alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC 

Attorneys At Law 

1251 Avenue of the Americas 

18th Floor 

New York, New York 10020 

Tel: 212.262.6700 

Fax: 212.262.7402 

Attorneys for Defendants Cerberus 

Global Investments, LLC, Cerberus 

Capital Management, L.P., Cerberus Partners, L.P. 

and Cerberus Global Investment Advisors, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

DIRECT INVESTMENT PARTNERS AG, 

Plaintiff, 07 Civ. 3310 (LLS) (RLE) 

 - against - FILED VIA ECF 

CERBERUS GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., 

CERBERUS PARTNERS, L.P. and CERBERUS 

GLOBAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Defendants. 

 I, LAWRENCE M. ROLNICK, of full age, hereby certify as follows: 

On December 4, 2007, I caused copies of: 

1. Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of their Motion to 

Dismiss; and 

2. this Certificate of Service; 

to be electronically filed via the Court’s ECF service and served on Plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel 

D. Levy, via electronic mail and Federal Express (next business day). 

 I hereby certify that the foregoing factual statements are true. I am aware that if 

any of the foregoing factual statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. 

Case 1:07-cv-03310-LLS Document 22-2 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC 

Attorneys for Defendants Cerberus Global 

Investments, LLC, Cerberus Capital Management, 

L.P., Cerberus Partners, L.P. and Cerberus Global 

Investment Advisors, LLC 

Dated: December 4, 2007 By: s/ Lawrence M. Rolnick_______ 

 Lawrence M. Rolnick (LR-0546) 

 Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. (TR-3902) 

 1251 Avenue of the Americas 

 18th Floor 

 New York, New York 10020 

 Tel: 212.262.6700 

 Fax: 212.262.7402 

 - and - 

 65 Livingston Avenue 

Roseland, New Jersey 07068 

Tel: 973.597.2500 

Fax: 973.597.2400 

 

Case 1:07-cv-03310-LLS Document 22-2 Filed 12/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. BROWN

No. 89 C.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 35.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 June 1973.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY O. FOSTER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-47, CA-97-428-3-P) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby O. Foster, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s judgment is marked as “filed” on June 1, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 3, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we take the date that the judgment was entered on the docket sheet as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Foster, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Foster , Nos. CR-93-47; CA-97-428-3-P (W.D.N.C. June 3, 1998). * 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
#### JEPTHA MARVIN BROWN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8076

December 5, 1975

542 P.2d 1068

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Keith E. Galliher, Jr.,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Thomas D. Beatty,*Assistant District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Convicted of robbery, appellant filed this appeal wherein he contends: (1) he was entitled to counsel at the crime scene identification; and (2) the identification violated due process standards. We reject both contentions.

On April 19, 1974, a robbery occurred at Sammy’s News Stand in Las Vegas. The store clerk immediately contacted the police and provided a detailed description of the suspect. A patrolman spotted a man matching the description running into the Golden Hotel near the newsstand. When the officers *778knocked, appellant answered Ms hotel room door and was immediately arrested. Shortly thereafter, the store clerk identified appellant at the crime scene.

1. We reject appellant’s contention that he was denied his sixth amendment right to counsel at the crime scene identification. The right does not exist where the accused has been arrested on probable cause and prior to the commencement of any prosecution. Reed v. Warden, 89 Nev. 141, 508 P.2d 2 (1973); Spencer v. State, 88 Nev. 392, 498 P.2d 1335 (1972). Cf. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972).

2. We also reject Ms contention that the crime scene identification was so suggestive as to violate due process. Cf. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967). We doubt the identification violates due process, but it is unnecessary to decide the issue. After a full evidentiary hearing, the district judge found the in-court identification was based on observations independent of the crime scene lineup. For example, the store clerk observed the robber for approximately 25 minutes during two separate times he was seen in the store. She provided a detailed description of Ms features and clothing. TMs evidence amply supports the district court’s determination that the in-court identification had independent origin. Riley v. State, 86 Nev. 244, 468 P.2d 11 (1970); McCray v. State, 85 Nev. 597, 460 P.2d 160 (1969).

