alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arthur V. LEE, Appellant.

No. 66070.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 16, 1995.

Daniel P. Reardon Jr., Henry B. Robertson, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Arthur V. Lee, appeals from a jury-trial conviction in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis of two counts of sale of a controlled substance, in violation of RSMo § 195.020 (1986), for which appellant was sentenced to concurrent twelve-year terms of imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the circuit court is not clearly erroneous. As we further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, we *670affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6248

JEFFERY TIMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH DREHER, in his individual, official

and professional capacities,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-2287-6-3AK)

Submitted: August 20, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffery Timpson, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Eugene Evans, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Alexandria Skinner, Elizabeth A.

Holderman, SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his complaint for want of prosecution. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Timpson v. Dreher, No. CA-95-2287-6-3AK (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 1996). We

grant Appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court.

We dispense with 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
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 925 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the meritorious service performed by aviators in the United States Armed Forces 

who were shot down over, or otherwise forced to land in, hostile territory 

yet evaded enemy capture or were captured but subsequently escaped. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. STEARNS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. 

LARSEN of Washington, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. MASSA, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, 

Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. 

PERLMUTTER, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. BOCCIERI, Mr. 

SCHRADER, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. COOPER, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FARR, and 

Mr. DICKS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the meritorious service performed by aviators in the 

United States Armed Forces who were shot down over, 

or otherwise forced to land in, hostile territory yet evaded 

enemy capture or were captured but subsequently escaped. 

Whereas aviators in the Armed Forces, including pilots, navigators, bombardiers, weapons control officers, and other 

aircraft crew members, have served the United States 

with great courage and distinction in every major conflict 

during the 20th and 21st centuries; 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 925 IH 

Whereas thousands of aviators in the Armed Forces have 

been forced down in hostile territory while performing 

their missions, either as a result of being shot down or 

because of mechanical problems with their aircraft; 

Whereas many of these aviators overcame long odds and 

great hardships to return to their units and resume their 

service to the United States; 

Whereas these aviators faced the added responsibility of 

maintaining the secrecy of their escape and evasion methods in order to protect the lives of people who assisted 

them and other aviators; 

Whereas the need to maintain secrecy initially prevented 

these aviators from being recognized for their meritorious 

service in avoiding capture or in escaping from captivity; 

and 

Whereas the Armed Forces still have not recognized these 

aviators for their meritorious accomplishment of avoiding 

capture or escaping from captivity: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) aviators in the United States Armed Forces 

4 who were shot down over, or otherwise forced to 

5 land in, hostile territory yet evaded enemy capture 

6 or were captured but subsequently escaped to return 

7 to their units and resume their service to the United 

8 States should be recognized for their extraordinary 

9 service; and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 925 IH 

1 (2) the Secretaries of the military departments 

2 should consider these aviators for appropriate rec3 ognition within their branch of the Armed Forces. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 3 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-3 Filed 07/20/18 Page 11 of 11
Exhibit
99.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Siga
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the nine months ended April 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arun
Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
 
 
 Date:
June 1, 2009
 
 
 ARUN
KUMAR
 Arun
Kumar
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 President
and Director
 
 
 -1-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10259 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MORRIS EDWARD MOORE, also known as Sealed Defendant 2,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:96-CR-42-2

June 1, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Morris Edward Moore appeals from his convictions for co nspiracy and narcotics offenses.

He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 23.01


             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Board of Directors
I.C. Isaacs & Company, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 (333-63871) of our report dated February 26, 1999, 
except for Note 3 which is as of March 19, 1999, relating to the consolidated 
financial statements and schedule of I.C. Isaacs & Company, Inc. appearing in 
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                           BDO Seidman, LLP


Washington, D.C.
March 26, 1999
**Exhibit 10.19**

**ITC^DeltaCom, Inc.**

**Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation**

Non-employee directors of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. (the “Company”) who are not members of or affiliated with the Welsh, Carson, Anderson &Stowe group of the Company’s stockholders or with Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC (“independent directors”) receive cash fees for their service on the board of directors of the Company and on committees of the board. All independentdirectors are eligible to receive equity-based fees pursuant to the ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan for their board and committee service. 

