alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. E. B. STRICKLAND.

(Filed 20 November, 1935.)

Criminal Law G t>—

In a prosecution for incest, testimony of the prosecuting witness that she was born before the marriage of her father, the defendant, and her mother, is irrelevant to the issixe, and its admission *is held*for reversible error as tending to prejudice or warp the judgment of the jury.

Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by defendant from *Parlcer, J.,*at April Term, 1935, of SampsoN.

New trial.

*Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Aiken for the Stale.*

*N. W. Outlaw, Henry A. Grady, Jr., and Scott B. Berkeley for defendant, appellant.*

ScheNCK, J.

Two cases against the defendant, charging him with incest with his two daughters, respectively, were consolidated for the purpose of trial. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of the charge with Esther Strickland and guilty of the charge with Bernice Strickland Hughes. From judgment of imprisonment the defendant appealed, *771assigning as error, *inter alia,*tbat tbe court admitted in evidence, over bis objection and declined to strike from tbe evidence upon bis motion, tbe testimony of Bernice Strickland Hughes, bis daughter, to tbe effect tbat she was born before her father, tbe defendant, and her mother were married. We think this assignment of error was well taken, and entitles tbe defendant to a new trial. This testimony was wholly irrelevant and collateral to tbe issue involved, and could easily have been harmful in its tendency to arouse tbe prejudice or warp tbe judgment of tbe jury, and its admission constituted prejudicial error. *State v. Mikle,*81 N. C., 552; *S. v. Jones,*93 N. C., 611; *S. v. Freeman,*183 N. C., 743; *S. v. Galloway, 188*N. C., 416.

New trial.

DbviN, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of SAVVIS, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  |                                            
|----- |  | ----------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | May 9, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gregory W. Freiberg                    
|      |  |             |  |  |  |     |  | Gregory W. Freiberg Chief
Financial Officer



38
IN/OUT Processing Entitlement Information Briefing

Principle Purpose: Ensure service members are briefed on Military Pay entitlements.

Information placed on this document is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974 and must be protected from unauthorized access or use.

For Official Use Only!

Name: Last 4: Grade:

In-Processing Out-Processing

I hereby, certify that I have read and understand the following:

1) The following entitlements will terminate (stop) upon departure from my previous duty

station:

Imminent Danger Pay Demolition Pay Family Separation Allowance

Cost of Living Special Duty Assignment Pay Assignment Incentive Pay

Save Pay Parachute Pay Hardship Duty Pay

2) Has your BAH status Changed?(for Out-Processing)

NO YES IF YES MUST SUBMIT DA FORM 5960 AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

3) I have been briefed on the procedures for requesting advance pays:

Basic Pay BAH

4) I have been made aware of any debts currently being collected or suspended on my pay

account and due process procedures.

YES NO

Soldier’s Signature: DATE: 

Enlistment Bonus Recipients Only:

I have been briefed on documents required for bonus payment and submission procedures:

DD form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States

DA form 3286-66, Statement of Understanding, United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program

MOS Award orders or AIT Diploma College Transcript (when applicable)

Airborne Training Certificate (when applicable) Ranger Training Certificate (when applicable) 

Soldier’s Signature: DATE: 

Technician Name: DATE: 

DMPO LOCAL FORM 9-R, AUGUST2014 ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OBSOLETE

SC
#### Henry Fikes, Respondent, v. John Bouck, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
#### STATE v. CLARENCE HILL, WILEY McRAE and JESSE WATKINS.

(Filed 13 December, *1944.)*

Perjury § 3—

Where defendant in a criminal prosecution, having gone upon the stand and sworn that he was not the person served by the officer and that it was a case of mistaken identity, was convicted, a subsequent prosecution and conviction for perjury, based upon such evidence, will not be disturbed.

Appeal by defendant from *Hamilton, Special Judge,*at February Term, 1944, of G-uilfobd. No error.

Criminal prosecution on bill of indictment charging the crime of perjury.

This cause was here at the Fall Term, 1943. See *S. v. Hill,*223 N. 0., 711, where the facts are fully stated.

*783When the case again came on for trial in the court below there was a verdict of “guilty as charged.” The court pronounced judgment on the verdict and defendant Hill appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the-State.*

*P. W. Glidewell, Sr., and Permit Hightower for appellant.*

EarNHIll, J.