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John T. Raymond, Chief Executive Officer and President of Plains Resources Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of Plains Resources Inc.; 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] for the registrant and we have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986]; 

 

c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and 

 

d. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000320446
<NAME> LINCOLN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           21151
<SECURITIES>                                     13081
<RECEIVABLES>                                    38183
<ALLOWANCES>                                       754
<INVENTORY>                                       9137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 84102
<PP&E>                                          520718
<DEPRECIATION>                                  265456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  520321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            74764
<BONDS>                                          44000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       4499
<COMMON>                                          9312
<OTHER-SE>                                      250233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    520321
<SALES>                                          18768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                225089
<CGS>                                             8357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   175128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   198
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  47476
<INCOME-TAX>                                     18447
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              29029
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  16516
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     12288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 1 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 2 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 3 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 4 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 5 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 6 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 7 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 8 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 9 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 10 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 11 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 12 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 13 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 14 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 15 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 16 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 17 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 18 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 19 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 20 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 21 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 22 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 23 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 24 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 25 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 26 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 27 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 28 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 29 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 30 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 31 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 32 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 33 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 34 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 35 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 36 of 37
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 10-12 Filed 01/21/2008 Page 37 of 37
#### STATE v. ERVIN V. KING.

(Filed 11 January 1963.)

Criminal Law § 101—

Testimony that a witness for the State had made statements prior to the trial at variance in certain respects with the testimony of the witness, does not justify nonsuit, since such conflicts and discrepancies bear only upon the credibility of the witness and to the weight the jury should give his testimony.

Appeal by defendant from *Carr, J.,*June 1962 Criminal Term of ÁLAMANCE.

Criminal prosecution on bill of indictment charging that defendant, on February 2, 1961, unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously committed the abominable and detestable crime against nature -by forcing Tommy Dawson, a six-year-old child, to have unnatural sexual relations with him in the manner set forth in said bill.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Upon trial, evidence was offered by the State and by defendant; and the jury returned a verdict of “Guilty as Charged in the Bill of Indictment.” Judgment, that defendant be imprisoned “for not less than twelve or more than fifteen years,” was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.*

*Ross & Wood and Dalton, Long & Latham for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant was first tried and convicted at August Criminal Term, 1961; but, upon his appeal from the judgment of imprisonment then pronounced, this Court awarded a new trial. *S. v. King,*256 N.C. 236, 123 S.E. 2d 486.

The State’s evidence consists principally of the testimony of Tommy Dawson, the alleged victim, and of witnesses whose testimony (offered for the purpose of corroboration) relates to statements made by Tommy Dawson prior to defendant’s arrest. According to the testimony of these witnesses, there were, in certain respects, conflicts and discrepancies between Tommy Dawson’s prior statements and his testimony at trial. However, such conflicts and discrepancies go to the credibility of Tommy Dawson and to the weight, if any, the jury should give his testimony.

The evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to require submission to the jury and to support the verdict; and careful consideration of each of defendant’s assignments of error fails to disclose any error of law for which a new trial *533should be awarded. The determinative issue was one of fact; and, after a trial free from prejudicial error, the jury, upon conflicting evidence, resolved the crucial issue against defendant.

No error.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


         We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Nos. 33-34590, 33-75338 and 333-19027 of Grey Wolf, Inc. on Form S-8 and
Registration Statements Nos. 333-14783, 333-6077, 333-2043, 333-36593 and
333-39683 of Grey Wolf, Inc. on Form S-3, of our report dated March 3, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Grey Wolf, Inc. and Subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1997 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, and the
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Grey Wolf, Inc.



                                       KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Houston, Texas
March 24, 1998


                                      -58-
Exhibit 99.9


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Chairman, President and Treasurer, of Jaco Electronics, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2003 (the "Periodic Report") accompanying this certification fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. The foregoing
certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions
of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used
for any other purpose.


