alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. L. Goldsmith v. State.

No. 25134.

February 7, 1951.

*Ramey & Ramey,*by J. *R. Ramey,*Sulphur Springs, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The information contained two counts, one alleging that appellant, while intoxicated, drove and operated a motor vehicle upon a public highway, the other alleging that the motor vehicle was driven upon a public highway by appellant, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Both counts were submitted to the jury and appellant’s guilt was made to depend upon a finding that he was both in*429toxicated and under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time.

The jury assessed the punishment at a fine of $50.

The information was not defective in failing to allege or describe the public highway upon which appellant was alleged to have driven the motor vehicle, and appellant’s motion to quash because of a failure to give a description thereof was properly overruled. Allen v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 197 S. W. 2d 1013.

A police patrolman of the city of Sulphur Springs, attracted by the manner in which appellant was driving his automobile, stopped him. According to his testimony, appellant was drunk at the time. Witness further testified that appellant staggered when he walked, and that he smelled alcohol upon appellant’s breath.

The jury was authorized to believe the testimony of the patrolman, and the facts are therefore sufficient to sustain the conviction.

There was no variance between the allegation of the information that the motor vehicle was driven upon a public highway and the proof showing that the motor vehicle was driven upon a public street, for a “street” is a public highway. Lamkin v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 123 S. W. 2d 662.

Appellant presents several bills of exception, each complaining of argument of state’s counsel. The argument complained of violated no mandatory statutory provision, nor was it of such nature as to manifest reversible error, in view of the infliction by the jury of the minimum punishment in this case.

The information alleged and the facts showed that the event out of which the prosecution arose occurred on June 11, 1950. In submitting the case to the jury, the trial court authorized appellant’s conviction of the offense charged if such was found to have been committed “on or before the 11th day of June, 1950.”

To such instruction an exception was duly reserved as authorizing appellant’s conviction at any time prior to the *430date fixed in the information and beyond the period of limitation.

It would have been the better practice to use the term, “on or about,” rather than “on or before,” yet, under the particular facts here presented, we are unable to conclude that reversible error is reflected, especially in view of the fact that there was only one transaction before the jury where the state insisted that appellant, while intoxicated, operated his automobile.

Other bills of exception have been examined and are overruled without discussion.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED  FROM
THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, AND CASH FLOWS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<CIK> 0000075527
<NAME> PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        3,207
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         96
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             880
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           490
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,833
<COMMON>                                         1,061
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                328
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,341
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         80
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,052
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 116
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      296
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,948
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    4,833
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          598
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                46
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         470
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            128
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   6
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                       0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            25
<NET-INCOME>                                        57
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          1
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       56
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            64
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             360
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70


        

</TABLE>
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 Commercial Property Corporation
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), We, David C. Merrell, President and Corie Merrell of the
Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.

Date: 9/20/2004                            /s/David C. Merrell
     ----------                            ---------------------
                                           David C. Merrell
                                           President and director

Date: 9/20/2004                            /s/Corie Merrell
     ----------                            ----------------------
                                           Corie Merrell
                                           Secretary/Treasurer and
                                           director
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________

CHARMAYNE M. KIRKLAN D

, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELA ND SECURITY

, Respondent.

__________________________

2013

- 30 75

________________ __________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in N o. CB7121120003

- V

- 1.

__________________________

ON MOTION

__________________________

O R D E R

Charmayne M. Kirkland moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Upon consideration t hereof

,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The motion i s granted. Case: 13-3075 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2013CHARMAYNE KIRKLAND V

. DHS 2

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s 21 Case: 13-3075 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2013
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 of CPG International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott Harrison, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 

|  

Date:    March 29, 2007 |   | By:    | /s/ SCOTT HARRISON                                     |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   |   | Scott Harrison                                         |
|                                      |   |   | Executive Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer |
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 1682

JAMES B. SPENCER; DORIS E HOLT, Estate of Doris E. Holt , Plaintiffs

- Appellants , and
RODNEY LAIL, a/k/a Keith Lail, a/k/a Rodney Keith Lail; IRENE SANTACROCE; RICKY STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS; NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON; DAN GREEN , Plaintiffs ,

v.
HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; DAVID CALDWELL; LARRY G AINEY; MICHAEL PRODAN; MARK KEEL; JOHNNY MORGAN, Horry County Police Chief ,
Defendants

- Appellees , and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; N JOHN BENSON; PHIL CELESTINI; PAUL GARDNER; DAVID M HARDY; KERRY HAYNES; THOMAS ISABELLA, JR.; MICHAEL KIRKPATRICK; THOMAS MARSH; MONTE DELL MCKEE; MATTHEW PERRY; GEORGE SKALUBA; CHRIS SWECKER; NOEL HEROLD; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; UNKNOWN JOHN DOES , Defendants , and2 JAY SALEEBY, Aiken, Bri dges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, P.A.; SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD ,
Movants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv

- 00977

- MGL )

Submitted : February 21, 2019 Decided: March 20, 2019

Before KING and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John P. Batson, JOHN P. BATSON, LAW OFFICE, Augusta, Georgia, for Appellants. Eugene H. Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James M. Saleeby, Jr., AIKEN BRIDGES ELLIOTT TYLER & SALEEBY, P.A., Florence, South Carolina; Andrew F. Lindemann, LINDEMANN DAVIS & HUGHES, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

