alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State, ex rel. Cullitan, Pros. Atty., *v.*Toth et al.

(No. 24885

Decided February 6, 1935.)

*Mr. Frank T. Cullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Messrs. Wilt & Yoder,*for relator.

*Mr. John 8. Mudri*and *Mr. Louis K. Birinyi,*for respondents.

This cause came on to be heard upon the petition of the relator to oust Michael Toth and others as officers of St. Stephen’s Roman Catholic Hungarian Young Men and Women’s Sick Benefit Society of Cleveland, and to adjudge John Weiser and others legal officers and entitled to enjoy all the franchises of said offices, the joint answer of the respondents, Toth and others, the reply of the relator thereto, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Stanley L. Orr, as referee appointed by this court, and the exceptions thereto.

The issue involves the method of election of officers of the society and corporation. If the by-laws provide for the election of supreme officers by a vote of the entire membership of the society at its annual meeting, then the relator should prevail; however, if the existing by-laws of the society provide for the election of supreme officers in a convention of delegates chosen by various branches of the society, then the respondents should prevail.

The referee found the method of conducting the vote in the various branches at different times and different places is contrary to the statutes of Ohio with reference to the amendment of the by-laws of corpora*199tions, that the so-called delegate system was never legally adopted by the said St. Stephen’s Society aforenamed, and, therefore, that the respondents have no title to the offices which they claim, as they admit that they claim office solely by virtue of having been elected by delegates.

Upon consideration whereof, this court finds that the exceptions are not well taken and orders that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee be, and they hereby are, confirmed, and it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the respondents are not the duly elected, qualified and acting officers of said society and corporation; that respondents have illegally assumed and usurped said offices of said society and corporation to the exclusion of the officers duly elected, and respondents should be ousted from said offices and excluded from the performance of the duties thereof; that John "Weiser and others, on whose relation relator prosecuted this proceeding, are adjudged the legal officers and entitled to enjoy all the franchises of said offices; that respondents be enjoined from acting or attempting to act or usurp any of the supreme offices of said corporation, and that respondents surrender and turn over to said John Weiser and others on whose relation this, proceeding is prosecuted, all money, property or chattels in the possession or control of the respondents belonging to said corporation, and account for all money and property which came into respondents’ possession while usurping said supreme offices.

*Judgment of ouster.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
813 A.2d 544

#### IN THE MATTER OF ILLENE G. GREENBERG, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 16, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-154, concluding that ILLENE G. GREEN-BERG of PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1986, and who has been ineligible to practice law since September 20, 1999, for failure to pay the annual assessment to the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection as required by Rule 1:28-2, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*3.3(a)(l)(knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal), *RPC*3.3(a)(5)(failing to disclose to a tribunal a material fact with knowledge that the tribunal may tend to be misled by such failure), *RPC*5.5(a)(unauthorized practice of law), *RPC*8.1(b)(failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities) and *RPC*8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to submit proof of her fitness to practice law, as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics;

*104And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that XLLENE G. GREENBERG is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall provide proof of her fitness to practice law, as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#221) on February 19, 2013, by Defendant Alois Craig Weingart. The Court construes this

Notice as a motion to change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’

plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for April 8, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. and a Sentencing

hearing is set for July 8, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. in the United States District Court

for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse,

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 223 filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The final trial preparation conference set for March 13, 2013, and the March 18,

2013, trial date are VACATED.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 223 filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
Text and description of graphic and image material appearing on the
             form of certificate for shares of the common stock of

                                  CoffeeAM.com

               Exhibit 4.2 to Registration Statement on Form SB-2


The  borders  around  the edge of the  certificate  and  around  the  space  for
certificate  number and number of shares are standard  printer's forms,  with no
text.  The  Company's  corporate  seal is reproduced at the bottom center of the
front.  The Company's logo (consisting of [words that describe the logo you want
to have on your stock  certificate])  appear  centered  near the top.  Facsimile
signatures  of the chairman and  secretary of the Company are at the bottom left
and right, and the name and space for authorized signature of the transfer agent
are on the lower right side of the certificate face.

On the reverse side of the  certificate,  before the language and spaces for use
in effecting a transfer of the shares represented by the certificate,  are these
words:

         A statement of the rights,  preferences,  privileges  and  restrictions
granted to or imposed upon the  respective  classes or series of shares of stock
of the Corporation,  and upon the holders thereof as established by the Articles
of Incorporation or by any certificate of determination of preferences,  and the
number of shares constituting each series or class and the designations thereof,
may be obtained by any shareholder of the  Corporation  upon request and without
charge from the  Secretary of the  Corporation  at the  principal  office of the
Corporation.

                                                                     Exhibit 4.2


27
Intellicell Corp.
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                    Computation of Earnings (Loss) Per Share
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    For The 6 Months Ended   For The Three Months Ended
                                                                            June 30,                    June 30, 
                                                                 ------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1996          1997           1996         1997
                                                                 ------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                              <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>         
Earnings (loss) per share:
Pro forma net income (loss) for primary earnings
  (loss) per share                                               $   368,000   $  (430,000)   $   218,000   $   (48,000)
                                                                 ======================================================

Weighted average common shares outstanding                         2,030,000     4,486,680      2,030,000     4,466,125
Weighted average shares sold to fund stockholder
  distribution paid out of proceeds of initial public offering       142,346                      142,346
Weighted average shares resulting from conversion of
  convertible notes payable at discount from market                   23,464                       23,464
                                                                 ------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average common shares and equivalents                     2,195,810     4,486,680      2,195,810     4,466,125
                                                                 ======================================================

Primary pro forma earnings (loss) per share                      $      0.17   $     (0.10)   $      0.10   $     (0.01)
                                                                 ======================================================
</TABLE>

For the periods ending June 30, 1996 and 1997, no additional common stock
equivalents (upon exercise of common share equivalents under the modified
treasury stock method) were included in the calculation of earnings (loss) per
share.

