alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex Parte Armanda Ramirez

No. 25428.

June 30, 1951.

Hon. Frank Williford, Jr., Judge Presiding.

Peden *& Stevens,*by *O’Brien Stevens,*Houston, for relator.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

*281DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant stands charged in the Criminal District Court of Harris County by five separate indictments, each charging a violation of Sec. 1 of Art. 1621b, Vernon’s Penal Code, which makes it unlawful for one, by threat of the use of force or violence, to prevent another person from engaging in any lawful vocation. The maximum penalty provided for a violation of said statute is two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant’s bail, under such indictments, was fixed at the sum of $5,000 in each case, which required the posting of a total bail of $25,000.

Being unable to make such bail, appellant, as relator in the court below, sought, by writ of habeas corpus, a reduction of bail in each case, insisting that he could probably furnish a total bail in the sum of $5000.

Upon hearing such application, the relief prayed for was denied, from which order notice of appeal was given.

Appellant has lived in Houston only a short time. He has no property of his own; his ability to make bail is measured solely by whatever assistance he may receive from friends.

The prime object or purpose of bail is to secure the presence of an accused upon the trial of the accusation against him. The amount of bail should be sufficient to assure the attainment of the purpose mentioned. The nature of the accusation and the penalty authorized to be inflicted are to be taken into consideration; also, bail under other charges may be taken into consideration.

In the light of the record here presented and under the rules stated, we have reached the conclusion that the amount of bail as fixed by the trial court is excessive, and that a reasonable bail in each case is the sum of $2,000.

Accordingly, the amount of bail in each of the five cases against appellant, as shown by this record, is here now reduced to and fixed in the sum of $2,000 in each case.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### Edward TAIGMAN, as Administrator of the Estate of Max Taigman, Deceased, Appellant, v. Jennie AKULIN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

July 31, 1956.

George H. Henry, Miami, for appellant.

Leo M. Alpert, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the motion of appellee to affirm the judgment appealed from pursuant to Rule 38 of the *166rules of this court, 31 F.S.A., and it appearing to the court from an examination of the record that said motion is appropriate and seasonably made and that it is manifest that the questions raised on appeal are without substantial merit and need no further argument;

It is accordingly ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion to affirm the judgment appealed from be, and the same is hereby granted, and the judgment is Affirmed.

DREW, C. J., THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., and ROWE, Associate Justice, concur.
Exhibit 13.2


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934





In connection with the Annual Report of Hollysys Automation Technologies Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Li, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 of the Company as of June 30, 2011 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2011.





/S/ Peter LiName:
Peter LiTitle:
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)Date:
September 22, 2011





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 16.1

September 16, 2005

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20549

Commissioners:

We have read the statements made by Chyron Corporation (copy attached), which we understand will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Item 4.01 of Form 8-K, as part of Chyron's Form 8-K report dated September 13, 2005.  We agree with the statements concerning our Firm in such Form 8-K.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Exhibit 10.3


 


Amendment to Terms & Conditions Regarding the Appointment of Mr. Vandoorn as Chief Technology Officer







            Amendment to Terms & Conditions Regarding the Appointment of Mr. Vandoorn as Chief Technology Officer (this "Amendment"), made as of March 4, 2014 by and between Vishay Capacitors Belgium N.V., a Belgian company ("Vishay Belgium"), and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Vishay"), and JOHAN VANDOORN ("Executive") (collectively the "Parties").







            WHEREAS, Executive is employed by Vishay Belgium and is a Party to the Terms & Conditions Regarding the Appointment of Mr. Vandoorn as Chief Technology Officer made between the Parties dated January 16, 2012 (the "Terms & Conditions");







            WHEREAS, Vishay Belgium and Executive may amend the Terms & Conditions by mutual agreement in writing; and







             WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Terms & Conditions as set forth in this Amendment.







            NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


      1.            Section 7.4 of Clause 7 of the Terms & Conditions is hereby replaced with the following:







"Mr. Vandoorn is eligible for a yearly bonus.  Beginning with calendar year 2014, the maximum target bonus is 100% of the Fixed Fee. The bonus will be determined based on Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.'s (hereinafter referred to as "Vishay") adjusted net earnings, and Mr. Vandoorn's achievement of personal goals that will be communicated separately."







2.            The amendments to the Terms & Conditions made by paragraph 1 of this Amendment shall be effective as of March 4, 2014.







3.            Except as set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Terms & Conditions shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.







4.            This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.












[signatures on next page]













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf as of the date first above written.












VISHAY BELGIUM N.V.







By: /s/ Wilfried Renders


Name: Wilfried Renders


Title: Managing Director







Date: April 6, 2014

















/s/ Johan Vandoorn


Johan Vandoorn







Date: April 6, 2014
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTIONS 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of IBroadband, Inc., on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Matthew Hutchins, President, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sections 906 of the Sabanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

To my knowledge, 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 al material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

IBroadband, Inc.





By: /s/ Matthew Hutchins

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



Title:  President/Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer



Date: April 25, 2006
#### Stephen E. GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1566.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 18, 2002.

Decided Nov. 18, 2002.

Deborah K. Garton, Hensley, Muth, Garton & Hayes, Bluefield, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief, Shawn C. Carver, Assistant Regional, Office of the General, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Sara B. Winn, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Stephen E. Gibson appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

We must uphold the district court’s disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); *Hays v. Sullivan,*907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). Contrary to Gibson’s argument, the ALJ properly credited the opinions of non-examining physicians over that of his treating physician in this case, as the latter’s opinion is unsupported by the clinical evidence and is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(d)(2), 416.967(d)(2) (2000); *Craig v. Chafer,*76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th *183Cir.1996). Moreover, while we agree with the district court that Gibson’s new evidence would not have affected the ALJ’s decision, inasmuch as it lacked objective support, we note that because the evidence did not relate to the period preceding the ALJ’s decision, Gibson is not entitled to have the evidence considered. *See Wilkins v. Secretary of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,*953 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Gibson v. Barnhart,*No. CA-01-101-1 (W.D.Va. Apr. 25, 2002). 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.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE MINOR COURT

RULES COMMITTEE :

:

:

: NO. 432

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30 th day of January, 2019, Magisterial District Judge Beth

Scagline

- Mills, Allegheny County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Minor Court

Rules Committee for a term expiring October 1, 2024.
228 So.2d 840

#### Ex parte Gerald Thornton Russell. Gerald Thornton RUSSELL v. STATE of Alabama.

6 Div. 766.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 4, 1969.

Fred Blanton and Morel Montgomery, Birmingham, for petitioner.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen, opposed.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

Petition of Gerald Thornton Russell for certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Russell v. State, 45 Ala.App. 224, 228 So.2d 837.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J, and LAWSON, SIMPSON, MERRILL, COLEMAN and HARWOOD, JJ, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6314 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6314

    To require the Federal Communications Commission to reform the 
   contribution system of the Universal Service Fund, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2021

Mr. Neguse (for himself, Mrs. Cammack, Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Bergman, Ms. 
   DeGette, and Ms. Craig) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Federal Communications Commission to reform the 
   contribution system of the Universal Service Fund, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Reforming Broadband Connectivity Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.

    Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Federal Communications Commission (referred to in this Act as the 
``Commission'') shall--
            (1) conduct a study assessing the need to expand the 
        contribution base of the Universal Service Fund to ensure that 
        the contribution requirement under section 254(d) of the 
        Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)) is imposed fairly 
        and equitably; and
            (2) submit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
        conducted under paragraph (1).

