alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Frederick Gadson

v. Case No. 08-cv-103-PB

Peter Knox, et al.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated August 14, 2008.

SO ORDERED.

October , 2008 _________________________________

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Frederick Gadson, Pro se

Roger Phillips, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00103-PB Document 19 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 1
201 La. 913

#### FALKENSTEIN et al. v. JONES, Governor.

No. 36416.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1942.

*700Eugene Stanley and W. C. Perrault, both of Baton Rouge, James J. Morrison, of New Orleans, and R. H. Lee, of Benton, for defendants-appellants.

James H. Morrison, of Hammond, Emile A. Carmouche, of New Orleans, Joseph A. Sims, of Hammond, and K. K. Kennedy, George M. Wallace, and Wade O. Martin, jr., all of Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs*-appellees.

FOURNET, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment enjoining the Louisiana Crime Commission, the State Auditor and the State Treasurer from receiving or making any payments or expenditure out of the sum of $500,000 transferred from the Property Tax Relief Fund under a resolution of the Board of Liquidation of the State Debt.

It is conceded by counsel for both defendants and plaintiffs that the issues of this case are identical with those of the case of Stewart, et al. v. Stanley, Attorney General et al., 199 La. 146, 5 So.2d 531, and that, therefore, the decision in that case decreeing the nullity of the action of the Board of Liquidation in transferring $500,000 of the funds of the Property Tax Relief Fund for use by the Crime Commission is controlling here.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

ROGERS, J., absent'.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Gary F. Kimmons, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of GK Intelligent
Systems, Inc.,

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;

b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instruction contained
in SEC release 34-47986];

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date:  November 22,  2004



/s/  Gary F. Kimmons
-----------------------------------------
Gary F. Kimmons, Chief  Executive  Officer
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 871 

Opposing the United States Sentencing Commission’s decision to reduce crack 

cocaine sentences. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2007 

Mr. GRAVES submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Opposing the United States Sentencing Commission’s 

decision to reduce crack cocaine sentences. 

Whereas 36,000 to 37,000 Federal prison inmates are serving time for crack-related crimes; 

Whereas 10 percent of criminals convicted of crack cocaine 

charges could be released by March 3, 2008; 

Whereas 23 percent of criminals convicted of crack cocaine 

charges could be released in the next year; 

Whereas nearly half of criminals convicted of crack cocaine 

charges could be released by the end of 2010; and 

Whereas two of three eligible inmates could be freed from 

prison by 2012: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HRES 871 IH 

1 (1) disagrees with the United States Sentencing 

2 Commission’s decision to reduce crack cocaine sen3 tences; 

4 (2) opposes attempts to release felons back into 

5 the streets prematurely before their sentence expires; 

6 (3) recognizes that a sweeping mandate to re7 duce sentences is not in the best interest of society; 

8 and 

9 (4) will remain vigilant against drug abusers of 

10 all kind. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Order filed August 12, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00102-CR

SEDRICK DOMONIQUE HAYWOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1258266

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 

34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibits #30 and #31.

The clerk of the 176th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this court the 

original of State's Exhibits #30 and #31, on or before August 19, 2013. The Clerk of this court 

is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of 

this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of 

State's Exhibits #30 and #31, to the clerk of the 176th District Court.

PER CURIAM
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. Walter CASTLE and Sarah Castle, His Wife, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 24, 1971.

Don Duff, Dept, of Highways, Frankfort, Edmond H. Tackett, Pikeville, for appellant.

J. K. Wells, Wells & Wells, Paintsville, for appellees.

REED, Judge.

This is a highway condemnation action in which a jury in circuit court awarded $8,-000 to the appellees. Appellees’ property was a farm consisting of 38.18 acres located nine miles north of Paintsville, Kentucky. The taking in this case consisted of 1.23 acres of hill land and 8.6 acres of bottom land.

The Department of Highways complains that the trial court should have sustained its motion to strike the evaluation evidence. The appellant also asserts that the verdict is excessive and not supported by “competent evidence of probative value.”

