alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY MUSSELWHITE

No. 153A81

(Filed 3 March 1982)

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals finding no error in the judgment entered by *Battle, J.,*at the 27 October 1980 Criminal Session of ROBESON Superior Court. The Court of Appeals’ opinion, 54 N.C. App. 68, — S.E. 2d — (1981), is by *Judge Robert M. Martin*with *Judge Harry C. Martin*concurring. *Judge Becton*dissented and defendant appealed to this court pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2).

Defendant was convicted of the offense of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling in violation of G.S. 14-34.1. The trial judge entered judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than three nor more than five years.

*296
      *Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Walter M. Smith and Assistant Attorney General Reginald L. Watkins, for the State.*

*Adam Stein, Appellate Defender, and James H. Gold, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant.*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding (1) that defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense, and (2) that the trial court adequately explained the principles of acting in concert as they applied to the evidence in this case.

We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the Court of Appeals and the briefs and authorities relating to defendant’s contentions. We conclude that the result reached by the Court of Appeals, its reasoning, and the legal principles enunciated by it are correct and adopt that opinion as our own.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.
# USS Oklahoma Sailor Accounted for from WWII (Malek, M.)

/ Published March 18, 2024
Washington, 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that Navy Seaman 2nd Class Michael Malek, 17, of Chicago, Illinois, killed during World War II, was accounted for on Feb. 24, 2021.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Malek was assigned to the battleship USS Oklahoma, which was moored at Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, when the ship was attacked by Japanese aircraft. The USS Oklahoma sustained multiple torpedo hits, which caused it to quickly capsize. The attack on the ship resulted in the deaths of 429 crewmen, including Malek.

From December 1941 to June 1944, Navy personnel recovered the remains of the deceased crew, which were subsequently interred in the Halawa and Nu’uanu Cemeteries.

In September 1947, tasked with recovering and identifying fallen U.S. personnel in the Pacific Theater, members of the American Graves Registration Service (AGRS) disinterred the remains of U.S. casualties from the two cemeteries and transferred them to the Central Identification Laboratory at Schofield Barracks. The laboratory staff was only able to confirm the identifications of 35 men from the USS Oklahoma at that time. The AGRS subsequently buried the unidentified remains in 46 plots at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific (NMCP), known as the Punchbowl, in Honolulu. In October 1949, a military board classified those who could not be identified as non-recoverable, including Malek.

Between June and November 2015, DPAA personnel exhumed the USS Oklahoma Unknowns from the Punchbowl for analysis.

To identify Malek’s remains, scientists from DPAA used dental and anthropological analysis. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis.

Malek’s name is recorded on the Walls of the Missing at the Punchbowl, along with the others who are missing from WWII. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

Malek will be buried on June 6, 2024, in the Punchbowl.

For family and funeral information, contact the Navy Service Casualty office at (800) 443-9298.

DPAA is grateful to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of the Navy for their partnership in this mission.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil, find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.

Malek’s personnel profile can be viewed at https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt0000000Xe04EAC.
#### FOX v. MILLER

No. 138 P.C.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 391.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979.
#### Sam Loven v. The People ex rel. Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Company.

1. Contempt of *Court—Disobedience to an*Injunction.—It is no defense to a charge for disobeying an injunction to say that the persons he was enjoined from corresponding with, wrote to him first.

Memorandum.—Contempt proceedings. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 12, 1895.

Collins, Goodrich, Darrow & Vincent, solicitors for appellant.

Henry C. Royes and I. 1L Boyesen, attorneys for appellee.

Me. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On the 12th day of Rovember, 1894, this court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court by which, *inter alia,*the appellant was enjoined “ from in any manner corresponding or communicating (in any way) with the agents and customers of said complainant (Doctor Peter Fahrney & Sons Company), or soliciting said customers or agents to purchase medicines sold by defendant in the sale of medicine of any kind.”

He has done what he was thus enjoined not to do, and his excuse is that such agents and customers wrote to him first, and that the correspondence and solicitation on his part were in reply. That is no excuse. The injunction *507was for the protection of the Fahrney *&*Sons Co., and the injury to it is the same, regardless of how the correspondence commenced.

