alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

ReadMe

Three sample data sets from Baltimore County have been provided for the Journey‐to‐crime

routine described in Chapter 13. The coordinate system is longitude, latitude (spherical). The

data sets are simulated and do not represent real data. While the original distribution was real,

random spatial error has been added to protect confidentiality.  These data should be used for

tutorial purposes, not for research.

1. JtcTest1.dbf – 2000 simulated robberies in Baltimore County, MD.  This file can

be used to provide an empirical estimate of the journey‐to‐crime for Baltimore

County robbers.

2. JtcTest2.dbf – 2500 simulated burglaries in Baltimore County, MD. This file can

be used to provide an empirical estimate of the journey‐to‐crime for Baltimore

County burglars.

3. SERIAL1.DBF – the simulated incident locations for a single serial offender who

committed 7 offences.

Instructions for running the Calibrate Journey‐to‐crime routine:

1. Extract all files to a single directory.

2. Load the parameter file ‘Load journey‐to‐crime data.param’ on the options page

3. On the Journey‐to‐Crime tab (under Spatial Modeling I) and then click on the

dialogue box ‘Select data file for calibraiton’.

4. Load either of the two simulated robbery/burglary files (#1 or #2 above),

JtcTest1.dbf or JtcTest2.dbf.

A. The origin X field is HOMEX

B. The origin Y field is HOMEY

C. The destination X field is INCIDX

D. The destination Y field is INCIDY

E. The coordinate system is longitude, latitude (spherical)
2

5. Click on ‘Select output file’ and define an output file name (e.g., Distance

function for JtcTest1.txt).

  

6. Click on ‘Select kernel parameters’.  You can choose the type of kernel, the

bandwidth, and the number of intervals in this dialogue.  For the first time your

run it, keep the default values.

7. Click ‘Compute’ to run the Calibrate journey‐to‐crime function routine.  You can

view a graph of the results after it runs by clicking on ‘View graph’.

Instructions for estimating the origin location of the sample serial offender

dataset

1. Load the serial offender file (SERIAL1.dbf) as the Primary File.

A. The X coordinate is LON

B. The Y coordinate is LAT

C. The coordinate system is longitude, latitude (spherical)

2. Define the Reference File

A. The lower‐left X coordinate is ‐76.91

B. The lower‐left Y coordinate is 39.19

C. The upper‐right X coordinate is ‐76.32

D. The upper‐right Y coordinate is 39.72

E. Define the grid by the number of columns and use the default 100.

3. On the Journey‐to‐Crime Estimation page (under Spatial Modeling I), click on

‘Use already‐calibrated distance function’ and load one of the calibration files

that you just created above.

4. Click ‘Compute’ to run the journey‐to‐crime estimation routine.

5. You can also define a mathematical model for your calibration file.  See Chapter

13 for details.  Try the default model values for the first time you run it.
[Cite as State v. Wilson , 2021-Ohio-36.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

ERIC CHRISTOPHER WILSON, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2020-04-054

D E C I S I O N 1/11/2021

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER C OUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2019-11-1765

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Governme nt Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for appellee Christopher Paul Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilto n, Ohio 45011, for appellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by appellant, Eric Christopher Wilson, the transcript of the docke t and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler C ounty Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review ofButler CA2020-04-054 the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any err ors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record i ndependently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and wit hout infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to w ithdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellan t. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal i s dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., S. POWELL and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
Summary of cash bonus awards for fiscal year ended December 31, 2004




 EXHIBIT 10.39 
  
 Summary of fiscal year 2004 Incentive Compensation Payouts to Certain Executive Officers 
  
 On November 30, 2004, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”)
authorized the payment of the 2004 Incentive Compensation awards to each of Align’s executive officers. The following table sets forth the annual cash incentive awards paid to its named executive officers: 
  

				
	 Name

	  	Annual
Incentive Award


	 Thomas M. Prescott,
 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
	  	$	370,000
	 Eldon M. Bullington,
 Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	124,000
	 David S. Thrower,
 Vice President, Global Marketing
	  	$	115,000
	 Len M. Hedge,
 Vice President, Manufacturing
	  	$	120,000
	 Roger E. George
 Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, and General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	  	$	117,000

  
 Align intends to provide additional
information regarding the compensation (including the incentive compensation) awarded to the officers named above in respect of and during the year ended December 31, 2004, in the proxy statement for Align’s 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6891 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6891

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2022

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To exclude government officials of the Russian Federation from certain 
            international meetings, 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 ``Isolate Russian Government Officials 
Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