Beginning on January 1, 2008, independent directors receive annual fees of $75,000 and the chairman of each of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the governance committee receives an additionalannual fee of $10,000. All such fees are paid in cash. All directors are entitled to reimbursement for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenditures incurred in connection with their board and committee service. 

Each independent director also receives annual awards of restricted stock units pursuant to the ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock IncentivePlan. In November 2008, independent directors each received 50,000 restricted stock units, which had a value at grant of less than the historical target of $55,000. Due to recent volatility in the Company’s stock price, the board of directorsintends to evaluate the value of that award during 2009 and, if it deems such action to be appropriate in its discretion, make an additional cash or equity payment such that the total annual award to directors would approximate a value of $55,000.Each award of restricted stock units will vest ratably on the first and second anniversaries of the grant date.
Exhibit
99.4
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Siga
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended October 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rohit
Singh, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
 
 
 Date:
December 5, 2008
 
 
 ROHIT
SINGH
 Rohit
Singh
 Chief
Accounting Officer
 Chief
Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 -1-
(1996). Therefore, without considering the merits of any of the claims

raised in the motion, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2



## / St-tgc Hardesty 

### J.

Douglas

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Jerry Hooks Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY 15873, admitted pro hac vice) 

pcambria@lglaw.com 

Erin E. McCampbell (NY 4480166, admitted pro hac vice) 

emccampbell@lglaw.com 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey 

 

 Defendant. 

Case No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB) 

DEFENDANT LACEY’S REPLY TO 

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE (DOC. 466) 

TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR 

DESIGNATION OF 39 DOCUMENTS 

SUBJECT TO THIS COURT’S 

DESTRUCTION ORDER TO BE 

PRESERVED AS PART OF THE IN 

CAMERA RECORD IN THIS 

PROSECUTION 

Defendant, Michael Lacey, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby replies to 

the United States’ Response (Doc. 466) To Defendants’ Joint Motion For Designation Of 39 

Documents Subject To This Court’s Destruction Order To Be Preserved As Part Of The In 

Camera Record In This Prosecution (Doc. 453). Defendants’ joint motion stated that 

“Defendants are in the process of destroying the 39 documents.” (Doc. 453, p. 2). Undersigned 

counsel’s email to the government dated February 7, 2019, (Doc. 466-1, Exhibit D), was notice 

to the government of Mr. Lacey’s compliance with the Court’s order to destroy the documents. 

Mr. Lacey hereby provides notice to this Court that the documents have been destroyed. 

However, as it is constitutional error for the government to withhold Brady material from the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 469 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 3
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defendant, the destroyed documents must be preserved as part of the record for later review in 

this case or appellate review, if necessary, since they clearly contain a large amount of Brady 

material. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of February, 2019 

 LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Michael Lacey 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 469 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 3
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this 21st day of February 2019, I electronically transmitted a PDF 

version of this document to the Clerk of the Court by filing with the CM/ECF system and 

understand a copy of the filing will be emailed to the attorneys of record. 

By: /s/ Kristina Drewery 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 469 Filed 02/21/19 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           PENTEGRA DENTAL GROUP, INC.

     Pentegra Dental Group, Inc. (the  "Corporation"),  a corporation  organized
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"DGCL"),  hereby adopts this  Certificate  of Amendment  (this  "Certificate  of
Amendment"),  which amends its Certificate of Incorporation (the "Certificate of
Incorporation"), as described below, and does hereby further certify that:

     FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Pentegra Dental Group, Inc.

     SECOND: The Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted a resolution
proposing  and  declaring   advisable  the  amendment  to  the   Certificate  of
Incorporation as described herein, and the holders of at least a majority of the
stock  of  the  Corporation  duly  adopted  and  approved  this  Certificate  of
Amendment,  and  written  notice  has been  given,  all in  accordance  with the
provisions of Sections 242 and 228 of the DGCL.