For the periods ended June 30, 1996, no such common share equivalents existed
and for the periods ended June 30, 1997, the results would be anti-dilutive. For
the periods ended June 30, 1996 and 1997, earnings (loss) per share was
identical under the primary and fully diluted basis.
#### KNOWLES v. ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE CORP.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### MACK v. HILL DREDGING CORPORATION and Florida Industrial Commission.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1492 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 29, 2008.

    Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1492) entitled ``An Act to 
improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability and 
quality of broadband services and to promote the deployment of affordable 
broadband services to all parts of the Nation.'', do pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

 (1)Page 20, beginning on line 4 of the Senate engrossed bill, strike [Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation] and insert: Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce of the House of Representatives

 (2)Page 21 beginning on line 13 of the Senate engrossed bill, strike [Assistant 
Secretary and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation] and 
insert: Assistant Secretary, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
House of Representatives

 (3)Page 23, line 8 of the Senate engrossed bill, strike [TITLE II] and insert: 
Subtitle B
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2016

No. 04-16-00307-CV

JAMRO LTD.,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-21267

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a final judgment granting a plea to the jurisdiction. Because this 

appeal is not from an interlocutory order, the appeal is not accelerated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1. 

The clerk’s record was filed on May 17, 2016. The reporter’s record was filed on May 20, 2016. 

Therefore, the original due date for appellant’s brief was June 20, 2016.

Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time to file its brief, stating that this appeal 

is accelerated and its brief is due on June 9, 2016. Appellant asks for a thirty-day extension of 

time to file its brief. Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. 

Because appellant’s original deadline for filing its brief was June 20, 2016, appellant’s brief is 

now due on July 20, 2016.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 10th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Nicholas Orlovsky, Petitioner.

County Court, Suffolk County,

March 15, 1957.

*Donald E. Wilkes*for petitioner.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General,*for respondents.

Edgar F. Hazleton,

Surrogate and Acting County Judge. This is an application by way of a writ of habeas corpus made by petitioner for the release of a defendant held within the confines of Central Islip State Hospital for the insane. It appears that the defendant was arraigned before a Justice of the Peace, and pleaded guilty to the charge of disorderly conduct, whereupon he was sentenced to 30 days in jail. The sentencing Justice suspended execution of the sentence and proceeded to commit defendant for examination as to his sanity, pursuant to section 660 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is clear that such commitment can be made by a court only before or during the trial, or after conviction, and must be made before final judgment. The very sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertinent to *785such a proceeding are included in print in the form of commitment furnished by the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for such purpose. They are there for any court to read if it will only take time to read them. The imposition of the 30-day suspended sentence upon defendant was a ‘1 final judgment ’ ’ after which the Justice totally lacked jurisdiction and power to commit the defendant for examination as to his sanity. In the event defendant needs to be committed for such observation, which I doubt, proper means are provided for having him so certified.

The writ is sustained and it is directed that defendant be discharged from the institution.
September 1 7 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DONTRAL ALEXANDER SA NDERS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00068

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Holmes *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 25034

Decided January 16, 1935.)

*Mr. G. L. Shaylor*and *Mr. Dermis F. Dunlavy,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Howard M. Nazor,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Day and Zimmerman, JJ., not participating.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1344 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1344

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
    Wenatchee, Washington, as the Elwood ``Bud'' Link Department of 
                  Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2007

  Mrs. Murray introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
    Wenatchee, Washington, as the Elwood ``Bud'' Link Department of 
                  Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ELWOOD ``BUD'' LINK DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient 
clinic located in Wenatchee, Washington, shall after the date of the 
enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Elwood `Bud' 
Link Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the medical 
center referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 
reference to the Elwood ``Bud'' Link Department of Veterans Affairs 
Outpatient Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-170621, 333-170622, 333-177055 and 333-192518 on Form S-3 and 333-105728, 333-105729, 333-172569, 333-175268, 333-175296 and 333-190286 on Form S-8 of BANC OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
formerly known as First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc., of our report dated March 30, 2012 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of BANC OF CALIFORNIA, INC. for the year ended December 31, 2011, which report appears in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of BANC OF CALIFORNIA, INC. for the year ended December 31, 2013.



/s/ Crowe Horwath LLP


Costa Mesa, California

August 18, 2014
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 Oxford Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"), I, Jacinta Sit, President 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
the Company.


/s/ Jacinta Sit
-------------------------------------
Jacinta Sit, President and CFO
(principal executive officer and principal financial officer)

Dated: June 15, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11


                NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                              For the Three Months
                                                  Ended Mar. 31
                                             ------------------------
                                                2000         1999
                                             -----------  -----------
 <S>                                         <C>          <C>
   Net Earnings                              $ 2,436,000  $ 3,416,000
                                             ===========  ===========

   Weighted average common shares
      outstanding                             15,005,000   15,005,000
                                             ===========  ===========

   Basic and diluted earnings per share
      of common stock                        $       .16  $       .23
                                             ===========  ===========

</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 Heritage Bankshares, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael S. Ives, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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: March 26, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael S. Ives                  
|                     |  |  |  | Michael S. Ives,                     
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



76