alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (1)   | the              quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Davi Skin, Inc. for the quarter              ended              June 30, 2007 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the              quarter ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,              the              financial condition and results of operations of Davi Skin,              Inc.. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                    |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:    |                                                    |
|   |   |                                                         |
|   | Name:  | Jan                Wallace                              |
|   |   |                                                    |
|   | Title: | Principal                Executive Officer and Director |
|   |   |                                                    |
|   | Date:  | August                16, 2007                          |

|   |   |                                         |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | By:    |                                         |
|   |   |                                              |
|   | Name:  | Munjit                  Johal                |
|   |   |                                         |
|   | Title: | Principal                  Financial Officer |
|   |   |                                         |
|   | Date:  | August                  16, 2007             |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

NO. DA 21-0360 

ELGIN FABER and COLLEEN FABER, 

 Appellants/Cross-Appellees, 

-vsKEITH RATY, COLLEEN RATY, et al, 

 Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

. 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR COURT REPORTER TO FILE TRANSCRIPTS ON APPEAL 

 Pursuant to unopposed motion, and good cause appearing; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter, Cindy Prindiville, is 

granted an additional 50 days from September 10, 2021, to file her transcripts on 

appeal. 

 DATED _____________________________. 

 ________________________________________

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 24 2021

09/24/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0360
#### STATE v. EVERETT McKNIGHT.

(Filed 14 November, 1928.)

Criminal Law — Motions in Arrest of Judgment — Nature and Grounds in General.

A motion to arrest a judgment in a criminal action will be allowed only where some fatal error or defect appears on the face of the record, and not where the motion is based upon a variance between the indictment and proof, or want of evidence to support the verdict.

Appeal by defendant from *Stack,*,7at March Term, 1928, of Guilford.

Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging that the defendant “on 7 April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven, with force and arms, at and in the county aforesaid, did unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously and forcibly assault Harry Moore with a deadly weapon, to wit, a pistol, on or near a public highway in said county, the said Harry Moore in bodily fear and danger of his life feloniously did put and did unlawfully, wilfully, forcibly and feloniously did steal, take and carry away $40 in good and lawful money the property of the Gulf Refining Company, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.”

Verdict: Guilty of larceny.

After conviction, and before judgment, the defendant lodged a motion in arrest of judgment for that, he alleges, the indictment is not sufficient to support a verdict of larceny. Overruled and exception. This is the defendant’s only exception.

Judgment: Imprisonment in the State’s prison, at hard labor, for a term of not less than two and not more than three years.

Defendant appeals, assigning error, in that the court failed to arrest the judgment on motion duly made.

*260
      *Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*No counsel appearing for defendant.*

Stacy, C. *J.*

Judgment in a criminal prosecution may be arrested, on motion duly made, when, and only when, some fatal error or defect appears on the.face of the record. *S. v. Lewis,*194 N. C., 620, 140 S. E., 434; *S. v. Mitchem,*188 N. C., 608, 125 S. E., 190; *S. v. Efird,*186 N. C., 482, 119 S. E., 881; *S. v. Jenkins,*164 N. C., 527, 80 S. E., 231; *S. v. Douglass,*63 N. C., 500; *S. v. Roberts,*19 N. C., 541. But this would not include a variance between the indictment and the proof, or want of evidence to support the verdict, for they are not matters appearing on the face of the record proper. *S. v. Jarvis,*129 N. C., 698, 40 S. E., 220; *S. v. McLain,*104 N. C., 894, 10 S. E., 518; *McCanless v. Flinchum,*98 N. C., 358, 4 S. E., 359.

The indictment, in the instant case, includes, or is sufficient in form to charge, the offense of larceny. C. S., 4640. Hence, the motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled.

Affirmed.
USFREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION
                         SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


Parent and Significant Subsidiaries               State of Incorporation

UFFreightways Corporation                         Delaware

USF Bestway Inc.                                  Arizona
USF Dugan Inc.                                    Kansas
USF Holland Inc.                                  Michigan
USF Red Star Inc.                                 New York
USF Reddaway Inc.                                 Oregon
USF Logistics Inc.                                Illinois
USF Distribution Services Inc.                    Illinois
USF Coast Consolidators Inc.                      California
USF Caribbean Services Inc.                       Delaware
USF Sales Corporation                             Delaware
USF Seko Wordwide Inc.                            Illinois
Glen Moore Transport Inc.                         Pennsylvania
USF Golden Eagle Group Inc.                       Delaware
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 10940 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1: 19

- cr - 00089

- WS

- B

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

TYKIEF L ASHAWN DUNN , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________ ( August 26, 2020 ) Before GRANT , LUCK, and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 20-10940 Date Filed: 08/26/2020 Page: 1 of 22 Patricia Kemp , appointed counsel for Tykief Dunn in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , an d Dunn’s conviction s and sentence s are AFFIRMED

. T he government’s motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in Dunn’s plea agreement is DENIED as moot.

