alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Cord M. WILKEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30410.

D.C. No. CR-01-00051-BLW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

*375Before TROTT, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Cord Wilkey appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search of his home. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will not recount them here.

I

Our review of a district court’s determination that a defendant voluntarily consented to a search is extremely deferential. We will only reverse a district court’s factual finding of consent if the district court committed clear error. *United States v. Jones,*286 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.2002). The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings concerning the search. It reached its findings following a lengthy suppression hearing. Although the parties presented contradictory testimony on some issues, and one might draw different inferences from the actions of the officers, the record contains a sufficient basis upon which the district court could make its findings. Given the district court’s factual findings, we conclude that the district court did not err as a matter of law in denying the suppression motion.

II

In reviewing whether probable cause to search Wilkey’s home existed, we consider the “totality of the circumstances” set forth in the affidavit and ask whether a reasonable person would believe there was a “fair probability” that Wilkey had marijuana in the basement. *United States v. DeLeon,*979 F.2d 761, 764 (1992). A district court may rely upon the officer’s perception of marijuana scent in making its conclusion. *Id.*at 765; *United States v. Kerr,*876 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir.1989). The strong odor of marijuana inside Wilkey’s house, combined with the actual drug paraphernalia identified upstairs, corroborated the information received through the anonymous tip. These facts, which were independent from the allegedly tainted evidence discovered in the basement, formed a sufficient basis for determining that probable cause existed for issuance of the search warrant.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Guarantee 

April 30, 2014 
  

	To:	The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., 

 as Lender 

Reference is made to the credit facility agreement (kinsen shohi taishaku keiyakusho) (the “Credit Facility Agreement”) dated as of
February 27, 2014 among Suntory Holdings Limited, as borrower (the “Borrower”), and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., as lender (together with any party who has become a lender in accordance with Article 24 or Article 25
of the Credit Facility Agreement, collectively, the “Lender”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein are used with the meanings assigned to them in the Credit Facility Agreement. 

Beam Suntory Inc. (the “Guarantor”) hereby irrevocably and unconditionally jointly and severally guarantees (rentai hosho) with the
Borrower the Guaranteed Obligation (honken hi-hosho saimu) defined in paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Credit Facility Agreement to and for the benefit of the Lender. 

The Guarantor hereby confirms and agrees that it shall, on and after the date hereof, be bound by this Guarantee as well as the Credit Facility Agreement as a
Guarantor (hosho nin) under the Credit Facility Agreement. This Guarantee is a continuing guarantee and will extend to the ultimate balance of the Guaranteed Obligation, regardless of any intermediate payment, discharge in part, or amendment
of the Credit Facility Agreement in accordance with Article 23 thereof. The Guarantor hereby confirms that it has received a copy of the Credit Facility Agreement by the Borrower, has reviewed it and hereby confirms its understanding of the terms
and conditions thereof. 
 The Guarantor hereby represents and warrants to the Lender that the matters set out in Article 18 of the Credit Facility
Agreement (only with respect to the matters regarding the Guarantor) are true as of the date hereof. 
 This Guarantee is governed by Japanese law and any
dispute arising in connection with this Guarantee shall be submitted to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court in the first instance. 

This Guarantee has been executed and delivered on the date stated at the beginning of this letter. 

 

	
	The Guarantor (hosho-nin)
	
	/s/ William Lindquist









	
	Acknowledged and agreed:
	
	The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., as Lender
	
	/s/ Nobuyuki Hirano
. . 

THIS ~~T-I-ORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUST~N~I.‘~‘EXAS 

W’ILL WILSON 

A~TORNICY GWNXC:HAL 

January 20, 1960 

Mr. Raymond W. Vowel1 

Executive Director 

Board for Texas State Hospitals 

and Special Schools 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-782 

Re: Validity of tuition payments by the Alabama 

Coushatti Indian Reservation to the Bi.g Sandy 

Independent School DisDear Mr. Vowell: trict. 

You have rejquested an opinion from this office 

as to whether the Board for Texas State Hospitals and 

Special Schools can make tuition payments to the Big 

Sandy Independent School District for children from 

the reservation who are attending s,chools within the 

School District. 

In Section 3 of Article 3174b of Vernon's Civil 

Stat&es, the Alabama Coushatti Indian Reservation is 

included in the definition of Texas State Rospitals 

and Special Schools: 

"Sec. 3. The term 'Texas State 

Hospitals and Special Schools' as 

used in this Act shall mean . . . 

The Alabama Coushatti Indian Reservation, Llvlngston, Texas . . . and 

all other institutions heretofore 

or hereafter referred to as 'eleemosynary instit,utions' or 'hospitals 

and special schools' . . .' 

Sections 1 and 2 of Article 3183e of Vernon's 

Civil Statutes authorize the Board for Texas State 
Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, page 2 (W-782) 

Hospitals and Special Schools to contract to pay 

the tuition for students attending the public schools 

from the Special Schools located 1n that county. 

'Section 1. The Board for 

Texas State Hospitals and Special 

Schools may negotiate and enter 

into contracts with public schools 

in co,unties'where Special Schools 

are located to accept and educate 

inmates cf the Special Schools in 

the public schools. The Board is 

authorized to pay tuition to the 

public schools out of any appropriated funds it has available. 

"Sec. 2. Children admitted or 

committed to the Special Schools lndy 

be placed in public schools by the 

superintendent, and the Special 

School may pay a reasonable rate 

for the t,uition of such children. 

.AAt”2;9z4, 53rd Leg., 1st C.S., p.64, 

. 

