alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. CARL WESTMORELAND.

(Filed 22 November, 1961.)

Husbsind and Wife § 32; Parent and Child § 8—

In a prosecution for wilful abandonment of bis wife by defendant without providing her adequate support and his wilful failure to provide adequate support for his children, an instruction, which does not require a finding that defendant’s acts were wilful in order to sustain the conviction, must be held for prejudicial error.

Appeal by defendant from *Sink, E.J.,*June 1961 Term of Randolph.

Defendant was tried and convicted in the Recorder’s Court of Ran*726dolph County on a warrant which charged (1) wilful abandonment of his wife without providing her with adequate support and (2) wilful failure to provide adequate support for his children. He appealed to the Superior Court where he was tried on the original warrant. From a verdict of guilty and judgment imposing prison sentence defendant appealed.

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

*L. T. Hammond and J. Harvey Luck for defendant appellant.*

Pee CcjRiam.

The criminal offenses charged are defined by statute, G.S. 14-322. By express language the abandonment and failure to support must be wilful to create criminal offenses. *S. v. Hall,*251 N.C. 211, 110 S.E. 2d 868; *S. v. Gibson,*245 N.C. 71, 95 S.E. 2d 125; *S. v. Lucas,*242 N.C. 84, 86 S.E. 2d 770. The court, in charging the jury, made defendant’s guilt turn on the adequacy of the support provided without requiring a finding that defendant acted wilfully. This omission of an essential ingredient of the crime entitles defendant to a

New trial.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8, file number 333-72645, of our dated November 9, 2001,
relating to the financial statements of Eagle Wireless International, Inc.
appearing in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2001. We also consent
to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration
Statement.


McManus & Co., P.C.
Certified Public Accountants
Rockaway, New Jersey

November 9, 2001
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Shareholders and
the Board of Directors
of Advance Financial Bancorp


We consent to incorporation  of our report dated July 31, 2002,  relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Advance Financial Bancorp as of June 30, 2002 and
2001, and the related consolidated  statements of income,  comprehensive income,
stockholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the two years in the  period
ended June 30, 2002.  Said report is  incorporated  by  reference  in the Annual
Report of Advance  Financial  Bancorp on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30,
2002, into the Company's  previously filed Form S-8 Registration  Statement File
No. 333-74681.


                                         /s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Steubenville, Ohio
September 23, 2002
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### African Development Foundation

      ( print page 63547)    

# MEETING:

African Development Foundation, Board of Directors Meeting.

# TIME:

Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

# PLACE:

African Development Foundation, Conference Room, 1400 I Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.

# DATES:

Tuesday, November 13, 2007.

# STATUS:

Closed session, November 13, 2007, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

                        As this meeting will be a closed, executive session, the meeting will not be open to the public. Should you have any questions, please contact Doris Martin, General Counsel, at (202) 673-3916 or                         *mrivard@usadf.gov*.                    

Lloyd O. Pierson,

President.

[FR Doc. 07-5628 Filed 11-7-07; 12:07 pm]

BILLING CODE 6117-01-M
Exhibit 32.1 - President/CFO Certification (Section 906)

                        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 Quarterly Report of Your Event, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Marilyn Montgomery, President and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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
                     result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Marilyn Montgomery
--------------------
    Marilyn Montgomery
    President & CFO


Date  July 3, 2008
      ------------


<PAGE>
No. 958.

#### Jimenez *v.*Hixon, U. S. Marshal, et al.,

373 U. S. 914. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice White took no part in the considerationor decision of this petition.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of the Temporary 

Guardianship of the Person and Estate of 

Eduardo Fuentes Varela, an Adult, 

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00160-CV

Appeal from the

Probate Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2016-CGD00220)

O R D E R

On September 12, 2017, the Court erroneously filed the notice of appeal of Rosa Yamel 

Fuentes Yanar and her docketing statement in the above styled and numbered appeal. The Court 

has determined that this notice of appeal and docketing statement must be filed in a separate cause 

number. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to file Yanar’s notice of appeal and 

docketing statement in a separate cause number as of September 12, 2017. The cause number for 

Yanar’s notice of appeal is 08-17-00205-CV, Styled In the Matter of the Temporary Guardianship 

of the Person and Estate of Eduardo Fuentes Varela, an Adult. The two appeals will be considered 

companion appeals, and they will be consolidated for purposes of the filing of the reporter’s record 

and oral argument in the event it is requested and granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18

th day of September, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin T. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 3, 2010 (the Report) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                             
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS       
|                     |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels           
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer     
|                     |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DAVID KATZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-274/RS-MD

FDIC, as Receiver for PEOPLE’S

FIRST COMMUNITY BANK,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is Defendant’s Notice of Conflict (Doc. 13). 

