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

No. 72-2545.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 13, 1972.

Barry Tarlow (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

James W. Meyers, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KOELSCH, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant urges several assignments of error on this appeal from the judgment convicting him of the crime of facilitating the transportation of marihuana (21 U.S.C. § 176a). Since one of them is well taken and requires reversal, we do not reach the others.

The record discloses nothing more than appellant’s “mere presence” in the vehicle carrying the contraband. The rule is “firmly established” that such evidence cannot support the verdict. United States v. Thomas, 453 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, Lucas v. United States, 405 U.S. 1069, 92 S.Ct. 1516, 31 L.Ed.2d 801 (1972).

Reversed, with direction to dismiss the indictment.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.26
 
                                  MEMORANDUM
 
DATE: January 11, 1996
 
TO: Human Resources
 
FROM: Brian D. Owen
 
RE:
 
CC: Mike Marvin
   Joe Gersuk
 
  Effective January 1, 1996 we will increase Joe Gersuk's base salary by 7.5%
taking his new base salary to $177,375.00 annually. Additionally, we will
grant Joe an additional 10,000 option shares at the current price.
Additionally, we will pay Joe an additional $15,000.00 as a Q2 expense to
offset Joe's expense burden of carrying mortgage payments on his Connecticut
home while also paying rental on his Loudonville home.
 
  In the event of a change of control at MapInfo where Joe did not have a
position of equal authority and responsibility with the surviving corporate
entity, Joe will be entitled to a nine month severance in addition to the
terms and conditions outlined in his employment agreement.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Lucky Strike Explorations Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Noble, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of November, 2007.


/s/ Michael Noble
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 09-13279 

HELENA J. BROWN,

Defendant

and

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Garnishee Defendant

/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ‘S REQUEST FOR HEARING 

AND CLAIM FOR EXEMPTIONS

On November 22, 2011, Defendant Helena Brown filed a “Request for Hearing and

Claim for Exemptions” in this collection matter. The United States has responded in

opposition. Defendant Brown states that she has fallen “on hard time[s],” that she and her

husband “are living from mo. to mo. trying to make our end[s] meet,” and she “let some of

[her] payments go” and that she now sees that she “pick[ed] the wrong one to let go.” 

Defendant states that she is “sorry” and “would like another chance to pay this loan off.” 

Even accepting all of this information as true, none of it is a basis to claim an

exemption from the garnishment currently in effect. Defendant remains free to contact the

attorney representing the United States to attempt to work out an alternate payment plan,

but such negotiations are not the business of the court.

2:09-cv-13279-RHC-VMM Doc # 15 Filed 12/12/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 39
12/12/11: LT:S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-13279.BROWN.Garnishment_Deny_Hearing.wpd 2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s “Request for Hearing” filed on November 22,

 2011, [Dkt. #12] is DENIED. 

S/Robert H. Cleland_ ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 12, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, December 11, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Lisa Wagner

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13279-RHC-VMM Doc # 15 Filed 12/12/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 40
```

                          ORBITTRAVEL.COM CORPORATION,

"CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF ORBITTRAVELCOM
CORPORATION

ORBITTRAVEL.COM CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing and in good
standing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation") hereby certifies as follows:

(a) That the Company's Board of Directors at a meeting duly convened and held,
adopted the following resolution:

RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby declares it adviseable and in the
best Interests of the Corporation and it's shareholders that the Corporation's
Certificate of Incorporation be amended to read as follows:

Article I of the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, would
be deleted In Its entirety, and the following substituted In lieu thereof:

ARTICLE: 1 ,

NAME

The name of the Corporation Is ORBIT BRANDS CORPORATION
(the "Corporation").

Article IV of the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended. would
be deleted In its entirety, and the following substituted in lieu thereof:

ARTICLE IV

CAPITAL STOCK

The total number of shares of stock that this Corporation shall have the
authority to issue is (I) Two Billion (2,OOO,OOO,OOO) shares of Common Stock,
$.001 par value per share ("Common Stock"), and (ii) Ten Million (10,000,000)
shares of Preferred Stock. $.001 par value per share ("Preferred Stock").

ORBITTRAVEL.COM CORPORATION

(b) That the aforesaid amendments have been consented to and authorized by the

                                       1

holders of a majority of the issued and outstanding stock entitled to vote
pursuant to Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

(c) That the aforesaid amendments were duly adopted pursuant to the applicable
provisions of Sections 242 and 222 of the General Corporation law of the State
of Delaware.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to
be executed by Joseph R. Cellura. this 13 day of April. 2004.

/s/Joseph R. Cellura
Joseph R. Cellura
Chairman & CEO
Authorized Officer

/s/Bradley S. Clark
Bradley S. Clark
Witness
```
181 La. 547

#### STATE v. McDONALD.

No. 32780.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 1935.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1935.

