alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy B. PROHART, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-1313.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1973.

Robert J. Hirsh (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.

James Mueller, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), William K. Smitherman, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appel-lee.

Before MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Raymond E. Plummer, United States District Judge, District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM;

Appellant (Prohart) appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury trial for the offense of knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute marihuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Section 841(a)(1) of Title 21, United States Code.

*1090Prohart presents six issues for review on appeal. All have been duly-considered. We find that only one, the sufficiency of the evidence, merits discussion.

Prohart contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence as to his actual or constructive possession of the marihuana in question.

In support of this contention Prohart relies on cases which attempt to establish a standard or test for cases involving circumstantial evidence to the effect that circumstantial evidence must be adequately sufficient to enable a reasonable determination that it excludes every hypothesis except that of guilt. This is not the standard or test applied in this circuit.

 So far as the jury’s fact-finding function is concerned, all that is to be required of the jury is that it weigh all of the evidence, direct or circumstantial against the standard of reasonable doubt. The proper test is not whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis except that of guilt but, rather, whether the jurors could reasonably arrive at their conclusion. United States v. Salcedo, 452 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1971); Sabian v. People of Territory of Guam, 434 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1969). Accord, Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954).

We have considered the evidence in its entirety. From our review of all the evidence we find a chain of circumstances establishing adequate relevant evidence from which, if considered most favorably to the government, the jury could rationally conclude or infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Prohart was guilty as charged.

We find the remaining issues presented for review by Prohart to be without merit. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Judgment affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135522 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135522 

 COA: 280166 

Wayne CC: 00-002348-01 

EUGENE CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
#### MORITZ THOMSEN INVESTMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 8802.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 29, 1938.

Percy W. Phillips, of Washington, D. G, for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered decision of Board of Tax Appeals reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to enter an order that the tax liability of this taxpayer for the calendar years 1924 and 1926 having been compromised and settled, there is now no deficiency in income taxes for the years 1924 and 1926. -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,008,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,403,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   122,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,364,000
<PP&E>                                       1,589,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,128,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,669,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,716,000
<BONDS>                                      7,360,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,593,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,830,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,669,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            57,197,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               54,254,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,061,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,157,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,882,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   700,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,182,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (564,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 533

To amend section 117 of title 17, United States Code, to permit the lawful

possessor of a copy of a computer program to authorize another copy

to be made under certain circumstances.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

Mr. KNOLLENBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 117 of title 17, United States Code, to

permit the lawful possessor of a copy of a computer

program to authorize another copy to be made under

certain circumstances.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 117 of title 17, United States Code, is

4 amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by strik5 ing ‘‘the owner’’ and inserting ‘‘the rightful possessor’’.

Æ
#### Sharon BUSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael BUSBY, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 20633.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Aug. 14, 1996.

Scott Fetterhoff, Lichtenegger, Payne, Weiss, Hahn & Fetterhoff, L.L.C., Jackson, for appellant.

Stephen P. Gray, Marble Hill, for respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

Following non-jury trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Defendant, stating that “Plaintiff lacks credibility” and “Plaintiff bore the burden of proving the alleged ar-rearage. Due to Plaintiffs lack of credibility, she has failed to meet that burden.” Plaintiff appeals, contending that the evidence established that she was entitled to back child support.

Both in answers to interrogatories and in her testimony, Plaintiff denied receiving certain payments. After a bank official testified and copies of checks were entered in evidence she retook the stand and said she now remembered receiving certain checks in payment of child support.

Under this Court’s limited review, the judgment must be affirmed. Review of a non-jury matter is under Rule 73.01(e). As that rule has been interpreted, this Court is to affirm the judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. *Thurmond v. Moxley,*879 S.W.2d 709, 711 (Mo.App.1994).

Due regard is given by an appellate court to the trial court’s determination on the credibility of witnesses. Rule 73.01(c)(2). “The trial judge is in a better position than this court to determine the credibility of the parties, their sincerity, character, and other trial intangibles, which may not be shown by the record.” *Ross Farms, Inc. v. Moore,*873 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Mo.App.1994). “The trial judge, as the trier of fact, can disbelieve testimony, even when uncontradicted.” *In re Marriage of Gardner,*890 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Mo.App.1994).

The judgment is not against the weight of the evidence and no error of law appears. An opinion beyond this “memorandum decision” would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

BARNEY, P.J., and GARRISON, J., concur.
#### Oakley F. Smith, Respondent, v. Schenectady Railway Company, Appellant.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
(173 La. 329)

#### R. B. GREEN, Sr., v. E. M. THRASH, Jr.

No. 30834.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 3, 1930.

John T. Carpenter, of Shreveport, for appellant.

John G. Gibbs, of Shreveport, for appellee.

Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

LAND, J.

Defendant claims the ownership of two lots of the Cedar Grove addition in. the city of Shreveport, by virtue .of a tax sale made by the city, of date July 9, 1928.

Plaintiff in the present suit asserts ownership to the property, and has attacked the validity of the tax sale for want of notice of delinquency of the tax and of the intention of the city to sell the property.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant has appealed, and plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant has acquiesced in and consented to the judgment rendered, and that agreement was entered into in accordance therewith, with reference to the costs.

In the alternative, mover alleges that this court is without jurisdiction of. this case.

1. The attorney for mover has failed to file any brief in the case and to allege dehors the-record any act of acquiescence on the part of the defendant in the judgment appealed from. Nor does the record upon its face disclose any such act. On the contrary, as shown by the minutes of the lower court, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff “for reasons orally assigned,” and not by consent, and matters of costs were argued, and, “by agreement,” it was ordered “that the costs be equally divided.” Tr. pp. 30 and 31.