IT IS ORDERED that trial is rescheduled for August 22, 2011, beginning at 8:30 

a.m. All other dates in the Scheduling and Mediation Order (Doc. 11) remain unchanged. 

ORDERED on February 8, 2011

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# C_2010114EN.01000301.xml

| 4.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/3

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

1,00 % on 1 May 2010

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

3 May 2010

2010/C 114/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3238 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,95 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4425 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86800 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6095 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4328 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8395 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,570 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 268,03 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7071 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9160 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1270 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9749 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4289 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3422 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2767 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8140 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8166 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 480,71 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7870 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0352 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2613 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 950,29 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2487 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,084 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,7800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,880 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2936 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,2669 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 58,8900 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3238

JPY

Japanese yen

124,95

DKK

Danish krone

7,4425

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86800

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6095

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4328

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8395

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,570

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

268,03

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7071

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9160

RON

Romanian leu

4,1270

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9749

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4289

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3422

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2767

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8140

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8166

KRW

South Korean won

1 480,71

ZAR

South African rand

9,7870

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0352

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2613

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 950,29

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2487

PHP

Philippine peso

59,084

RUB

Russian rouble

38,7800

THB

Thai baht

42,880

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2936

MXN

Mexican peso

16,2669

INR

Indian rupee

58,8900

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source:

---
# C_2010121EN.01000102.xml

| 8.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5745 — Akzonobel/Rohm and Haas Powder Coating Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 121/02

On 21 April 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5745. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5745. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 4.1

 


	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SHARES OF

                                 

                                   Ordinary Shares  

                                  	 	 	 	NUMBER OF 

      CERTIFICATE  

    

    XXXXX	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	  Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THIS CERTIFIES that ______________________________________________________ 
 Is the owner of __________________________________________________(___________)	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Fully paid and non-assessable Shares of NIS 0.16 value per share, of	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd.	 
	 	 	 	 
	transferable on the books of the Company in person or by duly authorized attorney upon 

surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and
    registered by the Registrar.	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Witness, the seal of the Company and the signature of its duly authorized officer dated _____ _, 2014	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 		 		 	 
	 	 	          _________,
    Director	 	_________,
    Director	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 





    	 



    	 



    
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	



	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER	 	 	 
	 	IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE	 
	 	 		 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 		 
	 	 	 	 	 	shares of	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	the ordinary shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably	 
	 	 	 
	 	constitute and appoint ________________________________________	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution
    in the premises.	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Dated ________________________________________	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	NOTICE:
    THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY
    PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.	 
	 	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:	 		 	 
	 	______________________________________________	 		 	 
	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE
    GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANK, STOCKBROKERS, SAVING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP
    IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C RULE 17Ad-15.
#### HUDSON v. STEVENS AND CO.

No. 153 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 190.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1972.
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr53-SPM

ABBANA ROACH, 

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Count One of this indictment. The

district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing Defendant's proposed

change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a report and recommendation

as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties consented to this procedure, and

the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the
Page 2 of 3

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Case No. 4:10cr53-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 30, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr53-SPM/WCS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1563

ARNOLD J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Cynthia D. Kinser, Magistrate Judge. (CA-92-202-B) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnold J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Victor Jerry Pane, Jr., SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's * orders affirming thedenial of disability insurance and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, weaffirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Williams v. Callahan , No. CA-92-202-B (W.D. Va. Mar. 11 & 31, 1997). We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SERAFIN SOLIS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:09cv379/LAC/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon a complaint for violation of civil rights filed

September 1, 2009 by plaintiff (doc. 1). Plaintiff has now filed a motion to dismiss (doc.

12) asking for dismissal of his civil rights complaint.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (doc. 12) be granted, that this case be dismissed

without prejudice, and the clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 26 day of January, 2010. th

 /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 fourteen days

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 any objections shall be served

upon any 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 (11th Cir. 1988).