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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02355-PAB-CBS

PAMELA Y. SIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Dismissal [Docket No.

49]. The Court has reviewed the pleading and is fully advised in the premises. It is

ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Dismissal [Docket No. 49] is GRANTED. It

is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), this matter, and all claims

asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’

fees and costs. 

DATED June 25, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02355-PAB-CBS Document 50 Filed 06/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24532]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

October 9, 2008.
    The Department of Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the publication of this notice. Copies of the submission(s) may 
be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. 
Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to 
the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance 
Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before November 14, 
2008 to be assured of consideration.

Federal Consulting Group

    OMB Number: 1505-0186.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Customer Satisfaction Measure of Government Websites.
    Description: The objectives of surveying citizen users of federal 
agency websites are to: (1) Provide information for improving the 
quality of and satisfaction with agency websites: (2) ensure continuous 
assessment and improvement capabilities; (3) benchmark results against 
other agencies and private companies; (4) determine how different types 
of changes to the websites will impact future citizen behaviors; and 
(5) make the agencies part of a quarterly E-Government customer 
satisfaction benchmark and annual index for all measured Federal 
Government activities.
    Respondents: Individuals and households; Business or other-for-
profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms, Federal Government and 
State, Local or Tribal Govt.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000,000.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 41,667 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Ron Oberbillig (202) 504-3656, Federal 
Consulting Group, 1799 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20239.
    OMB Reviewer: Kimberly Nelson (202) 395-3787, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.

Robert Dahl,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-24532 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

 

 

I, Leonard A. Rosenbaum, President and Chief Executive Officer of CVD Equipment Corporation, 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 my knowledge, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 of CVD Equipment Corporation (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies            with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CVD Equipment Corporation.

 

 

| Dated: November 13, 2008 | /s/ Leonard A. Rosenbaum      |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                     | Leonard A. Rosenbaum          |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                     | (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

 

22
Case 1:11-mj-01138-MEH Document 2 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2006 of Rurban 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)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying 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 registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2006/s/ Kenneth A. Joyce
Kenneth A. JoycePresident & ChiefExecutive Officer
 40
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,036-02

EX PARTE RONALD SHANKLIN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR15003727-G(2) IN THE 319 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of assault of a public servant and sentenced to ten years’

imprisonment. He filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to an appeal because counsel failed to timely

file a notice of appeal. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Ex parte

Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State, 98 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App.

2003). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for
2

findings of fact. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel1

to respond to Applicant’s claim. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out

in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether

Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court

shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If

counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s

name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

was denied his right to an appeal because trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. The

trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to

Applicant’s claim.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 9, 2022

Do not publish

 If a defendant decides to appeal his conviction, trial counsel rather than appellate 1

counsel has the duty to ensure that written notice of appeal is filed with the trial court. Jones, 98

S.W.3d at 703.
exhibit_10-3.htm










EXHIBIT 10.3


 





 




VISUALANT, INCORPORATED 







 


This Letter Agreement serves as acknowledgement by Visualant, Inc, as Guarantor of the Loan and Security Agreement dated December 9, 2008 between TransTech Systems, Inc. and BFI Business Finance, that TransTech Systems, Inc.  is executing a Secured Promissory Note, dated March 19, 2014 in the amount of $105,000 with BFI Business Finance.







The terms of the Secured Promissory Note are therein contained and will be fulfilled directly by TransTech Systems, Inc.







Visualant, Inc. further acknowledges awareness and agreement with the following section in Addendum A of the Secured Promissory Note:







15. It shall be a condition precedent to the Advance being made under this Note that Lender shall have received a fully executed letter agreement between Borrower’s guarantor, Visualant, Incorporated (“Guarantor”) and Borrower, whereby Guarantor agrees that all outstanding obligations owing under this Note, if any, shall be directly remitted to Lender by Guarantor on such Maturity Date.







Visualant, Inc. acknowledges that the Maturity Date in the Secured Promissory Note is June 12, 2014 and as Guarantor will retire the Secured Promissory Note on said Maturity Date if TransTech Systems, Inc. has not done so under the terms of the agreement.












VISUALANT, INCORPORATED


 


 



	  	  	  	  
	
Date: March 19, 2014

	
By:

	
/s/ Ronald P. Erickson

	  
	  	  	
Ronald P. Erickson

	  
	  	  	
Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director

	  
	  	  	
(Principal Executive Officer)

	  





 



	  	  	  	  
	
Date: March 19, 2014

	
By:

	
/s/ Mark Scott

	  
	  	  	
Mark Scott

	  
	  	  	
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

	  
	  	  	
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Edith Nissenblatt, as Administratrix of the Estate of Max Talmason, Deceased, Plaintiff, *v.*Lester T. Doyle, as Trustee in Reorganization of Surface Transportation Corporation of New York, Defendant. Edith Nissenblatt, as Administratrix of the Estate of Max Talmason, Deceased, Plaintiff, *v.*City of New York, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

April 1, 1957.