The same questions were raised concerning the same witnesses and the same character of testimony and substantially the same type of land in a case involving the condemnation of 1.82 acres of real property in the same general vicinity in a very recent case in which we upheld a jury award of $8,000 to the landowners. We regard that case, Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Castle, Ky., 467 S.W.2d 782 (rendered June 4, 1971), dispositive of this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-135116 as amended, 333-125978, 333-122785, 333-107160, 333-100472, 333-81524, 333-13102, 333-07636, 033-35332, and 033-04813) of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of our report dated April 16, 2008,
relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers AB
|PricewaterhouseCoopers AB    

Stockholm, Sweden

April 21, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                     SUBSIDIARIES OF JEFFERIES GROUP, INC.


NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                        PLACE OF INCORPORATION
------------------                        ----------------------

Jefferies & Company, Inc.                         Delaware

Jefferies International Limited                   England

Jefferies Pacific Limited                         Hong Kong

Jefferies Analytical Trading Group, Inc.          Delaware

JEF Investment Company                            Delaware

Jefferies Advisers, Inc.                          Delaware

Jefferies FOF Manager, Inc.                       Delaware

Jefferies MB Manager, Inc.                        Delaware

Jefferies International Corporation               Panama

Jefferies Realty Investment Corporation           California

Jefferies Pacific, Inc.                           Delaware
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         532,859
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               606,910
<PP&E>                                         417,161
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,050,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     876,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,050,821
<SALES>                                        332,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          270,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,763,694
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,163,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,163,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,163,346)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.69)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 
 **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 Annual Report of The Dress Barn, Inc. (“the Company”) on
        Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, David R. Jaffe,
        President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge that:
 
 (1)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                  and
 
 (2)
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 The
        foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with
        the
        provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
        to be used for any other purpose.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
        DAVID
        R. JAFFE
 David
        R.
        Jaffe
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
 October
        12 ,
        2005
B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks

Loan volume Percent change from Percent change from

(billions of dollars) previous quarter previous year

Real Non-real- Real Non-real- Real Non-realTotal estate estate Total estate estate Total estate estate

Quarter loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans

1995: Q1... 59.9 22.9 36.9 -2.3 1.6 -4.6 5.4 8.0 3.9

 Q2... 63.5 23.6 40.0 6.1 2.7 8.2 4.0 7.5 2.0

 Q3... 65.3 23.8 41.5 2.9 1.1 3.9 3.7 6.3 2.3

 Q4... 63.7 23.9 39.8 -2.5 .4 -4.1 3.9 5.9 2.8

1996: Q1... 61.7 24.0 37.7 -3.1 .5 -5.3 3.1 4.8 2.0

 Q2... 65.7 24.7 41.0 6.5 2.7 8.9 3.4 4.7 2.7

 Q3... 66.6 24.9 41.6 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.9 4.7 .3

 Q4... 65.5 25.0 40.5 -1.6 .3 -2.8 2.8 4.6 1.8

1997: Q1... 63.8 25.4 38.4 -2.6 1.4 -5.1 3.4 5.5 2.0

 Q2... 69.0 26.2 42.8 8.2 3.3 11.5 5.1 6.2 4.4

 Q3... 71.1 27.0 44.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 6.8 8.1 6.0

