alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Figgs, defendant below, plaintiff in error, vs John L. Mumford, plaintiff below, defendant in error.

*Justices of. the*Peace— *Waiver of Irregular Adjournment.*

Where both parties appeared in a Justice’s Court on the day to which a cause stood adjourned, and went to trial without objection, it was a waiver of an objection to a previous irregular adjournment.

*(April*13, *1898.)*

Fore, C. J., and Pennewill and Boyce, J. J., sitting.

*C. W. Cullen*for defendant below, plaintiff in error.

*R. C. White*for plaintiff below, defendant in error.

Superior Court, Sussex County,

April Term, 1898. °

Certiorari directed to George T. Dodd, Esq., a Justice of the Peace in and for Sussex County, (No. 24 April Term, 1898).

EXCEPTIONS.

1. For that it appears from the record that the case was adjourned three times by. the said Justice upon his own motion, and not upon the application of either plaintiff or defendant.

2. For that the Justice adjourned said case when no application had been made by either of the said parties.

3. For that the amount demanded is not sufficiently stated, there being no time stated from which interest accrues or commences nor when the cause of action arose.

Fore, C. J:—

Both parties appeared on the day to which the cause stood adjourned, and the plaintiff did not then object to the delay, but went into a trial. We regard this as a waiver of his objection to previous adjournment, if that were irregular. *Wright vs. Hayes, 2 Harr., 390.*

Judgment below affirmed.
| 1.   | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: November 9, 2010 | By: /s/ John A. Kite                 |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                        | John A. Kite                         |
|                        | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |                                 |
| Date: November 9, 2010      | By: /s/ Daniel R. Sink               |
|                        | Daniel R. Sink                       |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer              |
STATE of North Carolina v. James Issac FAULK

No. 389P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2018

Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Faulk, James Issac.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Bethany A. Burgon, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

James Issac Faulk, for Faulk, James Issac.

*888***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 16th of November 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of March 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th of November 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
In the MATTER OF: L.L.

No. COA18-168

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 61019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21031]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 61019]]


                Proclamation 7949 of October 14, 2005

                
White Cane Safety Day, 2005

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                Americans who are blind or visually impaired are 
                valuable and contributing members of our society, and 
                many use a white cane to help them succeed at school, 
                home, or work. White canes give these individuals 
                greater mobility and enable them to participate in more 
                aspects of community life. On White Cane Safety Day, we 
                celebrate the progress that has been made for those who 
                are blind or visually impaired, and we reaffirm our 
                commitment to ensuring that these citizens can live and 
                work with greater freedom and independence.

                One of our Nation's defining values is compassion, and 
                we must make certain that all our citizens are able to 
                harness their talents, engage in productive work, and 
                participate fully in society. My Administration is 
                working to fulfill this goal for individuals with 
                disabilities through the New Freedom Initiative. This 
                comprehensive program helps increase the development 
                and use of assistive and universally designed 
                technologies, expand educational and employment 
                opportunities, and improve access into daily community 
                life. By working to reduce barriers and change old ways 
                of thinking, we can help ensure that our Nation's 
                opportunities are more accessible to all.

                The Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88-628) 
                approved on October 6, 1964, as amended, has designated 
                October 15 of each year as ``White Cane Safety Day.''

                NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the 
                United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 
                15, 2005, as White Cane Safety Day. I call upon public 
                officials, business leaders, educators, librarians, and 
                all the people of the United States to observe this day 
                with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                fourteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord two 
                thousand five, and of the Independence of the United 
                States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

[FR Doc. 05-21031
Filed 8-17-05; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                        FIRST MERCHANTS CAPITAL TRUST II

     This Certificate of Trust is being executed as of December 12, 2001 for the
purposes of organizing a business trust pursuant to the Delaware Business Trust
Act, 12 Del. C. Sections 3801 et seq. (the "Act").

     The undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

1.   Name. The name of the business trust is "First Merchants Capital Trust II"
     (the "Trust").

2.   Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the Delaware trustee of
     the Trust meeting the requirements of Section 3807 of the Act are as
     follows:

     First Union Trust Company, National Association
     One Rodney Square
     920 King Street
     Suite 102
     Wilmington, Delaware 19801
     Attention: Corporate Trust Trustee Administration

3.   Effective. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective immediately upon
     filing in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned being all of the trustees of the Trust,
have duly executed this Certificate of Trust as of the day and year first above
written.