    (a) Policy of the United States.--It is the policy of the United 
States to seek to exclude government officials of the Russian 
Federation, to the maximum extent practicable, from participation in 
meetings, proceedings, and other activities of the following 
organizations:
            (1) Group of 20.
            (2) Bank for International Settlements.
            (3) Basel Committee for Banking Standards.
            (4) Financial Stability Board.
            (5) International Association of Insurance Supervisors.
            (6) International Organization of Securities Commissions.
    (b) Implementation.--The Secretary of the Treasury, the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, as the case may be, shall take all necessary steps 
to advance the policy set forth in subsection (a).
    (c) Termination.--This section shall have no force or effect on the 
earlier of--
            (1) the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of 
        this Act; or
            (2) 30 days after the date that the President reports to 
        Congress that the government of the Russian Federation has 
        ceased its destabilizing activities with respect to the 
        sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
    (d) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of this 
section if the President reports to the Congress that the waiver is in 
the national interest of the United States and includes an explanation 
of the reasons therefor.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2022.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
exv10w2x6yxdy



 



Exhibit 10.2(6)(d)



SUMMARY OF 2004 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE BONUS GRANT UNDER BELO 2000 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN



On March 2, 2005, the Board of Directors of Belo Corp. ratified the recommendation of its
Compensation Committee approving an 2004 annual performance bonus award for Dennis A. Williamson,
Senior Corporate Vice President/Chief Financial Officer of Belo. Mr. Williamson’s annual
performance bonus was granted under the shareholder-approved Belo 2000 Executive Compensation Plan,
or the Plan. The award was determined based upon Belo’s financial performance during 2004 as
measured by a percentage of consolidated net income.



The Compensation Committee has the discretion to reduce (but not to increase) a senior executive’s
bonus under the Plan from the amount that otherwise would be payable under the target formula. In
2004, Belo’s favorable consolidated performance qualified other senior executives for a bonus under
the target formula. However, based solely upon the circulation overstatement at The Dallas Morning
News, the Compensation Committee considered and accepted the recommendation of Robert W. Decherd,
the Company’s chairman, president and Chief Executive Officer, that he, and Jack Sander, Dunia
Shive, Jim Moroney, and certain others not receive performance bonuses for 2004. In making its
decision, the Compensation Committee acknowledged that none of these four senior executives had
direct responsibility for the circulation overstatement. Mr. Williamson had no direct
responsibility for the circulation overstatement and the Committee determined that he merited a
bonus for his performance in his first year as the Company’s chief financial officer. In
accordance with the Compensation Committee’s discretion, Mr. Williamson’s bonus, however, was
reduced to $160,700.
226 La. 1082

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Albert Joseph BLANCHARD and Alvin Joseph Daigle.

No. 42089.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 10, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1955.

Blanchard & Blanchard, C. A. Blanchard, Donaldsonville, for relators and defendants.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culli-gan, Asst. Atty. Gen., L. O. Pecot, Dist. Atty., Franklin, Knowles M. Tucker, New Iberia, for respondent.

PONDER, Justice.

We granted writs in this case because we were of the opinion that the bill of information under which the defendants were convicted was fatally defective.

The defendants were convicted and sentenced under a bill of information charging that they “Unlawfully possessed a mechanically and/or manually operated device, without explosive, for the purpose of illegally taking commercial fish; in violation of the provisions of [LSA-] R.S. 56:366 of the State of Louisiana, as amended by Act 194 of 1952.”

The bill of information follows the language of the statute but the statutory words do not in themselves set forth the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.

As a general rule where an indictment follows the language of the statute it is sufficient, but this rule is without appli*182cation where the words of the statute do not sufficifently describe or legally characterize the offense denounced. Where a statute characterizes the offense in general or generic terms, an information charging an offense in the words of the statute is insufficient and the specific facts on which the charge is based must be set out in the information. State v. Varnado, on rehearing, 208 La. 319, 368, 23 So.2d 106. See also State v. Holmes, 223 La. 397, 65 So.2d 890; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.

For the reasons assigned, the writs are made peremptory and the conviction and sentence are annulled and set aside and the defendants are hereby discharged.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Paris SNF , LLC d/b/a Heritage House at Paris Rehab & Nursing , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00028

- CV v.

Brenda Sheetz and Ronald Hill , Appellee s Appeal from the 62nd District Court of

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 90535 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief

Justice Morriss Justice Stevens and Justice

van Cleef participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismiss the appea l should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We furth er order that the appellant, Paris SNF , LLC d/b/a Heritage House at Paris Rehab

& Nursing , pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 13, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2


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

In connection with this quarterly report of Possis Medical, Inc. on Form 10Q for
the period ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jules L. Fisher, 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; and

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




Date: March 12, 2006                       By: /s/ Jules L. Fisher
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                 JULES L. FISHER
                                                 Vice President of Finance and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer


                                       27
Description of Retainer and Meeting Fees Paid to Directors



 Exhibit 10.25 
  
 Description of Retainer and Meeting Fees Paid to Directors 
  
 We pay an annual retainer following the annual stockholders’ meeting each year of $15,000 to each nonemployee member of
our Board of Directors, and the Chair of the Audit Committee receives an additional $5,000 annual retainer. Each nonemployee director is also paid $750 for each Board of Directors and committee meeting attended, and reimbursed for travel expenses
incurred to attend the meetings in person.
EXHIBIT 11-1

                        PENNSYLVANIA ENTERPRISES, INC.

                Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings

[CAPTION]
                                                         Three Months Ended    
                                                              March 31,        
                                                         1997           1996   
[S]                                                  [C]            [C]
Income before subsidiary's preferred 
  stock dividends                                    $ 8,405,000    $ 7,609,000

Subsidiary's preferred stock
  dividends                                              353,000        637,000

Net income                                           $ 8,052,000    $ 6,972,000

Earnings per share of
  common stock*                                      $       .84    $       .60

Computations of additional common
  shares outstanding

  Average shares of common stock                       9,615.416     11,581,634

  Incremental common shares
    applicable to options, based on
    the daily average market price                        45,467         13,508

  Average common shares as adjusted                    9,660,883     11,595,132

  Average shares of common stock                       9,615,416     11,581,624

  Incremental common shares
    applicable to options, based on
    the more dilutive of daily
    average or ending market price                        37,855         14,158

  Average common shares fully
    diluted                                            9,653,271     11,595,782

Earnings per share of common stock
  
  Average common shares as adjusted                  $       .84    $       .60

  Average common shares fully
    diluted                                          $       .84    $       .60




*  Earnings per share of common stock  reflect the effects of discounts totaling
   $37,980 on the repurchase of subsidiary's preferred stock in the period ended
   March 31, 1997, that were  charged  to  retained earnings and not included in
   the determination of net income.
<PAGE>
214 La. 883

#### STATE v. FARLEY.

No. 39252.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 14, 1949.

Appeal- from Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Lincoln; E. L. Walker, Judge.

C. F. Farley was convicted of offense of engaging in business of storing and handling intoxicating liquors for purpose of sale, and he appeals.

Barham & Elder, of Ruston, for appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp-, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Truett L. Scarborough, Dist. Atty., of Ruston, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of engaging in the business of storing and handling intoxicating liquors for the purpose of sale in violation of Ordinance 188 of the Police Jury of Lincoln Parish. He was sentenced to serve thirty days in jail, to pay a fine of $500 and costs and, in default of the payment of the fine and costs, to serve four additional months in jail. He has appealed from the conviction and sentence.

One bill of exception is presented on this appeal. It was taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, with the transcript of the testimony attached.

Counsel for the defendant contended in the lower court, and here contends, that the testimony and the entire record fail to show any evidence to support the conviction.

The evidence shows that the defendant purchased a case of whiskey, containing forty-eight one-half pint bottles, -at Monroe where the sale of liquor is not prohibited and, on his return from Monroe, he parked his car at his home in the town of Dubach. The town marshal, upon finding the case of whiskey in the defendant’s car, arrested him and the defendant was charged with violating the police jury ordinance.

In this case the State relied solely on the possession of the whiskey as constituting the offense. The defendant testified that he was engaged in the insurance business in the vicinity of Tallulah and returned home every week-end. He testified that he *164was accustomed to drinking and bought the whiskey in small containers because it was more convenient for his use. He testified that he had never been arrested in his life. His testimony was not contradicted in this respect.

In the absence of any testimony tending to show that the defendant was engaged in the business of handling and storing intoxicating liquors for sale, the mere possession of a case of whiskey cannot support a conviction of the offense charged. State v. Bernard, 204 La. 844, 16 So.2d 454 and State v. Jordan, 207 La. 78, 20 So.2d 543.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are set aside.

O’NIELL, C. J., does not take part.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 13, 2019

No. 04-19-00670-CR

Joshua SCHECHTER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR8150W

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant Joshua Schechter entered into a plea bargain with the State pursuant to which 

he pleaded nolo contendere to tampering with a government record. The trial court imposed

sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant

timely filed a notice of appeal, and the district clerk filed a copy of the clerk’s record, which 

includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement. See

id. R. 25.2(d). We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the 

right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id.

Here, the clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id.

R. 25.2(a)(2). The record also supports the trial court’s certification that appellant does not have 

a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court 

of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is 

accurate). 

Accordingly, appellant is given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that 

appellant has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by or before December 9, 

2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, 

pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).
We ORDER all appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the court. We 

further ORDER the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and 

the court reporter. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of November, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court