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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

U.S.DISTRfC , .Ci.+ . DISTRICT OF N[~•~°

APR Oq 2UD8

FILE D

In re Elaine Brown Case No. 08-mc-021-GZS

ORDE R

On Tuesday, April 1, 2008, Elaine Brown was subpoenaed to appear and testify in the

case of United States v. Daniel Riley. et al. , 07-cr-189-GZS . After the court conducted an initial

colloquy regarding the potential of incriminating herself should she testify, Mrs . Brown invoked

her fifth amendment right to counsel . Based on the information known, it was presumed that

Mrs. Brown was a financially eligible person entitled to court appointed counsel pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3006A. Thus, based on this presumption of indigency, and finding that the interests of

justice so require, the court appointed Federal Defender Bjorn R . Lange to represent and advise

Mrs. Brown during the course of the trial .

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 9, 2008

cc: Counsel of Record

Bjorn R. Lange, Esq .

Elaine Brown

Case 1:08-mc-00021-GZS Document 1 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 1
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 Integral Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Steven R. Chamberlain the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/s/    STEVEN R.
CHAMBERLAIN
|Steven R. Chamberlain       
|Chief Executive Officer     
|                            
|Date: December 14, 2005     



- 1 -
**Exhibit 7**

 

**Computation of consolidated ratio of earnings to fixed charges**

 

The following table sets out the calculation of the ratios of earnings to fixed charges (unaudited) for the periods indicated.

 
|                                                                          | **Year   Ended 30 September** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| (in $AUD millions, unless otherwise   indicated)                              | **2016**                      | **2015** | **2014** | **2013** | **2012** |
| Profit before income tax                                                      | 10,644                        | 11,416 | 10,740 | 9,772 | 8,814 |
| Add fixed charges                                                             | 16,881                        | 18,223 | 18,894 | 20,376 | 24,549 |
| Less minority interest in subsidiaries that   have not incurred fixed charges | (15)                          | (56) | (64) | (74) | (66) |
| **Earnings before tax and   fixed charges**                                   | 27,510                        | 29,583 | 29,570 | 30,074 | 33,297 |
|                                                                          |                          |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                              | 16,674                        | 18,028 | 18,706 | 20,188 | 24,371 |
| Portion of rent estimated to represent   interest expense                     | 207                           | 195 | 188 | 188 | 178 |
| **Fixed charges**                                                             | 16,881                        | 18,223 | 18,894 | 20,376 | 24,549 |
|                                                                          |                          |   |   |   |   |
| **Ratio of earnings to fixed   charges (%)**                                  | **1.63**                      | **1.62** | **1.57** | **1.48** | **1.36** |

** **

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Snell, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 705]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered January 18, 2001, convicting him of criminal trespass in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Hirsch,*280 AD2d 612; *People v*
      *559
      *Vasquez,*131 AD2d 523; *People v Hall,*89 AD2d 898). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-3 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-3 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.0


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bizcom U.S.A., Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hanan Klein, Chief
Executive Officer, President, Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting
Officer, Secretary and Chairman of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


(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.



Date: June 30, 2005


                          /s/ Hanan Klein
                          --------------------------------------------
                          Hanan Klein
                          Chief Executive Officer, President,
                          Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer,
                          Secretary and Chairman of the Board of Directors
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Vargas, Appellant.

[812 NYS2d 1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered September 5, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent offender, to a term of 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application pursuant to *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79 [1986]). The prosecutor provided race-neutral reason for striking a prospective juror based on her lack of employment and her demeanor, and the court’s finding that these reasons were not pretextual is supported by the record. This determination is entitled to great deference *(see People v Hernandez,*75 NY2d 350 [1990], *affd*500 US 352 [1991]), particularly since the court made express findings on the question of demeanor. We do not find any disparate treatment by the prosecutor of similarly situated panelists. The prosecutor’s explanation that the juror’s potential pro-prosecution bias was minimal and was, in his estimation, outweighed by other independent and legitimate reasons for striking her, is supported by the record.

The court properly declined to submit criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater *(see People v Negron,*91 NY2d 788 [1998]). Defendant testified that he neither entered nor remained unlawfully, and *498denied any conduct that would constitute the crime of criminal trespass. Furthermore, the same segment of the victim’s testimony—that defendant forced his way into the apartment while announcing his intent to assault the victim—constituted proof of both the greater and the lesser offense. “Therefore, there was no reasonable basis upon which the jury could have simultaneously credited the testimony necessary to establish the lesser offense and rejected the very same testimony insofar as it established the greater offense” *(People v Alford,*276 AD2d 797, 799 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1963

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 7, 2002

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the

route taken by American soldier and frontiersman

George Rogers Clark and his men during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forts at Kaskaskia

and Cahokia, Illinois, and Vincennes, Indiana, for study

for potential addition to the National Trails System.
2

HR 1963 RFS

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF GEORGE ROGERS CLARK

4 NORTHWEST CAMPAIGN TRAIL FOR STUDY

5 FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE NA6 TIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM.

7 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16

8 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing new paragraph:

10 ‘‘(41) GEORGE ROGERS CLARK NORTHWEST CAM11 PAIGN TRAIL.—The George Rogers Clark Northwest

12 Campaign Trail, tracing the water route and overland

13 route of the 1778 and 1779 expedition of Lieutenant Colo14 nel George Rogers Clark and his Virginia militia against

15 the British in which he captured the British forts at

16 Kaskaskia and Cahokia, in what is now Illinois, and twice

17 captured Vincennes, in what is now Indiana.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 6,

2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
214 La. 401

#### BIRDWELL v. BIRDWELL.

No. 39023.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1948.

James W. Jones, Jr., of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Gahagan & Pierson, of Natchitoches, for appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The defendant appealed from a judgment granting the plaintiff, his wife, a divorce on the ground that the spouses had lived separate and apart for more than two years.