The defendant admitted he testified under oath in the original hearing that he was not the person operating a taxi stopped by an officer, that he was not present, and that he did not receive a citation at that time for speeding. His testimony in this respect was material to the issue then being tried. He insists even now it is a case of mistaken identity. Hence his trial on the charge of perjury centered around the issue of identity and that issue has been resolved against him.

The charge of the court construed in the light of the admissions made by defendant is without error. Defendant’s other exceptions fail to disclose cause for disturbing the verdict. The judgment must stand.

No error.
#### O. D. HINNANT v. AMERICAN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

(Filed 8 March, 1933.)

Appeal and Error E e — Motion lor certiorari must be supported by transcript of record and appellee must be given notice of motion.

In order to support a motion for *certiorari*it is required tliat appellant file transcript of tlie record proper and give appellee notice of tlie motion, and appellee’s transcript of record filed on motion to docket and dismiss cannot avail tlie appellant on his motion for *certiorari.*Rules 17 and 34.

Motion by American Eire and Marine Insurance Company to docket and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal.

The case was tried September-Oetober Term, 1932, Johnston Superior Court, and nonsuited at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. Appeal duly noted. Upon failure of plaintiff to bring up and file transcript of record as required by the rules, the American Eire and Marine Insurance Company filed certificate from the clerk and moved to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rule II. In answer to this motion, the respondent asked for *certiorari*to bring up the appeal. The appeal was ordered docketed and *certiorari*allowed. Movant requests that order of *certiorari*be withdrawn; first, because issued without notice and before movant could be heard; second, because appeal had been abandoned; and, third, for the reason that no record proper had been filed upon which said application could be made.

*A. J. Fletcher for movant.*

*W. P. Ay cod and E. J. Wellons for respondent.*

Stacy, C. J.

Filing transcript of record proper as basis for *certiorari*is required to acquaint the Court with knowledge of the pendency of the action, that notice of appeal was duly given, and that the same has not been abandoned. *Pittman v. Kimberly,*92 N. C., 562; *S. v. Freeman,*114 N. C., 872, 19 S. E., 630; *Baker v. Hare,*192 N. C., 788, 136 S. E., 113; *Brock v. Ellis,*193 N. C., 540, 137 S. E., 585. Entries of appeal need not appear in *habeas corpus*proceedings. *In re Croom,*175 N. C., 455, 95 S. E., 903.

The *certiorari*was improvidently granted. Rule 34. Notice is required as well as filing transcript of record proper. It appears that plaintiff had abandoned his appeal and was apparently relying upon a subsequent order of the judge, until the present motion to docket and dismiss the appeal was filed in this Court.

*307Tbe transcript of record filed by movant on its appeal will not enure to tbe benefit of respondent, because tbe two appeals are not from tbe same judgment. Tbe respondent gave notice of appeal from tbe judgment of nonsuit. Tbe movant appealed from tbe order entered sixty days thereafter.

Tbe motion to docket and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal is well founded. Respondent’s rights, if any be now have, may arise in subsequent proceedings.

Motion allowed.
#### Anna Tulli, Plaintiff, *v.*The City of New York, Defendant.

City Court of New York, Trial Term, Bronx County,

November 5, 1936.

*Paulson*<fc *Frankel,*for the plaintiff.

*Paul A. Windels, Corporation Counsel,*for the defendant.

Schackno, J.

Plaintiff has recovered a verdict for personal injuries by slipping and falling upon ice upon a sidewalk. At the close of the plaintiff’s case and again at the close of the entire case, the court reserved its decision upon the motion made by the defendant to dismiss the complaint; it also reserved its decision upon the motion made by defendant to set aside the verdict of the jury. The evidence in the case, giving it the most favorable inference to plaintiff, indicates snow and ice on the sidewalk not over two days old. It was not dirty, indicating a recent fall of snow; there was water on the sidewalk, indicating melting, after falling. The only question in the case is whether two days was a reasonable time for the city to have had notice and opportunity to remove it. There is no evidence that the city removed other ice or snow in the neighborhood and reglected this particular snow or ice or that this particular ice was uneven or formed in ridges, so as to present unusual danger; while I am reluctant to disturb the finding of a jury, I am constrained to do so and to dismiss the complaint on the authority of *311
      *Crawford*v. *City of New York*(68 App. Div. 107; affd., 174 N. Y. 518); *Rallya*v. *City of New York*(162 App. Div. 617); *Kaiser*v. *City of New York*(184 id. 866); *De Boulet*v. *City of New York*(192 id. 359); *Fitzpatrick*v. *City of New York,*(220 id. 320).

