alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Designation of Samuel Fraser as a Candidate for the Republican Party Nomination for the Office of Comptroller of the State of New York. John Kissel, Appellant; Samuel Fraser et al., Respondents.

*Matter of*Fraser, 185 App. Div.-, affirmed.

(Argued September 30, 1918;

decided October 8, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered August 24, 1918, which reversed an order of Special Term sustaining objections to the petition designating Samuel Fraser as a candidate for the Republican nomination for the office of state comptroller. The grounds of the objection to such petition were that the authority of the notaries public, commissioners of deeds and justices of the peace who acted as such officers in taking the acknowledgments and oaths of the signers of said petitions, in counties, and in cities and localities in counties other than Albany county, were not authenticated by the county clerks’ certificates of the clerks of the several counties, in the manner required by sections 310 and 312 of the Real Property Law, and that by reason of such omission the secretary of state was without authority to file such petitions in his office, which is in the Capitol in Albany county.

*Louis J. Altkrug*for appellant.

*A. S. Gilbert*and *Theodore T. Baylor*for Samuel Fraser et al., respondents.

*Merton E. Lewis, Attorney-Generql (Robert P< Beyer*and *William J. Smith*of counsel), for Secretary of State, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, J j. ';
#### STATE v. VERT

No. 197 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 26.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 March 1979.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

vs. 3:10cr6/MCR

RONALD L. PHARES,

 Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11,

Fed.R.Crim.P., and has entered a plea of guilty to the two count indictment against

him. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning the

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable

and voluntary, and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis

in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore

recommend that the plea of guiltybe accepted and that the defendant be adjudicated

guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: March 18, 2010

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within 24 hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to

object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. §

636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.3
 RECEIVABLES TRUSTEES OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
 GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
  1.
    
    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the Receivables Trustee;2.
    
    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the Receivables Trustee; and3.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Receivables Trustee has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of the Investor Certificate for the period between January 1, 2005 and
December 31, 2005.
   By:
    
    /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName: Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:   Director
 - 31 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,580
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,191
<INVENTORY>                                    155,588
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               309,112
<PP&E>                                         330,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 182,911
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 481,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,958
<BONDS>                                         30,825
<COMMON>                                        41,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     310,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   481,120
<SALES>                                        477,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               477,941
<CGS>                                          329,306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  329,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,799
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,665
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,665
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
|   | EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT |
|--------|----------------------|

 

 

AGREEMENT dated as of June 1, 2008 between 4Kids Ad Sales, Inc. with offices at 1414 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019 ("Employer"), and Daniel Barnathan, 15 West 72nd Street, Apt. 19A, New York, New York 10023 ("Employee"). 

 

|   | WITNESSETH : |
|--------|--------------|

 

WHEREAS, Employer desires to retain the services of Employee and Employee desires to be employed by Employer upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

| 1. | Employment and Duties. |
|----|------------------------|

 

(a)  Employer hereby employs Employee and Employee hereby agrees to serve as President of Employer. Employee agrees to perform such services for Employer and affiliates consistent with Employee's position as shall, from time to time, be assigned to Employee by the Chief Executive Officer, (“CEO”), Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) and/or Board of Directors of Employer’s parent company, 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. (“4Kids”).  Employee shall also perform such services customary to such office as are necessary for the operations of Employer.  Employee shall use Employee's best efforts to promote the interests of Employer and shall devote Employee's full business time, energy and skill exclusively to the business and affairs of Employer during the Term set forth below in Paragraph 2.  

 

 (b)     Employee’s principal duties shall be to (i) sell advertising time on the Fox Saturday Morning 8 a.m.-12 p.m. block (“4Kids TV Block”) licensed by Employer from Fox Broadcasting Corporation (“Fox”) during the 2007 -- 2008 Broadcast Season and the 2008 -- 2009 Broadcast Season, (ii)  sell advertising time on The CW Network Saturday Morning 7 a.m.-12 p.m. block (“ CW 4Kids TV Block”) licensed by Employer from The CW Network beginning with the 2008 -- 2009 Broadcast Season, (iii) sell advertising space on the websites owned, managed or controlled by 4Kids, including without limitation, 4Kids TV and YUGIOH.com, and on dvds distributed through 4Kids Entertainment Home Video, Inc. (iv) manage the advertising sales department, including, without limitation, any Vice Presidents of Sales, Inventory Managers, Directorsof Research, Commercial Schedulers and Sales Administrators, 

 

 

|   | 1 |
|--------|---|

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Harvey BALLOU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 439, Docket 29200.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued April 21, 1965.