The plaintiff, appellee, moves to dismiss the appeal alleging that the transcript lodged in this Court, prepared at the instruction of the appellant, is incomplete.

On submission of the motion to dismiss the appeal, we were not favored with briefs from either of the parties. The appellee does not point out in his motion that the omission of part of the record will result in injury to her and does not request this Court to order the appellant to file a supplemental transcript containing the omitted portion of the record.

Under the provisions of Act 229 of 1910, as amended by Act 265 of 1918, the appellant may, on taking appeal, or within three days thereafter, file a written list of the portions of the record with the clerk of court to constitute the transcript of appeal. The appellee has five days after notice to designate other portions of the record he deems necessary. The clerk of court must prepare the transcript as directed and, when so prepared, the appeal cannot be dismissed on the grounds of a defective transcript, but the parties and the court have the right to have the omitted portion of the record brought up in a supplemental transcript.

The appellee does not seek to supplement the transcript but asks for the dismissal of the appeal. Where the transcript has been made under the provision of the aforementioned act, as amended, the remedy of the appellee, if he has reason to complain of a defective transcript, is to cause the omitted part of the record to be *851filed as a supplemental transcript or point out the necessity of the omitted portion of the record to this Court in order that this Court may direct the appellant to file a supplemental transcript containing the necessary omitted portions of the record. Quaker Realty Company v. Posey, 130 La. 941, 58 So. 822; Brown v. Staples, 138 La. 602, 70 So. 529; Hayne v. Assessor, 143 La. 697, 79 So. 280.

For the reasons assigned, the motion is denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John R. Griffin, Jr.

v. Case No. 08-cv-07-PB

Town of Whitefield, et al.

O R D E R

The only remaining claims are state law claims that the

plaintiff asserts against Caroline Lack. The court appears to

lack jurisdiction to consider these claims. On or before August

20, 2008, plaintiff shall show cause as to why the remaining

claims against defendant Lack should not be dismissed without

prejudice to his right to refile the claims in state court.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 8, 2008

cc: John R. Griffin, Jr., pro se

 R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.

 Russell F. Hilliard, Esq.

 Robert K. Mekeel, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00007-PB Document 30 Filed 08/08/08 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Hickson, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 455]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered March 26, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
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: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending November 2, 2019FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFINANCIAL SERVICES OF WINGER, INC.                                                                                      CICNotice by Dawn M. Skeie Crane, trustee of the Dawn M. Skeie Crane GST Trust ("Dawn's Trust"), both of Fosston, Minnesota, to retain control of Financial Services of Winger, Inc. ("Company"), and thereby indirectly retain control of Ultima Bank Minnesota, both of Winger, Minnesota. Also, Dawn's Trust and its trustee, together with Lorri J. Skeie-Campbell, trustee of the Lorri J. Skeie-Campbell GST Trust, both of Corrales, New Mexico, to retain voting shares and thereby join the Skeie family shareholder group acting in concert, which controls Company. Newspaper: 11/04/2019Federal Register: 11/04/2019KEWEENAW FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                          * 3A5Keweenaw Financial Corporation, Hancock, Michigan, to merge with North Star Financial Holdings, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Main Street Bank, both of Bingham Farms, Michigan.Newspaper: 11/08/2019Federal Register: 11/13/2019NAPOLEON BANCORPORATION, INC.                                                                                           * 3A5Napoleon Bancorporation, Inc., Napoleon, North Dakota to merge with Sargent Bankshares, Inc., Forman, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly acquire Sargent County Bank, Forman, North Dakota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableOLMSTED BANCORPORATION, INC.                                                                                            CICChange in Control notice by Christian J. Ryan, Byron, Minnesota to gain control of Olmsted Bancorporation, Inc., Byron, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly gain control of First Security Bank, Byron, Minnesota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
#### Ruth L. MORGAN v. L. M. BUCKINGHAM.

No. 1512.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 14,1935.

Lindsay McDougall, of Covington, for appellant.

J. Monroe Simmons, of Covington, for ap-pellee.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

In this case, for the reasons assigned in the consolidated suits of Lewis L. Morgan v. L. M. Buckingham and Ruth L. Morgan v. L. M. Buckingham (La. App.) 161 So. 892, this day decided, the judgment in favor of Ruth L; Morgan against L. M. Buckingham, suit No. 6890 on the docket of the lower court, is reduced from $350 to $250, and, as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed, Miss Morgan to have the right, of course, to sell her wrecked automobile, and to keep whatever she can obtain on that account, over and above the sum herein decreed; defendant-appellant to pay the costs in the lower court, plaintift'-appellea to pay the costs of appeal.
#### In the Matter of David Zaire, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 729]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from making threats. The determination has now been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional records. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the matter is dismissed as moot *(see, Matter of Curtis v Goord,*274 AD2d 808; *Matter of Maldonado v Miller,*259 AD2d 912).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7461

WALTER ALBERT YOUNIE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; WARDEN, EASTERN

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99-

2956-AMD)

Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Albert Younie, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Albert Younie appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See

Younie v. Maryland Parole Commission, No. CA-99-2956-AMD (Oct. 7,

1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted), the undersigned, Mark R. Doede, President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial 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, 2010 (the “Periodic Report”), to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2, 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 15, 2011

/S/ Mark R. DoedeMark R. DoedePresident, Chief Operating Officer,and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Balance Sheets, Consolidated Statements of Income and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                            187
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    55,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               56,484
<PP&E>                                         56,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                 29,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 84,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          36,922
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           75
<OTHER-SE>                                    (7,213)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   84,605
<SALES>                                        59,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               59,426
<CGS>                                          30,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  30,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               27,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   303
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               303
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      303
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.04



</TABLE>