James B. Spencer and the Estate of Doris E. Holt appeal the district court’s order s adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing the claims against
some of the Appellees for failure to effect service of process, adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing the remaining claims with
prejudice, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Spencer v. South Carolina , No. 3:11

- cv

- 00977

- MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2012; Sept. 19,
2013; Jan. 31, 2014; Mar. 1, 2018; & May 16, 2018 )

. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned  President  and  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company certifies that, to his knowledge:

      1.    The  Company's  Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the
            "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Dennis L. Bergquist
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Dennis L. Bergquist
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    Dated:  August 10, 2005
#### Karim Abdul AKBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA PRISONS, and Institution Employees at those prisons; Charles Hill, Superintendent at Odom Prison, Defendants-Appellees, and Gary T. Dixon, Manager, Institution Command; Gene Barber, Correctional Officer; Nurse Davis, Nurse at Central Prison; Nurse Joyner, Nurse at Odom Prison; Nurse Perkinson, Nurse at Odom Prison; Nurse Thompson, Head Nurse at Odom Prison, Defendants.

No. 02-6726.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 18, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Karim Abdul Akbar, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II, Assistant Attor*152ney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAM D. WILKINS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Karim Abdul Akbar appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.*
      *Akbar v. Director of North Carolina Prisons,*No. CA-98-361-5-F (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 27, 2002; entered Mar. 28, 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.*

We decline to address Akbar's ciaun under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-274, 114 Stat. 803, because this claim was not properly presented to the district court and Akbar has not averred, much less demonstrated, that plain error or a miscarriage of justice will result from the failure to review it. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
Exhibit 10.2 - DIrector Cash Compensation






EXHIBIT 10.2
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. 
Cash Compensation Plan for Directors


Directors who are not employees of Skyworks Solutions, Inc. are paid an annual retainer of $57,500 ($60,000 beginning January 1, 2015). Additional annual retainers are paid to the Chairman of the Board ($50,000); the Chairman of the Audit Committee ($20,000); the Chairman of the Compensation Committee ($15,000); and the Chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee ($10,000). Additional annual retainers are also paid to directors who serve on committees in roles other than as Chairman as follows: Audit Committee ($10,000); Compensation Committee ($7,500); and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee ($5,000). All retainers are paid in quarterly installments. In addition, the Compensation Committee retains discretion to recommend to the full Board of Directors that additional cash payments be made to a non-employee director(s) for extraordinary service during a fiscal year.
#### Wentz, Appellant, *v.*Pennsylvania Casualty Company.

Practice, *C. P.*— Affidavit *of defense*— Sufficient averments— *Corporations*— Loan *to be paid out of earnings*— Affidavit *averring no*earnings.

In an action on a written instrument which contained a recital that the plaintiff, a stockholder of the defendant company, had advanced money to the company under an agreement that the amount was to be repaid out of the first net earnings of the corporation before any dividends were declared or paid, where the statement alleges that the net earnings of the company have been more than sufficient to pay all obligations, with interest thereon, and that dividends have been declared and paid out of the net earnings, an affidavit of defense is sufficient which avers that since the date of the instrument on which suit is brought there have *518been no net earnings of the company sufficient to pay any part of plaintiff’s claim, and that there have been no dividends paid out of net earnings at any time.

Argued Feb. 23,1914.

Appeal, No. 256, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., November Term, 1912, No. 741, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense in case of J. S. "Wentz v. The Pennsylvania Casualty Company.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Newcomb, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

The court discharged the rule for judgment. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was the order of the court.

*Albert L. Watson,*with him *W. W. Watson,*and *W. 8. Diehl,*for appellant.

*Frank B. Stocker,*for appellee.

March 23, 1914:

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The action was on a written instrument which contained a recital that the plaintiff, a stockholder of the company defendant, had advanced money to it to be repaid out of the first net earnings of the company and a promise to pay the principal out of the first net earnings and before any dividends were declared or paid and to pay interest quarterly. It is alleged in the statement of claim that the net earnings of the company have been more than sufficient to pay the obligation with interest thereon and that dividends have been declared and paid *519out of the net earnings. It is averred in the affidavit of defense that there have not been net earnings of the company since the date of the instrument on which suit is brought, sufficient to pay any part of plaintiff’s claim and that there have been no dividends paid out of net earnings at any time. This was a distinct and specific denial of the allegation of the plaintiff on which his right to recover was based and it was sufficient to prevent judgment.

The order is affirmed.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41927

STATE OF IDAHO
,

Plaintiff-Respondent
,

v.

PETER TREJO MORA, aka PETER MORA TREJO, PETER TREJO MARA, PETE
MORA
,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 668

Filed: August 1 4 , 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Thir d Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of
confinement of ten years , for rape , affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Peter Trejo Mora, aka Peter Mora Trejo, Peter Trejo Mara, Pete Mora pled guilty to rape

. I.C. § 18

- 6101 . In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed including an

allegation that Mora was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Mora t o a unified life

term, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Mora filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for

reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Mora a ppeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we c onsider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Mora ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,865
<SECURITIES>                                    12,989
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,021
<INVENTORY>                                     27,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,230
<PP&E>                                         105,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 194,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,243
<BONDS>                                         31,763
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   194,532
<SALES>                                         44,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,521
<CGS>                                           29,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,067
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,397
<INCOME-TAX>                                       815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,582
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,582
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.11
        

</TABLE>