*522. The petition alleges that the property in dispute is worth $1,950, and, in addition to this sum, plaintiff claims actual damages, arising from the alleged null and void tax deed, in the sum of $500 and attorney’s fees in the further sum of $250. The petition is sworn to by the attorney of plaintiff, and, on the trial of the case, plaintiff testified that the property herein involved was worth $2,500. Tr. p. 38.

Under the facts as disclosed by the record before us, appellant has not acquiesced in the judgment appealed from, and this court clearly has jurisdiction of this case, as the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000.

It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss the appeal be denied and overruled.
231 So.2d 773

#### Ex parte William T. Hudson. In re William T. HUDSON v. STATE.

2 Div. 533.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1970.

Bryce U. Graham, Tuscumbia, for petitioner.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARWOOD, Justice.

Petition of William T. Hudson for certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Hudson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 449, 231 So.2d 772 (2 Div. 3).

Writ denied.

All the Justices concur.
#### The Lyons National Bank, Appellant, v. George H. Shuler, Individually and as Executor of and Trustee under the will of Magdalena Shuler, Deceased, and Others, Respondents, Impleaded with Dorothea Frank and Others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., and Williams, J., who dissented, upon the ground that the judgment ought to have provided that out of the proceeds of the sale the owners of the property should first have the right to receive the value of their property when the improvements were commenced; that their equities were prior to those of the equitable lienors.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF O'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,810
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,289
<INVENTORY>                                     46,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,847
<PP&E>                                         145,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,954
<BONDS>                                         30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,820
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,314
<SALES>                                        339,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               339,407
<CGS>                                          244,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  244,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,641
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,742
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,899
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18366]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 4, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Altrust Financial Services, Inc., Cullman, Alabama, to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of Generation Bank, Centre, Alabama 
(in organization).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 5, 
2008.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-18366 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT D. GORDON, Receiver of 

the Estate of Gregory McKnight,

LEGISI MARKETING, INC., AND 

LEGISI HOLDINGS, L.L.C. 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 09-10772

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ELITE CONSULTING GROUP, L.L.C.

a Florida limited liability company, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT KAREN REDMAN’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION [#62]

On March 16, 2011, this court denied defendant Karen Redman’s motion for

attorneys’ fees. Defendant Redman now moves for reconsideration of this court’s March

16, 2011 decision pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3) arguing that there is a palpable

defect by which this court was misled which necessitates reconsideration of defendant

Redman’s request for attorneys’ fees. Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan provides:

[M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same

issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication,

shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable

defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show

that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof.

E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). Defendant Redman has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect

by which this court has been misled, the correction of which will result in a different

2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM Doc # 66 Filed 05/09/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1257
-2-

disposition of this case. Defendant Redman’s arguments have already been raised and

rejected by the court. 

Accordingly, 

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration regarding defendant Karen Redman’s motion

for attorneys’ fees [#62] is DENIED.

Plaintiff-Receiver’s motion for leave to file response to defendant Redman’s motion

for reconsideration [#63] is DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 9, 2011

/s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

May 9, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

S/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM Doc # 66 Filed 05/09/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1258
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1




















February 13, 2020


David Oliver
XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXX, XX  XXXXX


Dear David:


We are pleased to offer you the following details regarding your interim position.


Position:        Interim Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Controller 


Reports to:    Bonnie Brooks, CEO and President of Chico’s, FAS, Inc.


Start date:    Effective February 13, 2020


Base Salary:    $375,000.00 annually


		
	  Bonus: 
	You will receive a $10,000 bonus, less applicable taxes, for each month or partial month that you are in the interim position, effective February 13, 2020.  




All other aspects of your compensation will remain the same.  


I wish you continued success at Chico’s. Please indicate your acceptance to this interim position by signing below and returning to my attention.


Sincerely,






Bonnie Brooks
President and CEO
Chico’s FAS, Inc.




Accepted by:  /s/ David M. Oliver                            Date: February 13, 2020
Exhibit 32.2  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 China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), I, Yan Zheng, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  August 13, 2008 /s/ Yan Zheng Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.19









January 31, 2020


Jeffrey C. Hawken
c/o Kilroy Realty Corporation
12200 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064


		
	Re:
	Extension of Employment Agreement




Dear Jeff:


Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement between you, Kilroy Realty Corporation, a Maryland corporation, and Kilroy Realty, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, amended and restated effective as of December 31, 2015, and as subsequently amended by a letter agreement by and between such parties dated February 28, 2019 (the “Employment Agreement”).  This letter is to confirm our agreement that the term of the Employment Agreement (as provided in Section 2 of the Employment Agreement) will be extended by one year so that the Term (as defined in the Employment Agreement) will end on March 1, 2021 (subject to earlier termination as provided in Sections 6 and 7 of the Employment Agreement, and subject to any further extension that may mutually be agreed to in writing).
Except as expressly set forth herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its current terms.  This letter may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[Remainder of page left blank]










If this letter accurately sets forth our agreement with respect to the foregoing matters, please sign this letter where indicated below and return it to me.
	
			
	 
	 
	KILROY REALTY CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Tyler H. Rose

	 
	 
	Name:  Tyler H. Rose
Title:    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Heidi R. Roth

	 
	 
	Name:  Heidi R. Roth
Title:    Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer



	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	KILROY REALTY, L.P.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By: 
	KILROY REALTY CORPORATION

	 
	 
	Its: General Partner

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Tyler H. Rose

	 
	 
	Name:  Tyler H. Rose
Title:     Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Heidi R. Roth

	







	 
	Name:   Heidi R. Roth
Title:     Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer








	
	
	Accepted and Agreed:

	 

	/s/ Jeffrey C. Hawken

	Jeffrey C. Hawken
#### William Sinn, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

—Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ.