alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Fredrick L. ROBINSON, [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], Aviation Structural Mechanic (Hydraulics), Second Class (E-5), U.S. Navy, Appellant.

NMCM 9601270.

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals.

17 Sept. 1997.

Maj Michael R. Osborn, USMC, Appellate Defense Counsel.

LT John J. Luke, JAGC, USNR, Appellate Defense Counsel.

LT Bennett J. Lee, JAGC, USNR, Appellate Government Counsel.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Government’s Request for En Banc Reconsideration, the appellant’s answer thereto, and Rule 4-2 of this court’s internal rules, it is, by the Court, this 17th day of September, 1997

ORDERED:

That said motion is hereby denied.

WYNNE, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent from the court’s decision to deny reconsideration *en banc.*In the past, the validity of the remedy afforded this accused has been of only intellectual interest. *See United States v. Anderson,*46 M.J. 540 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App.l997)(Wynne, J., concurring). Today, however, we dismiss a conviction without the legal authority to do so. The mandate and authority of our court is extensive. *United States v. Cole,*31 M.J. 270, 272 (C.M.A.1990). But, “the creature that our law knows as a criminal appeal is one solely of statutory origin.” *United States v. Larneard,*3 M.J. 76, 79 (C.M.A. 1977).

Under these statutes, the findings in this case “may not be held incorrect on the ground of an error of law unless the error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.” Art. 59(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) (1994) [hereinafter UCMJ]. Assuming *arguendo*the error, the Rule for Courts-Martial 707(d), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.) remedy of “dismissal ... without prejudice” is not one of these substantial rights. *See United States v. Koss-man,*38 M.J. 258 (C.M.A.1993).

If our court “sets aside the findings and sentence and does not order a rehearing, it shall dismiss the charges.” Art. 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d). But instead, we dismiss the charges and authorize a rehearing. It is not so much that this remedy is ephemeral, though it may often be so. *United States v. Thompson,*46 M.J. 472 (1997). Rather, any substantive result arising from it will be, by definition, unintended.

The order of this court, left standing, essentially prescribes that the accused may be tried again in exactly the same manner. The President could not have intended to create such a remedy because it is “contrary to” and “inconsistent with” the fundamental statutory appellate scheme established by the Congress. Art. 36, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 836. *See also*Arts. 10, 60(c)(3)(A), 66(d), 66(e), 67(d), and 69(c), UCMJ, §§ 810, 860(c)(3)(A), 866(d), 866(e), 867(d), and 869(c).

Accordingly, the court should reconsider this matter *en banc.*
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11449 and # 11450]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Indiana ( FEMA-1795-DR ) ,  dated 09/23/2008.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         09/12/2008 and Continuing.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         09/26/2008.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/24/2008.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/23/2009.                    

# ADDRESSES:

                        Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business                               ( print page 58289)                            Administration,  Processing and Disbursement Center,  14925 Kingsport Road,  Fort Worth,  TX 76155.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar,  Office of Disaster Assistance,  U.S. Small Business Administration,  409 3rd Street,  SW.,  Suite 6050,  Washington,  DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Indiana,  dated 09/23/2008 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                     Harrison,  Jefferson, Jennings.                

*Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

Indiana: Bartholomew,  Clark,  Crawford, Decatur,  Floyd, Jackson, Ripley, Scott, Switzerland, Washington.

Kentucky: Carroll, Hardin, Jefferson, Meade,  Trimble.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E8-23432 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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





I, Kurt
Freudenberg, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nu Horizons
Electronics Corp., certify that:





The Form
10-K of Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. for the period ended February 28, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and





The
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Nu Horizons Electronics
Corp. for the periods presented.


.


/s/ Kurt FreudenbergKurt
      FreudenbergExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      May 6, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. and will be retained by Nu Horizons Electronics
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON

Courtroom Deputy: Laura Galera

Court Reporter: Kara Spitler

Date: June 27, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM 

Parties:

STEPHEN T. HATCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS SANDGAARD,

FRITZ G. ALLISON, and 

ZYNEX, INC., 

Defendants.

Counsel:

Willen Jonckheer

Charles Lilley

Mark Oakes

William Leone

David Zisser

Kimberly Spear

COURTROOM MINUTES

IN COURT HEARING

Court in session: 8:00 a.m.

Appearances of counsel.

Opening remarks by the Court.

8:06 a.m. Mr. Jonckheer addresses the Court regarding the proposed settlement agreement.

8:48 a.m. Mr. Leone addresses the Court regarding the proposed settlement agreement.

9:05 a.m. Ms. Spear addresses the Court regarding the proposed settlement agreement.