The order punishing him for contempt in disobeying the injunction by ten days imprisonment, is affirmed.
#### STATE v. REVELL

No. 153 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 694.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 January 1982.
**EXHIBIT 21**

**LIST OFSUBSIDIARIES**

Symyx Tools, Inc. (formerly Symyx Discovery Tools, Inc.),incorporated in California and doing business under such name.

Symyx Software, Inc. (formerly Symyx RenaissanceSoftware, Inc.), incorporated in Oregon and doing business under suchname.

Symyx Technologies, AG, incorporated in Switzerlandand doing business under such name.

Symyx Technologies International, Inc.,incorporated in Delaware and doing business under such name.

Symyx Technologies (France) SARL, incorporated inFrance and doing business under such name.

Symyx Technologies (Germany) GmbH, incorporated inGermany and doing business under such name.

Symyx Technologies (UK) Ltd, incorporated in UnitedKingdom and doing business under such name.

Symyx Technologies Europe SA (Formerly Autodose SA),incorporated in Switzerland and doing business under such name.

----
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City of Rochester, Appellant, to Acquire Certain Lands in the Town of Livonia Belonging to Sarah Barnes et al., Respondents.

*Matter of City of Rochester,*184 App. Div. 369, affirmed.

(Argued October 1, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 7, 1918, which reversed an order of Special Term appointing commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings and dismissed the proceedings instituted under the provisions of the charter of the city of Rochester (L. 1907, ch. 755). The Appellate Division dismissed the proceedings on the ground that the provision of the statute requiring that one of the commissioners should be a resident and freeholder of the city of Rochester was unconstitutional.

*B. B. Cunningham, Corporation Counsel,*for appellant.

*Fred A. Robbins, Charles Ward*and *Charles D. Newton*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of *Matter of City of Rochester (Town of Canadice)*(224 N. Y. 386).

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Veridian
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David H. Langstaff, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ DAVID H. LANGSTAFF 
| |                        
| | David H. Langstaff     
| | Chief Executive Officer

March 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       123,624,316
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        6,443,301
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          6,544,316
<EQUITIES>                                   2,532,102
<MORTGAGE>                                  12,719,629
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             154,601,671
<CASH>                                       2,207,506
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             591,615
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      29,613,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             203,466,189
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            152,265,096
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          8,085,775
<POLICY-OTHER>                               1,559,017
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        2,235,707
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       785,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,560,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               203,466,189
<PREMIUMS>                                  21,905,292
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          7,816,718
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              24,367
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 294,431
<BENEFITS>                                  12,946,350
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    268,863
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        16,577,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                248,280
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            193,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 78,739
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-2 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-2 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-2 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-2 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03473-GEL Document 2 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
Converted by EDGARwiz


 VALLEY FORGE COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND AGREEMENT



 This Acknowledgement and Agreement is furnished pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 10, 2009 (the “
Agreement”), by and among Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “
Company”), and the investors listed on the Schedule of Buyers attached thereto.  (Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.)  



 The undersigned, Louis J. Brothers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby acknowledges on behalf of the Company in his capacity as an officer of the Company that the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement shall constitute a “
Dilutive Issuance” (as such term is defined in each of the Prior Notes and Prior Warrants, each as defined in the Agreement). So as to facilitate the transactions contemplated by the Agreement, each of MKM Opportunity Master Fund, Ltd. (“
MKM”) and the Company hereby agree as follows:
 

 (a)

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 of each of the Prior Warrants, no adjustment shall be made to the Prior Warrants as a result of the issuance by the Company of the Common Shares and Warrants at the Closing.  Each of MKM and the Company acknowledge that the “Exercise Price” (as defined in each of the Prior Warrants) of each of the Prior Warrants shall remain at $0.20 following the consummation of the Closing; and



 (b)

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7(a) of each of the Prior Notes, MKM hereby waives the application of Section 7(a) of the Prior Notes so that the issuance by the Company of the Common Shares and Warrants at the Closing shall not result in an adjustment to the “Conversion Price” (as defined in each of the Prior Notes) in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(a) of the Prior Notes.