See, also, 160 So. 75. '

W. C. Pegues, Jr., of Mansfield, for relator.

G. L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., Lessley P. Gardiner, Asst, to Atty; Gen., and A. B. Cavanaugh, Dist. Atty., of Leesville, for respondent

ROGERS, Justice.

A. J. McDonald, the relator, was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor within five miles of the Logansport High School. The offense is denounced by Act No. 73 of 1896.

The only question presented for decision is whether Act No. 73 of 1896 was repealed by Act No. 39 of 1921, Ex. Sess., generally known as the “Hood Act,” which was itself repealed by Act No. 1 of 1933, Ex. Sess.

In the tenth section of Act No. 39 of 1921, Ex. Sess., after providing that the statute in no way repeals the “Blind Tiger Act” (Act No. 8 of 1915, Ex. Sess.) and the “Near Beer Act” (Act No. 14 of 1916), it is declared: “All other laws or parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this Act be and they are hereby repealed.”

Act No. 39 of 1921, Ex. Sess., was a general law of the state, covering every phase of the liquor traffic. It was stated de in its operation, and necessarily superseded other statutes or parts of statutes in conflict with its provisions. State v. Carter, 179 La. 156, 153 So. 676.

Act No. 73 of 1896 is a special statute, and is limited in its operation, and effect to the territory prescribed therein.

.ActNo. 39 of 1921, Ex. Sess., prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor throughout the state. Act No. 73 of 1896 prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquor within five miles of the Logansport High School. Act No. 39 of 1921, Ex. Sess., repealed only those laws or parts of laws that were in conflict with its provisions. When Act No. 39 of 1921, Ex. Sess., was in effect, there was no conflict between its provisions and the provisions of Act No. 73 of 1896. Both statutes prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor within the prescribed area surrounding the Logansport High School. A conviction for the violation of Act No. 39 of 1921, Ex. Sess., within .the territory covered by Act No. 73 of 1896 would have been no bar to a prosecution under the latter statute. Hence it is clear that Act No. 73 of 1896 was not repealed by Act No. 39 of 1921, Ex. Sess.

Nor the reasons assigned, the rule nisi herein issued is discharged, and relator’s application for writs of mandamus and prohibition is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000916310
<NAME> PROTECTION ONE ALARM MONITORING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,025
<SECURITIES>                                    17,770
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,993
<INVENTORY>                                      7,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,840
<PP&E>                                          61,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,511,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          235,991
<BONDS>                                        829,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,268
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,343,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,511,319
<SALES>                                        421,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               421,095
<CGS>                                          131,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (20,570)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,567
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,990
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    737
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,791)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,054)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,591
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 709 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 709

   To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to require 
 States to have laws that would permit a parent who is chronically ill 
  or near death to name a standby guardian for a minor child without 
                     surrendering parental rights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1995

Mrs. Maloney (for herself, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Studds, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
   Evans, Mr. Miller of California, and Mr. Deutsch) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to require 
 States to have laws that would permit a parent who is chronically ill 
  or near death to name a standby guardian for a minor child without 
                     surrendering parental rights.

    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 ``Standby Guardianship Act''.

SEC. 2. STATES REQUIRED TO HAVE STANDBY GUARDIANSHIP LAW AS A CONDITION 
              OF ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS FOR FOSTER CARE AND 
              ADOPTION ASSISTANCE.

    (a) In General.--Part E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 670-679) is amended by inserting after section 477 the 
following:

``SEC. 478. STANDBY GUARDIANSHIP LAWS AND PROCEDURES.

    ``To be eligible for payments under this part, a State must have in 
effect laws and procedures that permit any parent who is chronically 
ill or near death, without surrendering parental rights, to designate a 
standby guardian for the parent's minor children, whose authority would 
take effect upon--
            ``(1) the death of the parent;
            ``(2) the mental incapacity of the parent; or
            ``(3) the physical debilitation and consent of the 
        parent.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect at the end of the first calendar quarter that begins 60 or 
more months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall 
apply to payments under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act 
for the quarter and payments made under such part for any succeeding 
quarter.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements File Nos. 33-97072, 33-97074, 33-87940, 333-07333,
333-26759, 333-56109, 333-79989, 333-79991, 333-79993, 333-42240, 333-42248,
333-55368 and 333-55372.