     THIRD:  The Article "FIRST" of the  Corporation's  Restated  Certificate of
Incorporation is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

     "FIRST. THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION IS E-DENTIST.COM, INC."

     FOURTH:  This  Certificate of Amendment  shall be effective when filed with
the Secretary of State for the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Pentegra Dental Group, Inc. has caused this Certificate
of  Amendment of  Certificate  of  Incorporation  to be executed by Dr. James M.
Powers,  Jr. its  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  on this 25th day of
August, 2000.


                                        Pentegra Dental Group, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ James Powers
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Dr. James M. Powers, Jr., President
                                            and Chief Executive Officer
|                                        |   |   |   |                 |                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:     May 10, 2011 | By:    | /s/    |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON    |
|                                        |   |   | Name:  |                 | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|                                        |   |   | Title: |                 | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|                                        |   |   |   |                 | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|                                        |   |   |   |                 |                                                 |
|                                        |   |   |   |                 |                                                 |
| Dated:     May 10, 2011 | By:    | /s/    |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY |
|                                        |   |   | Name:  |                 | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|                                        |   |   | Title: |                 | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                        |   |   |   |                 | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
|                                        |   |   |   |                 |                                                 |
|                                        |   |   |   |                 |                                                 |

----
#### STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. William H. ADAMS, Appellant.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.

Oct. 11, 1988.

A. Edward Pritchett, Tullahoma, for appellant.

*959W.J. Michael Cody, Atty. Gen. and Reporter, Kymberly Lynn Anne Hattaway, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Charles S. Ramsey, Jr., Dist. Atty. Gen., Ken Shelton, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Manchester, for appellee.

OPINION

DWYER, Judge.

This is an appeal as a matter of right by William H. Adams from his Coffee County Circuit Court conviction for violating T.C.A. § 39-6-1102. Appellant was sentenced to serve 11 months, 29 days in the county jail. Numerous issues for appellate review are presented, including a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment so as to sustain the appellant’s conviction. The State agrees with appellant’s contention that the indictment fails to allege an offense under the facts of this case.

In the case *sub judice,*the indictment alleges, in pertinent part, as follows:

> [The defendant] did communicate to MARK SHEMPP by means of telephonic conversation as a result of a telephone call, remarks and threats manifestly intended to disturb and annoy the said MARK SHEMPP, and with the said communication reasonably expected to annoy, abuse, torment, threaten and harass the said MARK SHEMPP, in violation of T.C.A. 39-6-1102.

T.C.A. § 39-6-1102 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

> (a) It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to communicate to another or others within this state, by means of telephonic conversation, any lewd, obscene or lascivious remark, suggestion or proposal manifestly intended to embarrass, disturb or annoy the person to whom the said remark, suggestion or proposal is made.

> (b) It shall also be unlawful for any person or persons to make use of telephone facilities or equipment:

> (1) For an anonymous call or calls, whether or not a conversation ensues, if made or communicated in a manner reasonably to be expected to annoy, abuse, torment, threaten, harass or embarrass one or more persons; or

> (2) For repeated calls, if such calls are not for a lawful purpose, but are made with intent to abuse, torment, threaten, harass or embarrass one or more persons.

It is apparent from a reading of the subject statute that the Legislature intended to prohibit an obscene telephone call or calls, a threatening telephone call or calls placed anonymously, and repeated, non-anonymous, threatening telephone calls. Quite simply, the statute does not prohibit the making of *one*threatening or harassing, non-anonymous telephone call, as here. See T.C.A. § 39-6-1102(b)(2).

Given the language of the statute in question, we cannot find that the alleged conduct of the appellant constitutes a crime under the strict provisions of T.C.A. § 39-6-1102(b)(2). The appellant’s conviction for noncriminal conduct must be reversed and dismissed. *See State v. Lampkin,*619 S.W.2d 520 (Tenn.1981).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and dismissed.

BIRCH and WADE, JJ., concur.