Case: 20-10940 Date Filed: 08/26/2020 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.  Consent of Independent Public Accountants

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the 
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 5, 1999 included 
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by OTR Express, Inc. (the 
"Company") for its fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 and to all 
references to our Firm included therein, into the Company's previously 
filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, Nos. 333-13503, 333-13507 and 
333-13515.



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Kansas City, Missouri
March 30, 1999
#### B. M. HAYNES v. WARREN GROVER ELLER and WAYNE GARRISON, a Minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem, JAMES G. GARRISON.

(Filed 14 October, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant, Wayne Carroll Garrison, from *McLean, J..*June Civil Term, 1959, of Gaston.

This is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff to recover for damages to his automobile as the result of a collision between said automobile and the defendant Wayne Garrison’s motorcycle, on 22 March 1958, in Cramerton, North Carolina, an unincorporated town.

The defendant Garrison filed an answer denying the allegations of negligence and set up a cross-action or counter claim.

The jury . iswered the first issue with respect to defendant Garrison’s negligence in the negative and the third issue with respect to the plaintiff’s negligence on the defendant’s cross-action also in the negative. From the judgment entered on the verdict, the defendant Garrison appeals, assigning error.

*L. B. Hollowell, Grady B. Stott for plaintiff.*

*J. L. Hamme for defendant Garrison.*

Per Curiam.

In light of the theory of the trial in the court below and the charge of the court, there being no allegations by either party with respect to contributory negligence, it is clearly apparent that the jury found both the plaintiff and the defendant Wayne Garrison guilty of actionable negligence.

*85The exceptions and assignments of error based thereon show no prejudicial error that would justify the awarding of a new trial.

No error.

Higgins, J., not sitting.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3367

_____________________________
W ILLIE G EORGE D IXON , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Gary L. Bergosh , Judge

. August 16, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Willie George Dixon, Jr. raises three issues on appeal. The first, regarding the trial court’s failure to conduct a proper competency determination, requires reversal

— which the State concedes. The other two we find to be without merit. The remedy is a remand for the trial court t o conduct a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation; if one cannot be done, Dixon must receive a new trial. See Brooks v. State , 180 So. 3d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

M AKAR , W INOKUR , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin Foster Karpf, Assistant Public Defender
, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10071 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IVAN GEORGE TREMBLAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CR-58-1

 

August 29, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ivan George Tremblay appeals his conviction for illegal

reentry after deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Tremblay

argues that his conviction violates due process because his

underlying deportation proceeding was fundamentally unfair. He

contends that his deportation was fundamentally unfair because (1)

it resulted from the automatic conversion of an order of voluntary

departure into an order of deportation without notice and (2) the

order granting him voluntary departure failed to inform him of what
2

was required to prevent the order from automatically converting to

an order of deportation. He further argues that because the

immigration judge failed to inform him of his right to appeal the

conversion of the voluntary departure order, he was effectively

denied judicial review. Id. at 12.

United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 107 S. Ct. 2148 (1987),

established that an alien prosecuted for illegal entry following

deportation may assert a due process challenge to the underlying

deportation order in limited circumstances. In order to prevent

the use of a prior deportation order, the alien must show that the

deportation hearing was fundamentally unfair and that the alien was

prevented from challenging the order through judicial review. The

district court in this case found that the deportation hearing was

not fundamentally unfair.

Because we agree with the district court’s conclusion that

Tremblay’s deportation hearing was not fundamentally unfair, we

affirm his conviction. United States v.Palacios-Martinez, 845 F.2d

89, 91-92 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 844 (1988).

AFFIRMED.
#### MRS. KATHERINE E. H. SCHNIBBEN, Executrix of CHARLES SCHNIBBEN, and CITY OF WILMINGTON, v. BALLARD & BALLARD COMPANY, INC., and CLARENCE GRADY.

(Filed 20 May, 1936.)

Pleadings D d — By filing answer, defendant waives right to demur except for want of jurisdiction or failure of complaint to state cause.