Decided July 14, 1965.

*468John J. McAvoy, New York City (Anthony F. Marra, New York City), for appellant.

Robert G. Morvillo, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, and Jack D. Samuels, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City), for appellee.

Before KAUFMAN, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of dealing in narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174 (1958). The district judge found: that the defendant had arranged to have an accomplice, Joseph Gaston, call Salz-man, an informer, to negotiate a sale of heroin, and that the accomplice received payment while another accomplice delivered the heroin for the agreed upon price to a government agent. Thereafter, Salzman again called the defendant and this same order of events followed ending with another delivery of narcotics. Judge McGohey found that “the defendant had at least constructive possession of the narcotics involved in each of the foregoing transactions,” because “he was able to arrange and effect their delivery by Joseph [Gaston] when called upon to do so.”

The appellant claims that the findings were based upon inculpatory statements made by him shortly after his arrest. He argues that the admission of these statements was erroneous, because he was arrested without a warrant, although twelve weeks elapsed between the last alleged unlawful act and the arrest.

It is unnecessary for us to consider the merits of appellant’s point since no objection was made at the trial to the admission of appellant’s inculpatory statements. United States v. Sten, 342 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1965).

The appellant also contends that the use of a magnetic pickup device attached to a telephone receiver to overhear the conversations between Salzman, the informer, and appellant, violated Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1103, 47 U.S.C. § 605 (1958). Since the eavesdropping had the consent of Salzman who was a “sender,” this argument must be rejected. Rathbun v. United States, 355 U.S. 107, 78 S.Ct. 161, 2 L.Ed.2d 134 (1957); Lindsey v. United States, 332 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1964); Wilson v. United States, 316 F.2d 212 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 960, 84 S.Ct. 1631, 12 L.Ed.2d 503 (1964); United States v. Williams, 311 F.2d 721 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 812, 83 S.Ct. 1703, 10 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1963); Ferguson v. United States, 307 F.2d 787 (10th Cir. 1962), withdrawn on other grounds, 329 F.2d 923 (1964). (We see no reason to distinguish between extension telephones and magnetic pickup devices if the “sender” has consented to the overhearing of his telephone conversations.)

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-21017

Conference Calendar

 

MARIO JOSEPH NIETO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

B. REEVES-GALLOWAY, Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division Correctional Officer; J. KARNES, 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional 

Division Correctional Officer; M. BRIGHT, Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional 

Officer; B. GRAHAM, Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division Correctional Officer; M. HYDE, Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division 

Correctional Officer; J. RAGAN, Texas Department of Criminal

Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer, Inmate 

Property Officer; T. SMITH, Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer; 

J. ROSSER, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional 

Division Correctional Officer; R. NEWLON, Texas Department of

Criminal Justice-Institutional Division Correctional 

Officer; G. GRIFFIN, Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice-Institutional Division Correctional Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-1662 

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 04-21017

-2-

Mario Nieto, Texas inmate # 591239, appeals the dismissal of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Nieto’s arguments that the defendants subjected

him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth

Amendment because they failed to protect him from another inmate

and used excessive force lack legal bases. See Jones v.

Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1999); 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(e); Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir.

2001). Nieto’s claim that the defendants denied him access to

the courts is likewise without a legal basis. See Walker v.

Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993).