                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen, LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 21, 2001
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                   SUBSIDIARIES OF ELTRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1.    Donner Media, Incorporated, a Wisconsin corporation (80% owned subsidiary)

2.    Privilege S.A., a French corporation

3.    RJS, Inc., a California corporation

4.    Eltron International, FSC, a Barbados corporation

5.    Eltron Holdings Limited, a United Kingdom corporation

6.    Russet Limited, a United Kingdom corporation

7.    Eltron International Limited, a United Kingdom corporation

8.    Eltron Singapore, a Singapore corporation
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael P. OPENLANDER, Appellant.

No. 66618.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Feb. 25, 1997.

Joseph L. Green, St. Louis, for appellant.

Amy Jacobsen, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Charles County, St. Charles, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of felony driving while intoxicated, § 577.010 RSMo Cum.Supp.1982, for which he was sentenced to a term of five years. Defendant claims the instructions in the case, MAI-CR 3d 331.02 and 304.08, violate due process by confusing and misleading the jury and diminishing the State’s burden of proof. Defendant also asserts the trial court erred in failing to strike two jurors *sua sponte*for bias and prejudice. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the conviction pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2048

IBRAHIM ABDOSH ADOUS,

Petitioner,

versus

PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A27-669-918)

Submitted: September 21, 2007 Decided: October 9, 2007

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles M. Wall, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant

Director, Joshua E. Braunstein, Office of Immigration Litigation,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ibrahim Abdosh Adous, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying

Adous’ application for relief under former section 212(c) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). For the

reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. 

Adous was convicted of assault and battery of a family

member under Va. Code § 18.2-57.2. He contends that because

battery does not require bodily injury or intent to inflict bodily

injury under Virginia law, his crime is not one of moral turpitude.

It is unnecessary for us to resolve this point, however, because

Adous was not convicted merely of battery. Rather, he was

convicted of assault and battery pursuant to a statute that has

been construed to require an intent to inflict bodily injury on the

victim. See Leal v. Commonwealth, 559 S.E.2d 874, 878 (Va. App.

2002), rev’d on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Leal, 574 S.E.2d 285

(Va. 2003). Adous’ failure to successfully inflict the harm he

intended does not lessen the weight given to his crime.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning

provided by the Board. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Arthur De Roche, Respondent, v. James Ridgeway, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with costs. Present—Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 DAKTRONICS, INC.
 
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Daktronics, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the annual period ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William R. Retterath, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.
 
 
 
 /s/ William R. RetterathWilliam R. RetterathChief Financial OfficerJune 16, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, Civil No. 09-13564

vs. Honorable Anna Diggs Taylor

Magistrate Michael J. Hluchaniuk

THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE

THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED

FORTY DOLLARS ($365,440.00)

IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, 

Defendant In Rem.

____________________________________/

ORDER STAYING CIVIL FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS

Upon the accompanying Stipulation (D/E 17) of the United States for Order Staying Civil

Forfeiture Proceedings, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, now,

therefore;

IT IS ORDERED that all proceedings in this civil forfeiture, case as to the parties, 

United States of America, the Plaintiff, and CNP Akama Ventures, LLC., through its Managing

Director, Mark Jay Apsey, shall be stayed until further order of the Court, without prejudice to

either party to seek an advance termination or an extension of the stay.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings in this civil forfeiture case as to 

Adam Samuel Tracy, Frank Michael Schmidt, and Mark Jay Apsey in his individual capacity

only, whom the Government notified as possible interested parties, but have otherwise failed to

file claims in this matter, shall not be stayed, and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

and Final Order of Forfeiture shall be heard as scheduled on February 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 19 Filed 02/12/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 69
-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States shall promptly inform the 

Claimant, and its counsel, of the culmination or termination of the criminal investigation,

whether by discontinuance or by the initiation of criminal prosecution.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon termination of the stay, the parties shall be

afforded a reasonable time to conclude discovery, file dispositive motions, and file all witness

lists prior to any pretrial or trial proceedings.

DATED: February 12, 2010 s/Anna Diggs Taylor

ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to

their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 12,

2010.

s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 19 Filed 02/12/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 70
Exhibit 31.2



DSP GROUP, INC.



CERTIFICATION



I, Moshe Zelnik, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of DSP Group, Inc.;
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 2, 2005



/S/    MOSHE ZELNIKMoshe ZelnikChief Financial Officer