9:09 a.m. Mr. Zisser addresses the Court.

9:11 a.m. Mr. Oakes addresses the Court.

Case 1:11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM Document 81 Filed 06/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

9:13 a.m. Mr. Lilley addresses the Court.

For the reasons and findings as stated on the record, it is;

ORDERED: Court approves the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal.

Court in recess: 9:23 a.m.

Hearing concluded.

Total time: 01:23

Case 1:11-cv-01964-RBJ-KLM Document 81 Filed 06/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We
agree to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-88124, 33-88180, 333-09623, 333-39060, 333-39061,
333-39064, 333-39290, 333-61588, 333-101444 and 333-100716 on Form S-8 of Shuffle Master, Inc. of our report,
dated December 11, 2002, on our audit of the financial statements of Shuffle Master, Inc. as of October 31, 2002 and 2001 and for the three years ended October 31, 2002
appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP          |  | 
|---------------------------------- |  | 
|Las Vegas, Nevada
January 24, 2003 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 984 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 984

 Expressing support for the designation of July 26, 2008 as ``National 
                          Day of the Cowboy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2008

 Ms. Giffords (for herself, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. 
  Hall of Texas, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. 
 Rehberg, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Mitchell) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                   on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for the designation of July 26, 2008 as ``National 
                          Day of the Cowboy''.

Whereas pioneering men and women, known as cowboys, helped establish the 
        American West;
Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a 
        strong work ethic, and patriotism;
Whereas the cowboy spirit exemplifies strength of character, sound family 
        values, and good common sense;
Whereas the cowboy archetype transcends ethnicity, gender, geographic 
        boundaries, and political affiliation;
Whereas the cowboy is an excellent steward of the land and its creatures;
Whereas the cowboy lives off the land and works to protect and enhance the 
        environment;
Whereas cowboy traditions have been part of the American culture for 
        generations;
Whereas the cowboy continues to be an important part of the economy, through the 
        work of approximately 727,000 ranchers in all 50 States, and contributes 
        to the well-being of nearly every county in the Nation;
Whereas annual attendance at professional and working ranch rodeo events exceeds 
        27,000,000 fans, and the rodeo is the 7th most watched sport in the 
        Nation;
Whereas membership and participation in rodeo and other organizations that 
        promote and encompass the livelihood of the cowboy spans race, gender, 
        and generations;
Whereas the cowboy is a central figure in literature, film, and music, and 
        occupies a central place in the public imagination;
Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; and
Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys and cowgirls to their 
        communities should be recognized and encouraged: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses support for the designation of a ``National 
        Day of the Cowboy''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 333-113519
on Form S-8 dated March 11, 2004, Registration Statement 33-61977 on Form S-8
dated August 21, 1995, Registration Statement 33-61979 on Form S-8 dated August
21, 1995, Registration Statement 33-12571 on Form S-8 dated March 11, 1987 and
Registration Statement 33-593 on Form S-8 dated October 1, 1985, of our report
dated March 31, 2008, with respect to the balance sheet as of December 31, 2007
and the statements of operations, stockholders’  deficit and cash
flows for each of the two years ended December 31, 2007, of Integral Vision,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31,
2007.





/S/
Rehmann Robson,
P.C.





Troy,
Michigan


March 31
, 2008
#### Woodward’s Appeal.

*Interest*— Contract—Custom- *—Surety company.*

Where a surety company requires as a condition for a bond guaranteeing the completion of a building operation, that a certain sum shall be deposited with it to be paid out by it to the builders on the certificate of the architect as the work progressed, and there is nothing in the agreement relating to interest, and there is no evidence of a custom to pay interest on deposits of the kind, the surety company will not be liable for interest on the deposit.

Argued Jan. 11, 1910.

Appeal, No. 244,

Jan. T., 1909, by William H. Woodward, from order of C. P. No. *5,*Phila. Co., June T., 1905, No. 2,040, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Hampton L. Carson, Attorney General, v. The City Trust, Safe Deposit *&*Surety Company of Philadelphia.

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

Affirmed.

Exceptions to report of John M. Scott, Esq., and Ziba T. Moore, Esq., auditors.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Error assigned*was in dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report.

*Limner Beeber,*with him *Francis V. Lloyd,*for appellant.

*John Kent Kane,*with him *Murdock Kendrick,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

February 14, 1910:

This appeal is from an order dismissing exceptions to the report of the auditors of the account of the receiver of the City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Company. The principal claim of the appellant at the audit was for interest at two per cent on $200,000 deposited with the trust company un*192der these circumstances. The appellant had purchased land on which he intended to build an apartment house. In order to pay for the land and the building, he secured a loan of $400,000 on condition that the person advancing the money should be given a bond in the sum of $300,000 guaranteeing the completion of the building. The City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Company agreed to give its bond, but required a deposit of $200,000 to be paid out by it to the builders on the certificate of the architect as the work progressed.