By filing answer to the complaint, defendants waive the right to demur thereto except for want of jurisdiction of the court over the person of defendant or for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, and such waiver applies to an amended complaint when the amended complaint is substantially the same as the original complaint to which answer was filed. O. S., 611.

Appeal by the defendants from *Williams, J.,*at October Term, 1935, of New HaNover.

Affirmed.

This was a civil action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of Charles Schnibben, instituted by his executrix, and joined in by his former employer, self-liability insurance carrier, against which claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act had been filed by his dependent widow. Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. Answer was filed by the defendants. Complaint was amended by leave of the court so as to allege that since the institution of this action an award had been made by the Industrial Commission against the city, as employer, in favor of the widow of the deceased employee. Demurrer was filed to the complaint as amended. Demurrer was overruled. Defendants excepted and appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Burney & McClelland and I. C. Wright for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*Bryan & Campbell for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The defendants filed answer to the complaint. By so doing they waived any right to demur to the complaint except upon the first and last grounds stated in C. S., 511, namely, that “the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or of the subject of the action,” and “the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” *Ransom v. McClees,*64 N. C., 17; *Finch v. Baskerville,*85 N. C., 205; *Goldsboro v. Supply Co.,*200 N. C., 405, and cases there cited; McIntosh’s N. C. Prac. and Proc., pp. 457, 458. The rather elaborate demurrer filed is not based upon either of these grounds, and could not have been sustained had it been so based. True, the demurrer filed was to the amended complaint, but, in the language of the appel-*194lant’s brief, page 3, “the amended complaint is substantially the same as the original complaint.” Certainly, the amendment adds nothing to the original complaint and takes nothing from it which nullifies the waiver of the right to demur caused by the filing of an answer.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of bebe stores, inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 1, 2005, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Walter Parks, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Dated: February 10, 2005 | /s/ Walter Parks        |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     | Walter Parks            |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T BA LJ I T K U M A R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 73639 A ge nc yN o. A 096- 178- 285 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary11, 2013 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H IM A , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B a l j i tK um ar , anat i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED FEB 13 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 73639 2 d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , T

ouf i ghi v. Mukasey , 5 3 8 F .3 d9 8 8 , 9 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng K um ar ’ s m ot i on t o reopen as un t i m el y bec ause the m ot i on w as fi l ed nearl y f ou r y ears af

t erthe B IA ’ s f

i nal a d m in is tr a tiv e o r d e r , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , an dK u m arf a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te c h an g e dc i r c u ms t an c e s i n I n d i at o q u a l i f yf o rth e r e g u l a t o rye x c e p t i o n t o th e t i me lim ita tio n , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3)( i i ); s e e al s o T ouf i ghi , 538 F . 3d a t996 (r equi ri ng m ov antt o p rodu ce m at er i alevi dence w i th m ot i on t o reopen that co n d it io n s in co u n try o f n atio n ality h ad ch an g ed ). F u rth er , w e r ejec t K u m ar ’s c o n t e n t i o n th a tth e B I A f a i l e dt o a d e q u at e l ye x p l a i n i t s d e c i s i o n . F i n a l l y , we d e c lin e to c o n s id e ra n yc h a lle n g e K u m arr a is e s to th e a g e n c y ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on be c aus e thi s c ourta l r e a dyde c i de d tha ti s s ue i n Kum ar v. H older , 3 2 5 F e d . A p p x . 6 2 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                          American Lawyer Media Holdings, Inc.

                             345 Park Avenue South
                               New York, NY 10010

               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

May, 14, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, American Lawyer
Media, Inc. has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP
("Andersen") stating that the March 31, 2002 review was subject to their quality
control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit and availability of national office consultation.

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      American Lawyer Media, Inc.



                                      /s/ Stephen C. Jacobs
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Stephen C. Jacobs
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E2.18: Apply the combined OASDI payroll tax rate on covered earnings above $400,000 paid in 2025 and later, and tax all covered earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $400,000. Increase the computed level of the AWI for years after 2024 by amounts ranging from 0.5 percent for 2025 to 0.9 percent for 2047 and later. Credit the additional earnings taxed for benefit purposes by: (a) calculating a second average indexed monthly earnings ("AIME+") reflecting only earnings taxed above the current-law taxable maximum, (b) applying a 1 percent factor on this newly computed "AIME+" to develop a second component of the PIA, and (c) adding this second component to the current-law PIA.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 report of SpatiaLight, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Officer
of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, 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/ROBERT A. OLINS
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Robert A. Olins
                                           Chief Executive Officer, Principal
                                           Financial and Accounting Officer
December 28, 2005