 MKM further acknowledges that the Company has complied with Section 4(m) of the Prior Securities Purchase Agreements with respect to the transactions contemplated by the Agreement.



 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Acknowledgement and caused this Acknowledgement to be delivered to MKM as of August 10, 2009.



  
                                                                                                                 
/s/ Louis J. Brothers 
 Louis J. Brothers, President and

Chief Executive Officer

Acknowledged and Agreed:
 


 MKM OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND, LTD.



 

 By:
/s/ David Skriloff
 David Skriloff, Portfolio Manager
Case 1:07-cv-03412-DC Document 4 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03412-DC Document 4 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03412-DC Document 4 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03412-DC Document 4 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03412-DC Document 4 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03412-DC Document 4 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 6 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03501-PKL Document 4 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03501-PKL Document 4 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 15-3 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 1 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 15-3 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 2 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 15-3 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 3 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 15-3 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 4 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 15-3 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 5 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 15-3 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### STATE v. MONTGOMERY

No. 29 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 233.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1978.
United States District Court

Broadcast Music, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff,

.against..

229 Restaurant, Inc., dlb/a Shadow

Nightclub and Steven Juliano,

individually Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Case # 07 CV 3507

CITY OF ALBANY SS:

STATE OF NEW YORK

Denise L. Dooley, being duly sworn says: Deponent is over the age of eighteen years and is a resident

of New York State, that: Deponent served the following specific papers in the above entitled action:

Summons, Complaint, Rule 7.1 Statement, Civil Cover Sheet, Individual Practices of Judge Paul A.

Crotty, Individual Practices of Magistrate Michael H. Dolinger, Procedures for Electronic Case Filing,

Press Release dated June 1, 2004, Standing Order and 31 Amended Instructions for Filing, under

Section 306 of the Business Corporation Law. The corporation which was served was: 229

RESTAURANT, INC.

That on the 22nd day of May, 2007 at approx. 9:30 a.m., at the office of Department of State of New

York, in the City of Albany, two (2) copies of the aforesaid papers were served by personally

delivering to and leaving with Carol Vogt known to me to be in the Corporation Division of the

Department of State and empowered to receive such service. That at the time of making such service,

deponent paid to the Secretary of State the fee prescribed by Law in the amount of $40.00.

Description of Carol Vogt - Senior Corporation SearclClerk

white female, approx. 50 yrs., 5'2", 120 lbs., brown haLr

Denise. Dooley

Sworn to before me

this 22nd day of May 2007.

FRANK J. PANUCCI

Notary Public, State of New York

Qualified in Albany County

No.4721156

Commission Expires July 31, 2010

Case 1:07-cv-03507-PAC Document 3-2 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
State of New York - Department of State

Receipt for Service

Receipt #: 200705220291 Cash #: 200705220244 Date of Service: 05/22/2007 Fee Paid: $40 - DRAWDOWN

Service Company: 12 EMPIRE CORPORATE & INFORMATION SERVICES,

Service was directed to be made pursuant to: SECTION 306 OF THE BUSINESS

CORPORATION LAW

Party Served: 229 RESTAURANT, INC.

Plaintiff/Petitioner:

BROADCAST MUSIC, INC.

Service of Process Address:

dO CHARLES B. LINN

141 SOUTH CENTRAL AVE.

HARTSDALE, NY 10530

Secretary of State

By CAROL VOGT

Case 1:07-cv-03507-PAC Document 3-2 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. BOYD

No. 137 PC.

Case below: 36 N.C. App. 155.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1978.
#### William Mester v. William Wuest, by August Ehlers, his Next Friend.

1. *Instructions—Must Not Misstate the*Evidence.—An instruction upon the question of what judgment and care is to be expected from a boy, stated his age to be thirteen years, when the evidence (undisputed) showed it to be fourteen. *Held,*error. At this period of a boy’s life a year may be material in determining the question.