In carrying out his purpose the appellant had the land conveyed to a straw man, who entered into a contract for the erection of the building. This contract was guaranteed by the trust company on the deposit with it of $200,000 by the appellant. The deposit was under the management of the surety department of the trust company, which was distinct from its banking and trust business, and it was governed entirely by the terms of the agreement between the parties, under which it was made.

The learned auditors found that there was no agreement to pay interest, and that there was no evidence of a custom to pay interest on deposits of the kind. These findings were sustained by the testimony and have been approved by the court. We find nothing in any of the assignments of error that calls for a reversal. They are all dismissed and the order of the court is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








Pizza
Inn, Inc.


The
Colony, Texas










We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-56590, 33-71700, 333-77617, and 333-76296) of Pizza Inn, Inc.
of our report dated September 19, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form
10-K.













BDO
Seidman, LLP


Dallas,
Texas





September
25, 2008
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending April 8, 2017FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANK OF MARION, THE                                                                                                     * BranchThe Bank of Marion,  Marion, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 111 North Church Street, Marion, Virginia 24354.Newspaper: 04/20/2017Federal Register: Not applicableCFG COMMUNITY BANK                                                                                                      * BranchCFG Community Bank, Lutherville, Maryland, to establish a branch at 888 Bestgate Road, Annapolis, Maryland.Newspaper: 04/21/2017Federal Register: Not applicableOLD LINE BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                               * 3A5Old Line Bancshares, Inc., Bowie, Maryland, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of DCB Bancshares, Inc., Damascus, Maryland, and thereby indirectly acquire Damascus Community Bank, Damascus, Maryland.Newspaper: 04/19/2017Federal Register: 04/25/2017
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted), the undersigned, Charles J. Drake, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of Integral Vision, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
(the “Periodic
Report”), to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.The
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the
period covered by the Periodic Report.




DATED:   April 29,
      2010/S/ Charles J. DrakeCharles
      J. DrakeChairman
      of the Board andChief
      Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action: 11-cv-01971-WJM-CBS FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402

Date: November 8, 2011 Courtroom Deputy: Emily Seamon

Parties: Counsel:

MILLENNIUM CRYOGENIC

TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., a Canadian

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

Gregg Anderson 

v.

WEATHERFORD ARTIFICIAL LIFT

SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P., a Louisiana

limited partnership,

WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

a Delaware corporation, and

WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL,

LTD., a Swiss joint-stock corporation, 

Defendants.

J. Dean Lechtenberger 

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 1:24 p.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

Discussion between the Court and counsel regarding Plaintiff Millennium Cryogenic Technologies,

Ltd.’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order [Doc. No. 30], Defendants’ Motion for Entry of

Protective Order [Doc. No. 34], technical experts, 26(b)(2)(c), and briefing claims construction. 

ORDERED: Plaintiff Millennium Cryogenic Technologies, Ltd.’s Motion for Entry of Protective

Order [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED to the extent the motion seeks to allow Mr. McKay

access to attorney’s eyes only tiered information. 

Case 1:11-cv-01971-WJM-CBS Document 37 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Protective Order [Doc. No. 34] is GRANTED. The

motion should be modified to make clear, however, that any document stamped

attorney’s eyes only is accessible only to outside counsel and the members of outside

counsel’s firm. Counsel shall prepare a protective order that reflects that change and

submit it to the Court.

Discussion between the Court and counsel regarding holding a settlement conference.

ORDERED: Defendants shall provide their counter to Plaintiff’s offer by close of business on

Thursday, November 10, 2011. If the parties feel a settlement conference would be

productive, they shall place a conference call to Magistrate Judge Shaffer to set a

settlement conference.

HEARING CONCLUDED.

Court in recess: 2:03 p.m.

Total time in court: 00:39

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303)

825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Case 1:11-cv-01971-WJM-CBS Document 37 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23465]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 09/79-0454]


Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption 
Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of 
Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 
160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt 
security financing to Kidzui, Inc., 2448 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 
105, San Diego, CA 92106.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P. and 
Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., Associates of Emergence Capital 
Partners SBIC, L.P., own in the aggregate more than ten percent of 
Kidzui, Inc. Therefore this transaction is considered a financing of an 
Associate requiring prior SBA approval.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. 
Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20416.

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. E8-23465 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P