*Harold M. Hoffman*and *Bernard Turhewitz*for plaintiff.

*Joseph J. Ryan*for Lester T. Doyle, defendant.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (George P. Hennessy*of counsel), for City of New York, defendant. .

Matthew M. Levy, J.

Max Talmason claimed that on August 17, 1955, while he was a passenger on a bus, he was the victim of an assault and battery committed by the bus driver. Suit was instituted in this court against defendant Doyle, trustee-operator of the bus, for the resulting physical injuries.

*206On the day of the alleged attack, Tabulation. was brought to Fordham Hospital. He died there on June 6, 1956. His administratrix claimed that, while he was at the hospital and in its exclusive custody and control, he was so negligently cared for that he sustained physical injuries on November 22, 1955, which resulted in his death. Suit was instituted in this court against defendant City of New York, owner-operator of the hospital.

Plaintiff in each action — now Taimasen’s administratrix — moves for consolidation of the two actions. The application is opposed by both defendants. The motion is denied.

It may be that, if the circumstances warranted, the defendant in the first action might be charged with the aggravation of the first injury as alleged in the second action, and of all proximately caused sequelae. But that is not enough to justify consolidation. The confusion of trying and resolving simultaneously the issues of two unrelated acts occasioned by the unrelated faults of two separate entities grounded upon two distinct legal theories seems to me to be controlling. Moreover (and equally significant) there would be an obvious tendency upon the trial of the actions, if consolidated, to erect into one verdict before the jury against both defendants what would be the sum of two separate verdicts based on injuries sustained in each ease and for which each defendant is separately liable. Whatever might have been the situation had plaintiff sued jointly in the first instance, consolidation now is not to be directed where there is likely prejudice to a substantial right — and that, as I see it, would clearly be the result here.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50454

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MUNOZ-MONREAL,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-94-CR-261-DB

- - - - - - - - - -

February 2, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Munoz-Monreal appeals from his conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He

argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting

hearsay evidence and that the prosecutor improperly vouched for

the credibility of a government witness. Given the fact that

Munoz-Monreal first introduced the challenged hearsay testimony

upon his redirect examination of Agent Martinez, the district

court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony. 
No. 95-50454

-2-

See United States v. Deisch, 20 F.3d 139, 154 (5th Cir. 1994). 

In any event, any error from the admission of the testimony was

harmless. See United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo, 8 F.3d 202, 210

(5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1410 (1994). Further,

because the prosecutor's comment was "invited" by defense

counsel's implication that a government witness had violated the

terms of his plea agreement and "did no more than respond

substantially in order to `right the scale,'" reversal on this

issue is not warranted. See United States v. Arce, 997 F.2d

1123, 1130 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
Case 1:11-cv-02567-RPM Document 4 Filed 10/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02567-RPM Document 4 Filed 10/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02567-RPM Document 4 Filed 10/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (409 KB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (78 KB PDF)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables (13 KB PDF)
Flows tables (143 KB PDF)
Level tables (119 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (19 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (29 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (632 KB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 7, 2007
#### HUBBARD v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

July 9, 1954.

Coe & Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SEBRING, Justice.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. The evidence upon which the judgment and sentence are based was entirely circumstantial. The most that it shows is that the appellant was apprehended by certain police officers about a block from his home and accused of breaking and entering a residence some thirty minutes prior to the arrest. No article that was in the residence prior to the burglary was found upon the appellant. No witness was able to identify him as the burglar. There is nothing in the evidence except suspicious circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime.

In recognition of the paucity of the proof, the Attorney General, at the bar of this Court, has confessed error, and has asked that the judgment and sentence appealed from be reversed and the cause sent back for a new trial.

We agree with the Attorney General that the evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment and sentence should be reversed and a new trial awarded.

It is so ordered.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, HOB-SON, J., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

As an accompaniment to the Annual Report of MainSource Financial Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Donald A. Benziger, 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 to my knowledge:

o    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
o    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
     as of and for the periods presented.

This certification is based on inquiries that I have made, or have caused to be
made, in a good faith effort on my part to be a responsible and competent chief
executive officer serving the Company and its many constituencies.

This certification merely accompanies and is not part of the Report, shall not
be deemed filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and may not
be used for any purpose other than compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


/s/  Donald A. Benziger
------------------------
**Exhibit  12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Anders Igel, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of TeliaSonera AB;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.     Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

(a)           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designated under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in thisreport any change in the company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

| April 6, 2006 |   |   |   |                                  |
|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|               |   | By:    |   | /s/ ANDERS  IGEL                      |
|               |   | Name:  |   | Anders Igel                           |
|               |   | Title: |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----