59,784   59,786        4        2

CHANGES FROM 01/10/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        969)
     869     -525      356     -260    1,136      965      967        4        2

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    10.8      3.2     13.7     75.6     83.1    100.0    100.0      0.0      0.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       20)
       6        2        5        6       11       13       17
```

----

Updated January 20, 2012
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We have issued our report dated March 6, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedule included in the Annual Report of BackWeb Technologies Ltd. on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in thepreviously filed Registration Statements of BackWeb Technologies Ltd. on Forms S-8 (File No.333-119432, effective October 1, 2004, File No. 333-101224, effective November 15, 2002, File No.333-68804, effective August 31, 2001, File No. 333-51098, effective December 1, 2000, and File No.333-84659, effective August 6, 1999).         /s/ GRANT THORTON LLP         San Jose, CA
Jason M. SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6030.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS OFTHE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATE OFWASHINGTON, 

### ) No. 79468-0-I

Respondent, v. 

### ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION



### ) TIMOTHY GONSALVES, 

### )

Appellant. PER CURIAM

— Timothy Gonsalves appeals the community supervision fee imposed as part of his sentence forsecond degree identitytheft and DUI. He contends the fee should be stricken because he is indigent, the fee is discretionary, and the trial court indicated it intended to waive all discretionary financial obligations. The record and our recent decision in State v. Dillon, No. 78592-3-I, slip op. at (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2020), https://www.courts.wa.qov/opinions/pdf/785923.~df (remanding to trial courtto strike DOC supervision fees where the record reflected the trial court’s intentto waive all discretionary LFOs) support Gonsalves’ argument. We remand forthe courtto strikethe community supervision feefrom thejudgment and sentence. Remanded for proceedings consistentwith this opinion.

FOR THE COURT:



# __ 

# I 

# ~‘‘~1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-27-1996
<CASH>                                             824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,817
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,957
<PP&E>                                          11,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,015
<BONDS>                                          5,415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,577
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,847
<SALES>                                         65,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,451
<CGS>                                           62,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,301
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    694
<INCOME-TAX>                                       250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       444
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Patrick Jon EVERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-101.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
----

| (1)   | Registration                Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-82518) of TurboChef Technologies,                Inc., |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)   | Registration                Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-117806) of TurboChef Technologies,                Inc., |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3)   | Registration                Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-121818) of TurboChef Technologies,                Inc., |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (4)   | Registration                Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-76662) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option                Plan, |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (5)   | Registration                Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81571) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option                Plan, |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (6)   | Registration                Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-116225) pertaining to TurboChef Technologies,                Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan, and |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (7)   | Registration                Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-128442) pertaining to TurboChef Technologies,                Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/11/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      492,055
COMMITMENTS
  72,773   54,875  131,979  244,274  282,492  449,026  469,346   43,029   22,709

CHANGES FROM 12/04/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -9,090)
     700    4,151  -12,922    2,146   -1,986  -10,076  -10,757      986    1,667

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    14.8     11.2     26.8     49.6     57.4     91.3     95.4      8.7      4.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      142)
      34       32       49       69       64      131      121
```

----

Updated December 14, 2012
IB

House Calendar No. 243

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1959

[Report No. 106–688]

To designate the Federal building located at 743 East Durango Boulevard

in San Antonio, Texas, as the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Center’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1999

Mr. GONZALEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

JUNE 22, 2000

Reported with amendments, committed to the House Calendar, and ordered

to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 743 East Durango Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the ‘‘Adrian

A. Spears Judicial Training Center’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 743 East Durango

5 Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, shall be known and des-
2

•HR 1959 RH

1 ignated as the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Cen2 ter’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

6 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to

7 reference to the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training

8 Center’’.

9 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

10 The Federal building located at 643 East Durango

11 Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, shall be known and des12 ignated as the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Cen13 ter’’.

14 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

15 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

16 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

17 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a

18 reference to the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Cen19 ter’’.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to designate

the Federal building located at 643 East Durango Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the ‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Center’.’’.

House Calendar No. 243

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1959

[Report No. 106–688]

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 743

East Durango Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas,as the ‘‘Adrian A. Spears Judicial Training Center’’.

JUNE 22, 2000

Reported with amendments, committed to the House

Calendar, and ordered to be printed