SEC. 3. UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM REFORM.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Commission shall complete a rulemaking to reform the 
contribution system of the Universal Service Fund, including by 
expanding the contribution base of the Universal Service Fund.
    (b) Considerations.--In conducting the rulemaking required under 
subsection (a), the Commission shall consider--
            (1) the relative equities and burdens of the proposed 
        changes to the contribution system of the Universal Service 
        Fund with respect to consumers and businesses;
            (2) the impact of the proposed changes to the contribution 
        system of the Universal Service Fund on seniors; and
            (3) the findings and recommendations in the report 
        submitted under section 2(2).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Oxford Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q(“Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended May 1, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, J. Hicks Lanier,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, K. Scott Grassmyer,Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Company,each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

 

(2)   The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

 

 
| /s/ J. Hicks  Lanier                                           |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| J. Hicks Lanier                                                |   |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer                          |   |
| June 9, 2010                                              |   |
|                                                           |   |
|                                                           |   |
| /s/ K. Scott  Grassmyer                                        |   |
| K. Scott Grassmyer                                             |   |
| Senior  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller |   |
| June 9, 2010                                              |   |

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6330]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Joan Miro: Painting and Anti-Painting 1927-1937”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about November 2, 2008, until on or about January 12, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW. Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: August 15, 2008.

C. Miller Crouch,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E8-19766 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 4, 2013

Order 

Clerk

November 4, 2013

145594(37)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 145594

v COA: 307728

Wayne CC: 1995-003838-FH

WILLIAM CRAIG GARRETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of amicus curiae Attorney General for 

five minutes of oral argument from the time allotted to the Wayne County Prosecutor, in 

light of the agreement of the Wayne County Prosecutor, is GRANTED.
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   |
|   |   |
| þ | QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|   |   |
|   | For the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016 |
|   |   |
|   | or |
|   |   |
| ¨ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|   |   |
|   | For the transition period from             to            |

|                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                |  |  |
|                                                           |
|                                                           |   |   |
| Georgia                                                        |   | 58-0831862 |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |   | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |

----

|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |  |  |  |
|                      |
|                      |   |   |   |
| Large accelerated filer x | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer ¨ | Smaller reporting company ¨ |
|                      |   | (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |   |

|                                    |
|------------------------------------|
|                                    |  |  |
|                               |
|                               |   |   |
|                               |   | Number of shares outstanding |
| Title of each class |   | as of August 26, 2016 |
| Common Stock, $1 par value         |   | 16,769,408 |

----

|               |
|---------------|
|               |  |  |
|          |
|          |   |   |
| ExhibitNumber |   | Description |
| 10.3          |   | First Amendment to Oxford Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan dated July 1, 2016.†* |

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   |
|   |   |   |
| 10.3   |   | First Amendment to Oxford Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan dated July 1, 2016. † * |
| 31.1   |   | Section 302 Certification by Principal Executive Officer.* |
| 31.2   |   | Section 302 Certification by Principal Financial Officer.* |
| 32     |   | Section 906 Certification by Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer.* |

|         |
|---------|
|         |  |
|    |
|    |   |
| *       | Filed herewith. |
| † | Exhibit is a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement. |

----

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |  |
|                   |
|                   |   |   |
| September 2, 2016 | OXFORD INDUSTRIES, INC. |   |
|                   | (Registrant) |   |
|                   |   |   |
|                   | /s/ K. Scott Grassmyer |   |
|                   | K. Scott Grassmyer |   |
|                   | Executive Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Controller |   |
|                   | (Authorized Signatory) |   |
#### John H. HUNLEY v. STATE.

No. 31642.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B.

May 6, 1935.

Dabney & Dabney, of Vicksburg, for appellant.

W. D. Conn, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ANDERSON, Justice.

Much stress is laid on the conflict in the evidence for the state in certain respects, especially with reference to where the khaki hat or cap was found. Notwithstanding such conflicts, it was clearly a case for the jury— not for the court. There was no error in refusing to direct a verdict for appellant, nor can it be said that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. There was no harmful error in the trial.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

P.M.,

Respondent

v.

K.W.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 679 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of October, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal

is DENIED

.