 Q4... 71.3 27.1 44.2 .3 .7 .0 8.9 8.5 9.1

1998: Q1... 70.1 27.6 42.4 -1.7 1.8 -3.9 9.8 9.0 10.4

 Q2... 75.0 28.5 46.5 7.1 3.2 9.6 8.6 8.8 8.5

 Q3... 76.3 28.9 47.4 1.7 1.3 1.9 7.2 7.2 7.3

 Q4... 74.7 29.3 45.5 -2.0 1.3 -4.0 4.8 7.8 3.0

1999: Q1... 72.7 29.7 42.9 -2.8 1.7 -5.6 3.7 7.6 1.1

 Q2... 75.8 30.8 45.1 4.4 3.5 5.0 1.1 8.0 -3.1

 Q3... 76.8 31.4 45.5 1.3 1.9 .9 .7 8.6 -4.1

 Q4... 76.0 31.8 44.2 -1.0 1.5 -2.8 1.7 8.8 -2.8

2000: Q1... 71.5 31.4 40.1 -5.9 -1.4 -9.2 -1.6 5.5 -6.5

 Q2... 79.7 33.7 45.9 11.4 7.5 14.4 5.0 9.6 1.9

 Q3... 80.1 33.9 46.2 .6 .5 .6 4.3 8.1 1.6

 Q4... 80.9 34.0 46.9 1.0 .3 1.5 6.4 6.8 6.1

2001: Q1... 79.4 34.3 45.1 -1.9 .8 -3.9 11.0 9.2 12.4

 Q2... 82.9 35.1 47.7 4.4 2.5 5.8 4.0 4.2 3.9

 Q3... 82.5 35.4 47.1 -.4 .8 -1.3 3.0 4.5 2.0

 Q4... 82.2 35.6 46.7 -.3 .4 -.9 1.6 4.6 -.5

2002: Q1... 80.1 36.0 44.1 -2.6 1.2 -5.5 .9 4.9 -2.2

 Q2... 83.7 37.0 46.7 4.4 2.7 5.9 1.0 5.1 -2.1

 Q3... 84.4 37.7 46.7 .9 2.1 -.1 2.3 6.5 -.9

 Q4... 83.9 38.0 45.9 -.6 .6 -1.6 2.0 6.8 -1.7

2003: Q1... 82.0 38.7 43.3 -2.3 1.9 -5.7 2.4 7.5 -1.9

 Q2... 84.5 39.6 44.9 3.1 2.5 3.7 1.1 7.3 -3.9

 Q3... 85.5 40.2 45.4 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 6.5 -2.8

 Q4... 86.1 40.6 45.5 .6 1.1 .2 2.7 7.0 -.9

2004: Q1... 84.3 41.4 42.9 -2.1 1.9 -5.7 2.8 7.0 -.9

 Q2... 88.9 42.9 46.0 5.4 3.6 7.2 5.2 8.3 2.4

 Q3... 91.5 43.9 47.6 2.9 2.3 3.5 6.9 9.2 4.9

 Q4... 92.3 44.5 47.7 .8 1.5 .2 7.1 9.6 4.9

2005: Q1... 89.3 45.0 44.3 -3.2 1.1 -7.2 5.9 8.7 3.3

 Q2... 93.5 46.2 47.3 4.7 2.7 6.6 5.1 7.7 2.7

 Q3... 96.7 47.1 49.5 3.4 2.0 4.8 5.7 7.4 4.0

 Q4... 97.5 47.6 49.9 .9 1.0 .8 5.7 6.9 4.6

2006: Q1... 96.2 48.4 47.7 -1.4 1.8 -4.4 7.7 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 101.0 49.8 51.2 5.1 2.9 7.2 8.1 7.8 8.3

 Q3... 104.2 51.1 53.0 3.1 2.5 3.6 7.8 8.4 7.1

 Q4... 105.4 52.2 53.2 1.2 2.1 .3 8.1 9.7 6.5

2007: Q1... 105.0 53.4 51.6 -.4 2.3 -3.0 9.2 10.2 8.1

 Q2... 109.3 54.8 54.5 4.1 2.7 5.6 8.2 9.9 6.5

 Note. Data are as of end of quarter.

21
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 the Annual Report of Cosmo Communications Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carol Atkinson, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cosmo Communications Corporation and will be retained by Cosmo Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request





/S/ Carol AtkinsonCarol Atkinson

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)Date: June 28, 2011
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.15

                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

          SCHEDULE OF RECIPIENTS OF EXECUTIVE SEPARATION AGREEMENTS (1)


Recipient                                            Payout Period (2)
---------                                            -----------------

W. Bruce Turner                                      (3)

David Calabro                                        12 months

Jaymin Patel                                         12 months

Marc Crisafulli                                      12 months

Kathleen McKeough                                    12 months

Timothy Nyman                                        12 months

Larry Smith                                          (4)

Donald Sweitzer                                      12 months

Antonio Carlos Rocha                                 (5)


(1) Sets forth recipients who are, or who were during fiscal 2004, executive
officers and/or directors of GTECH Holdings Corporation and who are currently
parties to separation agreements.