Memorandum.—Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cool: County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed December 20, 1894.

Loesoh Brothers & Howell, attorneys for appellant.

Kistler & Joslyn, attorneys for appellee.

*123Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion oe the Court.

The appellee sued the appellant for damages sustained by being bitten by a dog of the appellant.

We shall make no comment upon the merits of the case. The jury found a verdict for the appellee for the sum of $2,000, upon which a judgment for $1,000 was entered, $1,000 being remitted. We are not so certain that this is right— just—that we may disregard a serious error. There was testimony tending to show that the dog was not alone to blame. The appellee was fourteen years old at the time of the biting. Among the instructions for him was this:

“ 4. The court further instructs the jury that a child is not supposed to use the same judgment and care in case of danger as would an adult, and in determining the negligence, the jury should consider the age and intelligence of the child, and whether he used such care and acted as a boy thirteen years of age might be supposed to act in such a case.”

This mistake of one .year as to the age may have had a decided effect upon the jury. They might not remember the testimony as to age, and adopt the- assumption by the court. At that period of a boy’s life every year counts. Revised Statute, Ch. 38, Sec. 237, Ch. 64, Sec. 3.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
. . . 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 'MCAB 

AUSTIN 

.~~ 

WPP , 

Honorable U. P..Sexton 

county Attorney 

Orange, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

opinion NO. 0-372s 

Re: Whether oounty treasurer is 

entitled&o reoeive oommissionfor the oolleotion and 

disbursement of Road District Funds in addition to 

the maximum compensation of 

$2,000~.00 per year. 

In your letter 0r June 29, 1941, you request our 

opinion in response to the following question8 

"Is the County Treasurer of a county having a population of 15,545, aooording to the 

last Federal Census and a valuation of 

$12,183,570.00, according to the last approved 

tax roll, authorized to deduct a oommission for 

the collection and disbursement of Road District 

Funds. in addition to the maximum comnensation 

of $Z;OOO.OO per annum, provided for in Article 

3943, R.C.S.?" 

Article 3941, Revised Civil Statutes, reads as 

r0ii0ws: 

Vhe county treasurer shall receive commissions on the moneys reoeived and paid out by 

him, said aommissions to be fixed by order of 

the commissioners oourt as follows: For reoeiving all moneys, other than school funds, for 

the county, not exceeding two and one-half per 

cent, and not exceeding two and one-hall per cent 

for paying out the same; provided, that he ,shall 

receive no commissions for receiving money from 

his predecessor nor for paying over money to his 

suooessor in office.* 
Honorable 1. P. Sexton, Page 2 

By Artiole 3943., Revised Civil Statutes, as 

amended, the oommissions allowed to the oount treasurer 

of Orange County are limited to a maximum of $ 2,ooo.oo 

per year, none of the exoeptions to that aunt provided 

in said Article 3943 and in Articles 3943a and 3943b, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, being epplioable. While 

the county treasurer is made the oustodian of the funds 

of road districts by Article 7529, Vernon's Annotated Givil 

Statutes, the prOViSiOnS of Article 3941, as limited by 

Article 3943, are nowhere added to nbr changed in anyrespect, the road district statutes oontaining no provision 

for additional compensation for the oounty treasurer. In 

our opinion No. o-1450, a copy of whioh is enclosed herewith, we held that the county treasurer of San taba county 

could not retain commissions out of the proceeds of the 

sale of road bonds after he had received the (2,OOO.OO 

maximum provided by Article 3943. We refer also to the 

oases of Red River County v. Graves, 288,s. W. 544, and 

Harris County v. Chaklton, 243 S. v, UO. In our opinion 

your question should be answered in the negative. 

Kindly permit us to thank you for the comprehensive brief accompanying your request. 

Yours very truly 

APPROVED JUL 23, 1941 

/e/ Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

ATTORNEY GRNKML OF TEXAS 

BY 

Glenn R. Lewis 

Assistant 

GRL:LM APPROVZD OPIXION COXUITTRR BY BWB CIjAIFUN 

RWCLOSURR