The motion to set aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff and to dismiss the complaint is granted. Order filed.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 21 - 00273 - CR JASON LEE NELSON , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 46th District Court Wilbarger County, Texas Trial Court No . 12,566 , Honorable Dan Mike Bird , Presiding



### November 9 , 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. Appellant, Jason Lee Nelson , appeals from the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision for the offense of family violence. 1 P ending before this C ourt is appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. As required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), the motion to dismiss is signed by a ppellant and h is attorney. As no decision of the Court has been delivered, the motion is granted and the appeal is

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . 22.01 (a)(1).2

dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 11


                     INTERCELL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three months                      Six months
                                               ended March 31,                   ended March 31,
                                           1999               1998           1999           1998
                                     ----------------   --------------  ------------  -------------
<S>                                   <C>                <C>             <C>           <C>
Net loss                              $(  332,000)       ( 2,833,000)    (  836,000)   ( 5,832,000)

Deemed dividends on Series B,C, and
  D preferred stock relating to
  in-the-money conversion terms        (   15,000)       (    30,000)    (   29,000)   (    30,000)
Accrued dividends on Series D
  preferred stock                      (   38,000)       (    37,000)    (   75,000)   (    37,000)
Accretion on Series B and C
  preferred stock                      (   29,000)       (    29,000)    (   58,000)   (    64,000)
                                        ---------         ----------      ---------     ----------

Net loss applicable to common
  shareholders                        $(  414,000)       ( 2,929,000)    (  998,000)   ( 5,963,000)
                                        =========         ==========      =========     ==========

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                   39,500,246         32,061,656     38,514,887     30,222,670

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options and warrants                        -                  -              -              -
                                       ----------         ----------     ----------     ----------

                                       39,500,246         32,061,656     38,514,887     30,222,670
                                       ==========         ==========     ==========     ==========

Basic and diluted loss per share
  applicable to common
  to common shareholders:
    Loss from continuing operations   $(     0.01)       (      0.05)   (      0.03)   (      0.10)
    Loss from discontinued
      operations                       (     0.00)       (      0.04)   (      0.00)   (      0.10)
                                        ---------         ----------     ----------     ----------

Basic and diluted loss per
  common share                        $(     0.01)       (      0.09)   (      0.03)   (      0.20)
                                        =========         ==========     ==========     ==========

</TABLE>


No impact to weighted average number of shares as the inclusion of additional
shares assuming the exercise of outstanding options and warrants would have been
antidilutive.

Fully diluted and supplementary net loss per share is not presented as the
amounts are not dilutively or incrementally different from primary net loss per
share amounts.


<PAGE>
Order filed September 27, 2011

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 10

- 00925

- CR

____________ JECARRA TREMAIN LANE , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1177107



### ORDER
This court has determined, pursuant to T ex as R ule of App ellate P rocedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2) , that it mus t inspect the original of State Exhibit 32

.
The clerk of the 177th District Court is directed to deliver to the C lerk of this court the original
of State Exhibit 32 , on or be fore October 7, 2011

. The C lerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to re turn the original of State Exhibit 32 , to the clerk of
the 177th District Court

.
PER CURIAM
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Quarter of Coverage
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LOVIE FOLMAR,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D17-1534

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 21, 2017

Petition for Belated Appeal

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Lovie L. Folmar, Lake City, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General 

Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the October 13, 2015, 

judgment and sentence in Case No. 14-CF-12993 in the Circuit Court in and for Orange 

County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED.

ORFINGER, SAWAYA, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 22, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00668

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF ONA S. PETTY

,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 140,221 Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On October 29, 2015 , appellants filed a n unopposed motion to abate the appeal stating

that several of the parties have made substantial progress in reaching a settlement, and requesting that this appeal be abated for a period of sixty days to permit them to finalize the settlement terms and pursue discussions with the remaining parties . We granted t he motion and ord ered

that the appeal be abated until December 28, 2015

.