May 13, 2003
                                          /s/ Joel H. Girsky
                                          ----------------------
                                          Joel H. Girsky
                                          Chairman, President and Treasurer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)
#### STATE v. FAISON

No. 34 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 200.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 April 1973.
LYNCH, TRAUB, KEEFE AND ERRANTE, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW

52 TRUMBULL STREET P.O. BOX 1612 NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06506-1612

TELEPHONE (203) 787-0275 FACSIMILE (203) 782-0278

W:\22000-22499\22123 NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS\001 - SJE\PLEADINGS\2007\MOTION FOR EXTENSION.DOC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

BARBARA FORLASTRO

AND ROBERT G. FORLASTRO, 

AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF 

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT J. FORLASTRO : CIVIL NO.: 3:06 CV 01541(RNC)

VS. : 

JAMES COLLINS : JANUARY 24, 2007

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

Rule 7(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant, James 

Collins, respectfully moves for an extension of time to respond, by 

either answer or objection, to plaintiffs Complaint. The defendant 

requests an extension of time to and including February 19, 2007, to 

respond, by either answer or motion to the plaintiffs Complaint.

Said extension is necessary as undersigned counsel was only 

recently retained to represent the interests of the defendant in this 

matter, and therefore, additional time is needed in order to 

investigate the allegations in the plaintiffs Complaint and 

appropriately respond thereto. 

Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 1-7 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
LYNCH, TRAUB, KEEFE AND ERRANTE, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW

52 TRUMBULL STREET P.O. BOX 1612 NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06506-1612

TELEPHONE (203) 787-0275 FACSIMILE (203) 782-0278

W:\22000-22499\22123 NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS\001 - SJE\PLEADINGS\2007\MOTION FOR EXTENSION.DOC

This is the defendant s first motion seeking an extension of time 

of this deadline. Plaintiffs counsel, Michael A. Stratton, has been

consulted regarding this request and has indicated that he has no 

objection. 

WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully requests that his Motion 

for Extension of Time be granted. 

Respectfully submitted,

THE DEFENDANT

James Collins

BY: ____________________________

STEVEN J. ERRANTE, ESQ. (ct04292)

MARISA A. BELLAIR, ESQ. (ct23802)

Fed. Bar No. ct04292

Lynch, Traub, Keefe, & Errante

52 Trumbull Street

New Haven, CT 06510

Telephone: 203-787-0275

Facsimile: 203-782-0278

Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 1-7 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
LYNCH, TRAUB, KEEFE AND ERRANTE, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW

52 TRUMBULL STREET P.O. BOX 1612 NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06506-1612

TELEPHONE (203) 787-0275 FACSIMILE (203) 782-0278

W:\22000-22499\22123 NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS\001 - SJE\PLEADINGS\2007\MOTION FOR EXTENSION.DOC

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that a copy of the above was sent electronically 

on January 24, 2007 to all counsel and pro se parties of record as 

follows:

Michael A. Stratton, Esq.

Stratton Faxon

59 Elm Street

New Haven, CT 06510

___________________________

Steven J. Errante, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 1-7 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Matthew A. White, certify that:

** **

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Intelligent Systems Corporation; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

Date: April 24, 2020

 

|   | */s/**Matthew A. White*

 Matthew A. White

 Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

----
#### RUTH COLTRANE ROBERTS v. JAMES GRAY ROBERTS.

(Filed 21 November 1962.)

Appeal by defendant from *Walker, S.J.,*in Chambers, Randolph Superior Court.

The plaintiff instituted this civil action against the defendant, her husband, for alimony without divorce. The defendant demurred upon the ground the complaint alleged conclusions and not ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for divorce from bed and board. After notice, Judge Walker held a hearing upon the plaintiff’s application for alimony *pendente lite*and counsel fees. At the hearing the court held as a matter of law the complaint stated a cause of action and entered a *pendente lite*order that the defendant pay the plaintiff $20.00 per week for her support pending a hearing on the merits. The court refused to allow counsel fees.

*Deane F. Bell, for plaintiff appellee.*

*Ottway Burton, for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s complaint, while not in full detail, yet contains sufficient factual averments to survive the demurrer. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the *pendente lite*allowance and the amount thereof. Apparently the court failed to provide for counsel fees upon the ground the evidence showed the plaintiff was amply able to pay her own attorney. The order from which this appeal is taken is

Affirmed.