Since the Alabama Coushattf Indian Reservation 

is included within the meaning of Special Schools 

,under Section 3 of Article 31741, of Vernon's Civil 

Statutes, and the Board for Texas State Hospitals and 

Special Schools is authorized to pay tuition of students attending public schools within the co,unty 

that the Special School is located In, it is our opinion that the Board can make the tuition payments in 

question. 

The Board for Texas State 

Hosp,'.tals and Special 

Schools is authorized to 

make tuition payments to 

the Big Sandy Independent 
c . 

Mr. Raymond W. Vowell, page 3 (WW-782) 

School District under Article 3183e of Vernon's 

Civil Statutes. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

ByE.cit* 

Assistant Attorney General 

JCS:ms 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

F. C. Jack Goodman 

Houghton Brownlee, Jr. 

Bob Eric Shannon 

Pa,ul W. Floyd, Jr. 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Leonard Passmore
#### Genesee River Railroad Company, Appellant, v. Ella M. Boyington, Respondent, Impleaded with Lizzie W. Sheldon.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0274. IN RE: ESTATE OF CHARLES CLEMENTS, DECEASED.

Andrew Mickle, the executor of the estate of the decedent Charles Clements,

filed a petition to be discharged after paying the decedent’s debts and distributing the

property of the estate. The trial court held a hearing to determine whether the

distributions followed the provisions of the decedent’s will, and, after additional

briefing, the trial court entered an order finding that Mickle distributed a

disproportionate share of the estate to one heir over other heirs of the decedent and

ordered Mickle to make a proper division to the other heirs. The order also stated that

the trial court would not grant a discharge until the other heirs are made whole and

documentation demonstrating that distribution is filed with the trial court. Mickle

then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Here, the case remains pending below. Consequently, Mickle was required to

use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of

immediate review from the trial court – to seek appellate review of the order at issue 

October 20, 2020
here. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435 (383 SE2d 906)

(1989). His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is

hereby DISMISSED. Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/20/2020
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 Applera Corporation (the Company) on  Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tony  L. White, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18  U.S.C. § 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; 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/ Tony L. White       | 
|----------------------- | 
|                        | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 




Date:  November 9, 2005





---
Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of WNS
(Holdings) Limited (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2016 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 12, 2016



|       |  |                              
|------ |  | -----------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Sanjay Puria             
|Name:  |  | Sanjay Puria                 
|Title: |  | Group Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is
not being filed either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless
of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of
Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### Mabel Smith GARRISON, Appellant, v. Dean H. GARRISON, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Oct. 5, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Healthline 1, Inc., as Assignee of Fredy Moreno-Alfaro, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Allstate Insurance Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Glinkenhouse, Floumanhaft &amp; Queen (Stephen J. Green of counsel), for appellant.Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Samuel Kamara of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered May 12, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of a cross motion by defendant seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest "between date of settlement and date of judgment."</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest "between date of settlement and date of judgment" is denied.</p><p>This action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was settled in open court in 2011. Defendant did not pay the settlement amount, and a judgment was subsequently entered on June 28, 2016, pursuant to CPLR 5003-a. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered May 12, 2017 as granted the branch of a cross motion by defendant seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest "between date of settlement and date of judgment."</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Seaside Rehabilitation, as Assignee of Evelia Polanco v Allstate Ins. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-1666 Q C], decided <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest "between date of settlement and date of judgment" is denied.</p><p>SIEGAL, J.P., PESCE and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: June 07, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 99.1



PEOPLES ENERGY CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

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 combined Quarterly Report of Peoples Energy Corporation (the "Company"), The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company ("Peoples Gas") and North Shore Gas Company ("North Shore Gas") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Patrick, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas, 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, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas.



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | August 8, 2002Date
|--------------------- |  |  | ------------------

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Energy Corporation



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | August 8, 2002Date
|--------------------- |  |  | ------------------

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | August 8, 2002Date
|--------------------- |  |  | ------------------

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
North Shore Gas Company
#### Arthur Reese and Emily Reese, His Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Village of Mount Prospect, a Body Politic and Corporate, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 51,028.

First District, Second Division.

June 28, 1966.

Ross, Hardies, O’Keefe, Babcock, McDugald & Parsons, of Chicago (Jack M. Siegel and R. Marlin Smith, of counsel), for appellant; Harry G. Fins, of Chicago, for appellees.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in full.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Markus Ray Sneed

, * From the 104th District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 17763B

.

Vs. No. 11

- 11

- 00121

- CR * April 18, 2013

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by McCall, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in

the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the

trial court is in all things affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 634 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

202 West Washington Street, Suite 1, in Marquette, Michigan, as the 

‘‘Senator Tom Casperson Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2021 

Mr. BERGMAN (for himself, Ms. SLOTKIN, Mr. HUIZENGA, Mr. MOOLENAAR, 

and Mr. MEIJER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 202 West Washington Street, Suite 1, in Marquette, Michigan, as the ‘‘Senator Tom Casperson Post 

Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SENATOR TOM CASPERSON POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 202 West Washington Street, 

7 Suite 1, in Marquette, Michigan, shall be known and desVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:45 Feb 20, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H634.IH H634

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 634 IH

1 ignated as the ‘‘Senator Tom Casperson Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Senator Tom 

7 Casperson Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-12 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         944,742
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,884,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 16,646,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,884,202
<PP&E>                                      10,619,477
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,120,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,331,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,719,419
<BONDS>                                      5,171,506
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,008,867
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,100,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,331,284
<SALES>                                     34,585,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,842,586
<CGS>                                       22,725,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,725,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             500,934
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,910,068
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,190,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,720,068
<DISCONTINUED>                                 542,837
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,262,905
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE NET OF ALLOWANCE
</FN>
        

</TABLE>