(2) Unless otherwise indicated, executive is to receive continuation of his or
her base salary at time of separation, plus certain health, insurance and other
benefits for the respective number of months indicated.

(3) See Agreement, dated as of August 6, 2002, between W. Bruce Turner and the
Company.

(4) Terminated in January 2004. See Separation Agreement and Mutual Release
dated as of January 7, 2004, between the Company and Mr. Smith.

(5) Terminated in August 2003. See Separation Agreement and Release dated as of
August 21, 2003, between the Company and Mr. Rocha.
#### BRISCOE et ux. v. BAILEY et al.

No. 20269.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 21, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1954.

Lewis R. Graham, New Orleans, for appellant.

Maurice R. Woulfe, New Orleans, for appellees.

Before McBRIDE and REGÁN, JJ., and REDMANN, Judge ad hoc.

REDMANN, Judge ad hoc.

Plaintiff (joined by her husband claiming medical expenses) sues for damages for personal injuries sustained on defendants’ premises resulting from her falling down a stairway. The suit was dismissed; the wife alone has appealed.

The plaintiff’s brother rented a room and bath from defendants, located on the second story of the building. The room and bath each had a door opening on to a lateral gallery running towards the rear of the premises. Adjoining the bath was another room with a door opening on to the gallery occupied by another tenant. Next to this was another door to the platform of'a stairway leading to the ground floor. Next to this door and at the extreme rear end of the gallery was a louver door to a toilet, which was for the common use of the tenants on the second floor.

The plaintiff and her husband were visiting her brother and his wife in his room on the night of November 17, 1949. It was plaintiff’s first visit to the premises. She inquired of her brother’s wife about the location of the toilet and was told to go to the rear end of the gallery and she “would come to a door, and push it open and walk in there.”

Evaluating the evidence most favorably for plaintiff, there was very little light on the gallery (the time being about 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock at night) and that only from the street light and from a nearby building. Plaintiff, instead of going to the last door, opened the door leading to the platform, took a few steps in the darkness, and fell down the stairway.

Plaintiff’s theory is that the manner *m*which the stairway and the door to its platform as situated constituted a trap, made worse by the absence of any lighting fixture at either the door or the platform.

Paraphrasing the language of this Court in Caulfield v. Saba, 144 So. 907; We do not believe that our law imposes any dpty upon the landlord to illuminate galleries used in common by a number of tenants during the nighttime. If it be said, that it must reasonably be contemplated, that tenants (and their guests) would be required to use a gallery in order to get to a common toilet during the night, as well as the day, our answer is that in going to and fro in the night a tenant (or guest) should provide herself with some form of portable light, such as a candle, lamp, *771or flashlight, or assume the consequences of her failure to take this measure of protection.

*No*claim is made as to any defect or vice in the platform or the stairway. The plaintiff, wholly unfamiliar with the premises, opens a closed door revealing, according to her own testimony, nothing hut darkness into which she imprudently advances and falls down the stairway. It was her own negligence that caused her mishap.

Accordingly the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 11

          VIVID TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                          (Unaudited)
                               
                               
                            Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                 June 30,                   June 30,
                             1997         1996         1997         1996
                         
PRIMARY:
 Net income           $ 1,721,659   $  410,190   $3,834,031   $1,051,078
 Weighted average common
  stock outstanding     9,313,866    1,679,020    3,548,553    1,676,929

 Conversion of Series B and
  Series D convertible 
  preferred stock              --    5,045,850    5,045,850    5,045,850

 Stock issued within 
  twelve months of initial 
  public offering              --      144,542       38,545      144,542


 Common stock 
  equivalents           1,013,617    1,332,872    1,046,760      716,333

 Primary weighted 
  average number of
  common and common 
  equivalent shares 
  outstanding          10,327,483    8,202,284    9,679,708    7,583,654
                                                 
 Per share amount     $       .17   $      .05   $      .40   $      .14