alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 12 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v. Ro dn ey D. Brown , als o kno wn as Ro d ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Aug us t 3 0, 2 01 7 Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 1, 2 01 7 [Un publ is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Fed eral in m at e Ro dn ey Bro wn ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s pr o 1
se m ot io n fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. Upo n care fu l

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s.de no vo rev ie w, se e Uni te d St at es v. Lon g, 75 7 F.3 d 76 2, 76 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )

(s ta nd ard of rev ie w), we co nc lu de th at di sm is sa l was pr op er be cau se Bro wn was se nt en ced ba se d on a bi nd in g pl ea agre em en t th at in cl ud ed a ba se of fen se le ve l an d drug qu an ti ty, bu t di d no t in cl ud e a cri m in al hi st ory le ve l or Gui de li ne s ran ge , an d t hu s was no t ex pr es sl y ba se d on a Gui de li ne s ran ge th at was su bs eq ue nt ly l o w e r e d by th e Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on , se e Fre e man v. Uni te d St at es , 13 1 S. Ct

. 26 85 , 26 95 -7 00 (20 11 ) (So to m ay or , J., co nc urrin g) ; Lo ng , 75 7 F .3d at 7 64

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### Bernle ROBINSON v. STATE.

8 Div. 145.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 21, 1935.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment charged this appellant with the offense of murder in the first degree, in that he unlawfully and with malice aforethought killed Roy William Saulsbury by shooting him with a pistol-. The indifetment *921was returned into open court by the grand jury, and filed on October 2, 1934. The defendant was arraigned on October 3,1934, and interposed his plea of not guilty. The trial of this case was set for and had on October 12, 1934, which resulted in the conviction of the accused for the offense of murder in the second degree, and the jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment for twelve years. Judgment of conviction was duly pronounced and entered, and the court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment in the penitentiary for twelve years. From said judgment this appeal was taken.

No question, except the regularity of the proceedings in the court below as shown by the record, is presented. As the law required, we have examined the record and find it regular and without error. The judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will therefore stand affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02420-RPM

NORMAN RIDDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on February 28, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 11/11). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on February 23, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

DATED: January 9th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02420-RPM Document 16 Filed 01/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Mark Van Valkenburgh, Plaintiff, v Frederick G. Koehler et al., Defendants. Jeffrey Renzo, Respondent, v Frederick G. Koehler et al., Appellants. John D. Renzo, Respondent, v Frederick G. Koehler, et al., Appellants. Jeffrey Renzo, Respondent, v Tops Friendly Markets, Inc., Appellant. John D. Renzo, Respondent, v Tops Friendly Markets, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 5.)

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and new trial granted. Same memorandum as in *Van Valkenburgh v Koehler*([appeal No. 2] 164 AD2d 971 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.— negligence.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-45476, 333-34719, 333-48889, 333-39403, 333-69688 and 333-135578) on Form S-8 of Giga-tronics Incorporated of our report dated May 19, 2011, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Giga-tronics Incorporated for the year ended March 26, 2011.
 
 
 /s/ Perry-Smith LLP
 
 San Francisco, California
 May 19, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02369-PAB-KMT

LARRY SIPES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), Final Judgment is entered as follows:

This action was tried before a jury of nine duly sworn to try the issues herein, with

U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. It

is

ORDERED that plaintiff LARRY SIPES shall recover nothing, this action is

dismissed, and judgment is entered in favor of defendant ALLSTATE INDEMNITY

COMPANY and against plaintiff LARRY SIPES. It is further

ORDERED that defendant ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY is AWARDED its

costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and

D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Case 1:11-cv-02369-PAB-KMT Document 213 Filed 11/13/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Dated at Denver, Colorado this 13th day of November, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

s/Kathy Preuitt-Parks

Kathy Preuitt-Parks

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02369-PAB-KMT Document 213 Filed 11/13/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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 Quarterly Report  of The Heritage Organization, Inc.
(the "Company") on  Form 10-QSB  for the period  ending November 30, 2003 (the
"Report"), I, Vickie Walker, Chief  Executive  Officer  and  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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.




/s/ Vickie Walker
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

January 13, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Cruz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leon Becker, J., at suppression hearing, jury trial and sentence), rendered April 26, 1988, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

We agree with the defendant that the court improperly admitted into evidence testimony that the police officer, who had observed defendant threatening another man with the weapon, was, at the time of his observation, engaged in drug activity surveillance of the premises where defendant was observed. This evidence of "background material” was not necessary to provide a complete picture of the events so as to prevent the jury from speculating as to why the officer observed defendant’s conduct. It was neither probative nor relevant to the ability of the People to establish or explain any material fact. *(People v Fay,*85 AD2d 512, *appeal withdrawn*56 NY2d 593; *People v Hernandez,*139 AD2d 472, 477.) However, the evidence was prejudicial insofar as it cast suspicion upon defendant, charged with possession of a weapon, as the subject of a drug investigation or as a participant in drug trafficking. *(See, People v Green,*35 NY2d 437, 440.)

*762In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and the curative instructions immediately issued by the court, admonishing the jury against drawing any such prejudicial inference, any potential prejudice to defendant was obviated. *(People v Fay, supra,*at 513.) In addition, the trial court individually polled the jurors to assure itself that they would be able to comply with its clear instructions, which were not objected to.

We have considered defendant’s argument that the sentence, as imposed, was excessive and rejected it. Defendant has not demonstrated that the sentencing court abused its discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

WENDY CABRERA,

Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Reconsideration of Costs [filed February

20, 2013; docket #325]. Plaintiff seeks to be relieved from the burden of responsibility for all of the

costs associated with the work of the Special Master in this case. I previously entered an Order that

the parties would split the costs evenly. I have now entered a supplemental Order that indicates I

will address apportionment of the Special Master’s costs after the conclusion of Special Master

BlueStar’s work in this case. The only aspects of my previous order that have changed are that (1)

the EEOC, which is the contracting party with the Special Master, will pay the Special Master’s

costs in the first instance, with costs to be apportioned between the parties thereafter; and (2) there

is no longer a presumption that the costs will be split evenly, but rather, I will equitably apportion

costs with no preconceived target, after the work of the Special Master is complete.

For this reason, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied without prejudice.

Dated and entered this 27th day of February, 2013, in Denver, Colorado.

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 335 Filed 02/27/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

BY THE COURT:

 

 

Michael E. Hegarty 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 335 Filed 02/27/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 3/31/98
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                       108
<INVENTORY>                                      1,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,947
<PP&E>                                           6,098
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,707
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,325
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,852)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,471
<SALES>                                        116,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,999
<CGS>                                           95,019
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (160)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,866
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,386
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,386
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 2, 2020

NO. 03

- 20

- 00017

- CR

Ex parte Curtis McDaniel

APPEAL FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER A ND TRIANA

AFFIRMED

-- O PINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order denying appellant ’ s application for writ of ha beas corpus sign ed

by t he trial court. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that

there was no reversible error in the order

. Therefore, the Court a ffirms the trial court’s order

denying appellant ’ s application for writ of habeas corpus

. Because appellant is indigent and

u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MOLECULAR BIOSYSTEMS INC. DATED MARCH 31,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,756
<SECURITIES>                                    10,287
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        203
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,270
<PP&E>                                          14,156
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,446
<BONDS>                                          3,529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           186
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,644
<SALES>                                          1,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,525
<CGS>                                            (107)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,568)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.5**

 

I, R. Herbert Hampton, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/Aof Golden Cycle Gold Corporation:

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 

 

Date: April 28, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/ R. Herbert Hampton  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   |                    |
|   | R. Herbert Hampton      |
|   |                    |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0540

_________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM E. HAWKES ,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Appellant William E. Hawkes appeals from the Judgment of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, in its Cause No. DC - 32 -2019 - 0000033 - IN . Hawkes argues the District Court erred by failing to give him credit for two days served . The State has filed a Notice of C oncession that this matter should be remanded to the D istrict C ourt for the purpose of entering an amended sentence and judgment. Without agreeing with all of the arguments Hawkes has raised, the State agrees that in this case the D istrict Court erred in failing to give Hawkes credit for two days served . Based on Hawke’s opening brief and the State’s concession, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, with instructions for the District Court to amend its Judgment to provide Hawkes credit with two days served . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that REMITTITUR shall issue IMMEDIATELY UPON REMAND. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to presiding judge Honorable Leslie Halligan . Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 10 2024

01/10/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0540
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133158 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133158 

 COA: 267087 

Wayne CC: 85-003418-01

JEFFERY MAURICE BAKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9321]
RIN 1545-BE79


Application of Section 409A to Nonqualified Deferred Compensation 
Plans; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 
9321) which were published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2007 
(72 FR 19323), corrected July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41620) and September 24, 
2007 (72 FR 54945). The final regulations relate to section 409A and 
nonqualified deferred compensation plans.

DATES: This correction is effective October 7, 2008.
    Applicability date: April 17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Guy R. Traynor, (202) 622-3693 (not a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are subject to this document are under 
section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the correcting amendment of September 24, 2008 (72 FR 
54945) to final regulations (TD 9321) contains errors that may prove to 
be misleading and is in need of clarification.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Correction of Publication

0
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment.

PART 1--INCOME TAXES

0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *


0
Par. 2. Section 1.409A-6(a)(3)(i), the third sentence is corrected to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1.409A-6  Application of section 409A and effective dates.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Nonaccount balance plans. * * * For purposes of calculating the 
present value of a benefit under this paragraph (a)(3)(i), reasonable 
actuarial assumptions and methods must be used. * * *
* * * * *

 Guy R. Traynor,
 Federal Register Liaison, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E8-23652 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 31.1
  CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DCB Financial Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  November 15, 2010
    /s/ David FolkweinDavid FolkweinTitle:
    Interim President and Chief Executive
Officer