Nieto’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of Nieto’s complaint as frivolous and of this

appeal as frivolous each count as “strikes” for purposes of the

three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Nieto is warned that

if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to

proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**
ANNUAL SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE
BARCLAYS BANK PLC
GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 5) PLC
     The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Barclay Bank PLC (the “Bank”), asServicer, pursuant to the Beneficiaries Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 23, 1999 ( the“Agreement”), among the Bank, as Servicer and Barclaycard Funding PLC, as Investor Beneficiary,does hereby certify that:
     1. The Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings asset forth in the Agreement.
     2. The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate.
     3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ended December 31, 2004 was conducted under my supervision.
     4. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreementthroughout such calendar year and no material default in the performance ofsuch obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in theParagraph 5 below.
     5. The following is a description of each material default in the performanceof the Servicer’s obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known tothe undersigned to have been made by the Servicer during the calendar yearended December 31, 2004, which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each suchdefault, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each suchdefault and (iii) the current status of each such default:
None.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Annual Servicer’s Certificate this30th day of June, 2005.      Barclays Bank PLC
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-77,056, 77,057, 77,058

CRAIG ROSS SHEPHARD, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF BAIL

CAUSE NOS. 1383239, 1461069, 1461070 IN THE 185 DISTRICT COURT

TH

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order denying bail under Article 1, § 11a, of the Texas

Constitution. On March 13, 2015, Appellant was arrested and jailed for the offenses of

1

After a hearing the trial court granted the State’s motion to deny bail under Article

1

1, §11a, which provides in part:

Any person . . . (3) accused of a felony less than capital in this State

involving the use of a deadly weapon after being convicted of a prior

felony, . . .after a hearing, and upon evidence substantially showing the guilt

of the accused of the offense . . . may be denied bail pending trial, by a

district judge in this State, if said order denying bail pending trial is issued
Shephard - 2

possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of a controlled substance. He is also

being held on a motion to adjudicate guilt for the offense of possession of a controlled

substance. On March 19, 2015, the trial court granted the State’s motion to deny bail for

these offenses pursuant to Article 1, Section 11a of the Texas Constitution. Appellant has

appealed the trial court’s decision. See Tex.R.App.P. 31.1.

Article I, Section 11a mandates that “if the accused is not accorded a trial upon the

accusation, . . . within sixty (60) days from the time of his incarceration upon the

accusation, the order denying bail shall be automatically set aside, unless a continuance is

obtained upon the motion or request of the accused. . . .” In these cases, the sixty day

period has expired. Nothing indicates any continuance has been obtained, therefore we

assume the order denying bail has been automatically set aside as the Constitution

requires. Thus, the issue before us is now moot and we dismiss the appeal. See Criner v.

State, 878 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994); Holloway v. State, 781 S.W.2d 605

(Tex.Crim.App. 1989).

Filed: May 13, 2015

Do not publish

within seven calendar days subsequent to the time of incarceration of the

accused.
Reduce float dust explosion hazards

Add an in-line wetted scrubber

Did you know?

Float dust reductions of >90% can be 

achieved by adding an in-line wetted scrubber 

to an auxiliary section fan*

Coal mine operators can use this combination 

to reduce the possibility of a coal dust 

explosion in the return

Photo by NIOSH

* Findings based on NIOSH field studies. To learn more, visit

www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1973.html

Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health
#### MORROW v. KINGS DEPARTMENT STORES

No. 320P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 13.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 July 1982.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 188 (Friday, September 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 55181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4792]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[No. DoD-2007-DARS-0106]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 
29, 2007.
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) Part 205, Publicizing Contract Actions and DFARS 
252.205-7000, Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement 
Holders; OMB Control Number 0704-0286.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 6,588.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 6,588.
    Average Burden per Response: 1.1 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 7,247.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection requires DoD 
contractors to provide information to cooperative agreement holders 
regarding employees or offices that are responsible for entering into 
subcontracts under DoD contracts. Cooperative agreement holders furnish 
procurement technical assistance to business entities within specified 
geographic areas. This policy implements 10 U.S.C. 2416.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Hillary Jaffe.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: September 21, 2007.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-4792 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) for the
period ended July 31, 2008, I, William A. Shumaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2008, 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 such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 12, 2008



/s/ William A. ShumakerWilliam A. ShumakerPresident and Chief Executive Officer