On December 18, 2015, appellants filed an unopposed motion to extend the abatement period so that the parties may continue t o engage in settlement discussions. The motion is GRANTED. The appeal i s ABATED until January 27, 2016. All appellate deadlines are suspended until January 27, 2016

. After that date , the appellants must file a motion to dismiss the appe al due to settlement, or if a settlement is not reached and fin alized, a motion to reinstate the appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

_________________________________ Rebe ca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of December, 2015

.

__________________________________ _ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
ttcm_ex102.htm

EXHIBIT 10.02
  
  	 
	  
 Tim Dohse, CEO
 (928) 360-8794 timdohse@hotmail.com



 
  
 December 2, 2022
  
 Tautachrome Inc. 
 1846 E Innovation Park Drive 
 Oro Valley, AZ 85755 
  
 Dear Mr. LaMountain:
  
 2022 Fee Waiver Agreement 
  
 Reference is made to the technology license granted by Arknet Inc, an Arizona corporation (“Arknet”), to Tautachrome Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Tautachrome”), on or about October 17, 2018 such license (the “License”), which permits Tautachrome to develop and commercialize Licensed Products (as that term is defined in the License).
  
 As you are aware, under the terms of the License, Tautachrome is obligated to pay Arknet certain fees each year under the License (the “Annual Fees”), which to date remain unpaid.
  
 Reference is also made to that letter agreement of November 19, 2020 between Arknet and Tautachrome (the “Parties”) in which the Parties agreed that those Annual Fees were to be suspended by Arknet (the “2020 Waiver Agreement”) until such year (the “Bogie Year”) as the annual Tautachrome revenues that are derived from the commercialization of the Licensed Products first reach $500 million or above (the “Revenue Bogie”).
  
 The purpose of this letter is to revoke the 2020 Waiver Agreement and, on the date hereof, to execute a new fee agreement (the “2022 Fee Waiver Agreement”).
  
 Arknet therefore makes the following fee 2022 Fee Waiver Agreement offer to Tautachrome, which offer is open for acceptance until 5:00 p.m. MT today, December 2, 2020:
  
  	 1. 
	 The Parties agree that the 2020 Waiver Agreement is herewith voided and all Annual Fees heretofore owed by Tautachrome to Arknet are herewith cancelled.

	  
	  

	 2. 
	 Until the 31st of December in the Bogie Year (the “Bogie Date”), Tautachrome will owe no Annual Fees to Arknet. 

	  
	  

	 3.
	 Within 90 days after the Bogie Date, Tautachrome shall pay Arknet in one lump the amount shown for that Bogie year in the Bogie Chart shown as Attachment 1 hereto.

	  
	  

	 4.
	 Unless expressly modified by this Letter, all terms of the License shall remain unchanged for the duration of its term.



 
   
 If Tautachrome agrees to the above, please sign one copy of this letter in the space provided below and return it to me at the above address. By countersigning this letter, Tautachrome hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agrees to the foregoing. 
  
 This letter may be executed in counterparts and may be delivered by scanned format through email transmission, and all such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
  
 No amendment, waiver or modification of this letter shall be effective without an instrument in writing executed by all parties hereto.
   
  	  
	 ARKNET INC.
	  

	  
	  
	  
	  

	  
	 By:
	 /s/ Tim Dohse
	  

	  
	  
	 Tim Dohse, CEO
	  



 
  
 ACCEPTED AND AGREED
 TAUTACHROME INC.
  
  
 By: /s/ David LaMountain                        
 David LaMountain, CEO
  
  	 Arknet, Inc.
	 1846 E Innovation Park Drive
	 Oro Valley, Arizona 85755



 
  
  	 
	 1

	

	 


 
  
 Attachment 1
  
 
  
  	 
	 2
#### In the Matter of Gary Kusky, Respondent, v Town of Islip et al., Respondents, and Seaview Association of Fire Island, N. Y., Inc., Appellant.

Submitted January 29, 1996;

decided April 4, 1996

*1052Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not a nonfinal order of the type within the meaning of CPLR 5602 (a) (2).