alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 pa ne 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 a r 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 W A LTER BU RN S, P l ai nt i ff

, a nd A LI CE BU RN S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. FI RS T AM ER I CAN TRUST EE S E R V I C I N G S O L U T I O N S L L P ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16106 D . C. N o . 4 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 0 2 3 - CW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C l audi aA . W i l ke n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED JU N 29 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16106 2 A l i ce B urns appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng her a c t i on a r i s i ng outof

f or e c l os ur e pr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , T h o m p s o n v . D a v is , 2 9 5 F .3 d8 9 0 , 8 9 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yc onc l ude d tha tB urns ’ m ort ga ge c ontr a c tdi d not s u b j e c tBu rn s t o i n v o l u n t a rys e rv i tu d e a n dp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e dBu rn s ’ c l a i ms p r e m is e d o n th is s e rv itu d e th e o ry . See U ni ted States v. Kozm i nski , 487 U . S . 931, 9 4 3 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( in v o lu n ta rys e rv itu d e is e s tab lis h e dw h e n a“v ic tim h a dn o a v a ilab le c h o ic e b u t to w o rko rb e s u b je c t to le g a l s a n c tio n ” ) ; s e e al s o Caf as s o v . G e n. D yn a m i cs C 4 S

ys. , 637 F . 3d 1047, 1054 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( “ I n r e vi e w i ng the d i sm i ssal o f a co m p l ai n t , w e i n q u i re w h eth er th e co m p l ai n t ’ s factu al al l eg at i o n s, to g e th e rw ith a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s , s ta te ap lau s ib le c la im f o rr e lie f .” ) . W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed in th e o p e n in g b r ie f

, n o rm a tte r s r a is e df

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. See P ad get t v. W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). W e l ackj u ri sd i ct i o n t o rev i ew th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er d en yi n g B u rn s’ m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on be c aus e B urns f a i l e d t o f i l e a n a m e nde d not i c e of ap p e a l f r o m th a t o r d e r . See F ed. R . A pp . P . 4(a) (4)( B )( i i ).11- 16106 3 B urns’ re m ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. Fi n a l l y , Bu rn s ’ mo t i o n t o c e rt i f yth e ma tt e rt o th e U n i t e dSt a t e s Su p r e me C ourti s de ni e d. AF F I RME D.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22D0182. BRENTREZ JARMYKUS MCPHERSON v. THE STATE.

In 2013, Brentrez Jarmykus McPherson pled guilty to multiple offenses,

including attempted rape. In July 2021, he filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal,

which the trial court denied. McPherson filed an application for discretionary review,

which we granted under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j) because the trial court’s order was

directly appealable. See Case No. A22D0019 (Aug. 19, 2021). McPherson apparently

filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on August 11, 2021, but the record has not

yet been transmitted to this Court.

In November 2021, McPherson filed a “Motion to Attack Judgment as Null to

Set Aside Illegal Guilty Plea for Lack of Jurisdiction.” It appears that the trial court

has not ruled on that motion, given the pendency of McPherson’s appeal. However,

on November 23, 2021, the trial court did issue an order directing the clerk to send

McPherson an amended bill of costs. McPherson then filed this application for

discretionary appeal purporting to challenge the trial court’s failure to grant his

“Motion to Attack Judgment as Null to Set Aside Illegal Guilty Plea for Lack of

Jurisdiction.”

We are a court “for the correction of errors of law made by the trial courts. . .

. An error of law has as its basis a specific ruling made by the trial court.” Felix v.

State, 271 Ga. 534, 538 (523 SE2d 1) (1999). As the State points out in its response

brief, this application “raises no error related to the actual content of the trial court’s

November 23, 2021 order and deals solely with the merits of a motion that has not

January 06, 2022
been ruled on by the trial court.” As such, this application presents nothing for us to

review, and it is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/06/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM DELICIOUS
BRANDS, INC.  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  7,796,706
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     909,395
<INVENTORY>                                                    2,701,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              10,084,922
<PP&E>                                                         1,527,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   600,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                20,926,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         24,009,638
<BONDS>                                                        1,617,688
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                        1,958
<COMMON>                                                          33,318
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (4,736,199)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  20,926,403
<SALES>                                                       39,822,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              39,822,411
<CGS>                                                         30,688,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 30,688,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              10,148,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 317,144
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               883,351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (2,174,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (2,174,749)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (2,174,749)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (.67)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial data for fiscal year end 9/96
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,171,402
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,449,769
<PP&E>                                         384,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,703,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          630,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,348
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,954,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,703,652
<SALES>                                         54,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,036
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,335,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,201,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,201,764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,201,764)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.49)
<PAGE>   1
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-14463) of ShoLodge, Inc. pertaining to senior subordinated notes and
the related Prospectus, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-52092)
pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan, and in the related Prospectus, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-29881) pertaining to the 1991 Stock
Option Plan, as amended and the related Prospectus and the registration
statement (Form S-3 No. 33-77910) pertaining to the convertible subordinated
debentures due 2004 and the related prospectus of our report dated April 12,
1999 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of
ShoLodge, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 27, 1998.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
April 12, 1999
Exhibit 99.1
                                  ------------

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Salisbury  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September  30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, John F. Perotti, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/  John F. Perotti
     -----------------------
     John F. Perotti
     Chief Executive Officer

November 12, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0332

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA PAUL CORRIHER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 26, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 20 2021

01/20/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0332
#### STATE v. LACY JACOBS; and STATE v. JOHN OWENS.