FIRST UNION TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AS DELAWARE TRUSTEE

By:   /s/ Edward L. Truitt, Jr.
   --------------------------------------
   Name:  Edward L. Truitt, Jr.
        ---------------------------------
   Title: Vice President
         --------------------------------

                                       -1-
<Page>

ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEE

  /s/ Michael L. Cox
-----------------------------------------
  Michael L. Cox

ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEE

  /s/ Larry R. Helms
-----------------------------------------
  Larry R. Helms, Esq.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEE

  /s/ Mark K. Hardwick
-----------------------------------------
  Mark K. Hardwick

                                       -2-
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 506 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 506

   To provide immediate fiscal relief to cities experiencing serious 
  budget deficits by providing funds for payments to qualified local 
                              governments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2009

  Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide immediate fiscal relief to cities experiencing serious 
  budget deficits by providing funds for payments to qualified local 
                              governments.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENTS TO QUALIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

    (a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under this section the 
Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to each qualified local government 
an amount that is based on and proportional to the population of the 
area that under State law is under the jurisdiction of that qualified 
local government.
    (b) Use of Funds.--Amounts paid to a qualified local government 
under this section may be used to improve public safety, clean and 
maintain streets, and preserve services benefitting children and youth, 
as otherwise authorized by State and local law.
    (c) Qualified Local Government Defined.--In this section the term 
``qualified local government'' means any local government having 
jurisdiction under State law over an area having a population of 
1,000,000 or more.
    (d) Appropriation.--There is appropriated to carry out this section 
$7,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00096-CR

NO. 02-11-00097-CR

NO. 02-11-00098-CR

NO. 02-11-00099-CR

JOSHUA AUSTIN 

RODRIGUEZ

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Joshua Austin Rodriguez appeals his four prison sentences

imposed for engaging in organized criminal activity. We affirm.

Appellant pled guilty to five charges of engaging in organized criminal 

activity and elected to have a jury decide his punishment. The jury assessed 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement on four of the charges and 

recommended ten years’ probation on the fifth.

2

 The trial court sentenced 

Appellant to twenty-five years’ confinement for the four cases on appeal, to run 

concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to 

withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion. In the 

brief, counsel states, that in his professional opinion these appeals are frivolous 

and without merit. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for 

relief. We gave Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders

brief, but he has not filed one. The State also has not filed a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on 

the grounds that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, 

this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. 

See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. 

State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only 

then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

 

2Appellant did not appeal the case in which he received a probated 

sentence.
3

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief. We agree 

with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find 

nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 

206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 21, 2012
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                           PARK-OHIO INDUSTRIES, INC.
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                       (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIO DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
.....................................      2002       2001       2000      1999         1998
                                          ----       ----       ----      ----         ----
<S>                                     <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>          <C>
Earnings (loss)
  before income taxes................   $(11,044)  $(36,844)   $ 7,906   $28,608      $22,820

Less capitalized interest............                                                  (1,000)

Fixed charges........................     31,206     35,320     35,084    28,690       20,840
                                         -------    -------    -------   -------      -------

Earnings available for fixed
  charges............................   $ 19,750   $ (1,524)   $42,990   $57,298      $42,660

Fixed charges:
Interest component
  of rent expense....................   $  3,583   $  4,212    $ 4,272   $ 3,938      $ 2,352

Interest expense.....................     27,623     31,108     30,812    24,752       17,488

Interest capitalized.................                                                   1,000

Amortization of deferred financing
  costs..............................        --(1)      --(1)      --(1)      --(1)        --(1)
                                         -------    -------    -------    -------      -------

Total fixed charges..................   $ 31,206   $ 35,320    $35,084   $28,690      $20,840

Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges............................          (2)        (2)     1.23x      2.0x         2.0x
</Table>

(1) Included in interest expense
(2) Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges for the years ended
    December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the coverage deficiency totaled $11,044 and
    $36,844, respectively.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

IMPLANT SCIENCES CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Section 302 Certification

 

I, Anthony J. Armini, certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-KSB of Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the“registrant”);

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b.              evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation ; and

 

c.               disclosed in this report any change inthe registrants internal controls over financial reporting that occurred duringthe most recent fiscal quarter that has materially effected or is reasonablylikely to materially effect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting: and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:

 

a.               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information: and

 

b.              any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: October 11, 2004 | by:    | /s/ Anthony J. Armini                  |   |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Anthony J.  Armini                     |
|                   |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60836-60837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20954]


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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

agency holding the meeting: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

date and time: Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 9:30 a.m., eastern time.

place: Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of 
the EEOC, Office Building, 1801 ``L'' Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20507.

status: The meeting will be open to the public.

matters to be considered: 

Open Session

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities: Is the 
Workplace Ready?

    Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be 
open to the public observation of the Commission's deliberations and 
voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission

[[Page 60837]]

meetings in Federal Register, the Commission also provides a 
recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission 
sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for information on these meetings. contact person for more 
information: Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-
4070.

    This notice issued October 13, 2005.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 05-20954 Filed 10-14-05; 4:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 6750-06-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7347** 
DENNIS J. JACKSON, a/k/a Dennis J. Jackson, Sr., a/k/a Dennis James Jackson , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Margaret B. Seymour , District Judge. ( 8:09

- cv - 00906

- MBS )

Submitted : January 28, 2011 Decided: February 23 , 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Dennis J. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appell ee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dennis J. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition in which he alleged that the trial court improperly admi tted DNA evidence against him, that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel, that he was deprived of a speedy trial, and that he was deprived of a preliminary hearing . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certif icate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating “ that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. ” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockre ll , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constit utional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss3 the appeal. 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. DISMISSED