(Filed 14 January, 1960.)

1. Larceny §§ 1, 8—

Tlie wrongful asportation of the goods of another must he done with the felonious intent to appropriate the goods to the taker’s own use in order to constitute larceny, and an instruction which omits the element of *ammo furandi*must be *held*prejudicial.

Appeal by defendants from *Hobgood, J.,*Regular March 1959 Term, of Robeson.

Criminal prosecution upon separate bills of indictment charging Larceny and Receiving Stolen Property. The cases were consolidated for trial.

Plea: Not Guilty by each defendant.

Verdict: Guilty as to each defendant of felonious larceny.

From judgments of imprisonment, each defendant appeals.

*Malcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General, and Glenn L. Hooper, Jr., Assistant Attorney*General, *for the State.*

*Britt, Campbell & Britt for defendants, appellants.*

PER Cueiam.

Defendants assign as error .this part of the charge: “The Court instructs you that larceny is the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of another.”

Defendants further assign as error this part of the charge: “Now, gentlemen of the jury, if you find from this evidence, bearing in mind the instructions which the Court has given you, as to -the law, that on the 10th of October, 1958, the two defendants together, that is Lacy Jacobs and John Owens, did go upon the premises of Sallie Oxendine and did then and there take, steal and carry away from said premises a thousand pounds of seed cotton, the same being the property of Sallie Oxendine and Raymond Jones, and if you find these facts beyond a reasonable doubt, you will find these two defendants, or whichever one of these defendants, you so find beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty of the felonious larceny of said cotton.”

The parts of the charge set forth above are clearly erroneous, in that he did not charge, *inter alia,*that the taking must be done *animo furandi,*with a felonious intent to appropriate the goods taken to the defendants’ own use. The Attorney General, with commendable candor, confesses error. *S. v. Booker,*250 N.C. 272, 108 S.E. 2d 426; *S. v. Cameron,*223 N.C. 449, 27 S.E. 2d 81; *S. v. Holder,*188 N.C. *706561, 125 S.E. 113; *S. v. Kirkland,*178 N.C. 810, 101 S.E. 560, where proper definitions of larceny are given.

Defendants are entitled to a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3702

JLG Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3930 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3930

    To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to permit certain 
   defendants to remove administrative proceedings to Federal court.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 24, 2022

Ms. Lummis (for herself and Mr. Hagerty) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to permit certain 
   defendants to remove administrative proceedings to Federal court.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Administrative Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.

    The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is 
amended by inserting after section 27A (15 U.S.C. 78aa-1) the 
following:

``SEC. 27B. REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.

    ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `eligible respondent' 
means any respondent that does not act, or, at the time of the alleged 
misconduct, did not act as a registered broker or dealer, registered 
investment adviser, registered investment company, registered municipal 
securities dealer, registered nationally recognized statistical rating 
organization, registered government securities broker, registered 
government securities dealer, registered public accounting firm, or as 
a registered transfer agent.
    ``(b) Removal.--Any administrative proceeding brought by the 
Commission under this Act may be removed by the eligible respondent to 
the district court of the United States in accordance with section 1446 
of title 28, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
October 1 , 2013



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF L .R

. AND A.R ., C hildren

NO. 14

- 12

- 00440

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, David Reynolds, signed May 31, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant , Wilma Reynolds , to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observa nce.
blood sample while in possession of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 

Department because they were untimely disclosed. The district court 

denied Parlet's motion to exclude the printouts because his challenge to 

the chain of custody was untimely and Parlet fails to demonstrate that 

this constituted an abuse of discretion. See NRS 174.295(2); Mclellan, 124 

Nev. at 267, 182 P.3d at 109. 

Third, Parlet asserts that the district court abused its 

discretion by preventing him from questioning the State's expert witness 

about her personal knowledge of errors made by the chemist who 

previously tested his blood sample. We conclude that the district court 

abused its discretion by disallowing this line of questioning. See NRS 

48.015; NRS 48.035(1). The error however, was harmless, particularly in 

light of the strong evidence supporting the conclusion that the blood tested 

was Parlet's and the expert's testimony that she had no personal 

knowledge of any errors relating to toxicology. See Valdez v. State, 124 

Nev. 1172, 1189, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008) (defining nonconstitutional 

harmless error). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

GibBons 

,J. 

Douglas Saitta 

cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge 

Christopher R. Arabia 

Nye County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
---

SALISBURY
BANCORP, INC.


Form
10-Q








Exhibit
32





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 Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Cantele, Jr., President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and I, B. Ian McMahon, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.





by
            /s/
            Richard J. Cantele, Jr.
            
            by
            /s/
            B. Ian McMahonRichard
      J. Cantele, Jr.
            
            
            
            B.
      Ian McMahonPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
            
            
            
            Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 13.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the Annual Report of Lorus Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Aiping H. Young, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
  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.
  
  Date: November 28, 2011
  /s/ Aiping H. Young
 Aiping H. Young
 President and Chief Executive Officer