alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[J-65-2019] [MO: Saylor, C.J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

KAREEM JOHNSON,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 40 EAP 2018

Appeal from the Order of Superior 

Court entered on 06/27/2018 at No. 

927 EDA 2016 affirming the Order 

entered on 03/03/2016 in the Court 

of Common Pleas, Philadelphia 

County, Criminal Division, at No. 

CP-51-CR-1300424-2006.

ARGUED: September 10, 2019

CONCURRING OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY DECIDED: May 19, 2020

I fully join the majority opinion and write separately only to express my view that, 

although our decision broadens the jeopardy relief standard requiring intentional 

prosecutorial misconduct to include reckless (conscious) prosecutorial disregard of a 

substantial risk the defendant will be denied a fair trial, the standard continues to be a 

stringent one that will be satisfied only in egregious cases. This Court has previously 

authorized dismissal of charges as a sanction for blatant intentional prosecutorial 

overreaching designed either to provoke a defendant into a mistrial or deprive a defendant 

of a fair trial. Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992); Commonwealth v. 

Martarano, 741 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 1999). Nevertheless, this Court has also consistently 

cautioned that dismissal of charges is an extreme remedy that should be imposed 

sparingly. Commonwealth v. Burke, 781 A.2d 1136, 1144 (Pa. 2001). Our decision today 

reinforces our jurisprudence holding dismissal of charges is an appropriate remedy when 
[J-65-2019] [MO: Saylor, C.J.] - 2

there is deliberate and egregious overreaching by the prosecution. However, I do not 

read our decision as suggesting dismissal of charges is warranted in every case of 

prosecutorial misconduct. In the face of a double jeopardy challenge, unless there is 

evidence to support a finding of deliberate and reckless prosecutorial disregard of a 

substantial risk the defendant will be denied a fair trial, the remedy should be less severe 

than dismissal. Where such evidentiary support is lacking, the appropriate remedy will 

normally include the award of a new trial.
#### Norma Jean HUGHES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 17, 1974.

William Miles Arvin, Nicholasville, for appellant.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Douglas E. Johnson, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Justice STEPHENSON,

Affirming.*
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Christopher D. Hughes,certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2005 of Lancer Corporation;

 

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

 

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;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b.              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons 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 registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b.              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  August 12, 2005

 

 
| /s/  CHRISTOPHER D. HUGHES                      |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Christopher  D. Hughes, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Eugene ABBOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44061.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1971.

*143Charles A. Tucker, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Ed McDonough, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault enhanced under Article 62, Vernon’s Ann.P. C.; the punishment, life.

Appellant first complains of the admission into evidence of a pistol and a can of insect spray. Officer Lane testified that the victims gave the sheriff’s department the license number and description of the automobile made use of in relation to the offense. Ownership was traced to the appellant. During daytime business hours Officer Lane went to the private place of business where Abbott was employed to execute a warrant for his arrest for this robbery. While on the premises he saw an automobile fitting the description which had been given the sheriff’s department. Prior to arresting the appellant, who was not there at the time, he looked inside the automobile and could see the butt of a pistol protruding from under the seat. He then photographed the automobile.

In the jury’s absence, Officer Lane testified that he then called the district attorney’s office for a ruling as to whether or not to remove the pistol from the car. Because of the possibility that the appellant could remove either the weapon or the car, and in light of appellant’s prior record, Lane was instructed to remove the gun. He seized the revolver and the can of insect spray and waited for the appellant’s return, whereupon he placed him under arrest.

The appellant relies upon Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970). *Vale*involved a search of a house and is not here controlling. We have concluded that Walker v. Beto, 437 F.2d 1018 (5 Cir. 1971), is more nearly in point. In *Walker*the policeman shined a flashlight into the suspect’s automobile in aid of his viewing its contents. The Court there held that the criminal objects falling within the plain view of a police officer who has a right to be in a position to have the view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence. Legall v. State, 463 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Appellant’s first ground of error is overruled.

Appellant in his pro se brief complains of the admission into evidence of testimony which showed that in addition to robbing the injured parties of money, they were forced by appellant and his companion to submit to an act of rectal sodomy. In Dillard v. State, 434 S.W.2d 126, 127 (1968), this Court said:

> “These acts, along with the act for which the appellant was convicted, all occurred within minutes of each other and constituted one continuous transaction, and as such were admissible.” See also Lassere v. State, 458 S.W.2d 81 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Dividend Capital Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report") that:



|Date: March 16, 2005 |  | /s/EVAN H. ZUCKEREvan H. Zucker Chief Executive Officer and
President
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of CFO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

 

Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained In this periodic report fairly presents in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 
|   | By:                                                                                      | /s/  John F Coger |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
|   |          John  F Coger                      |
|   |          Executive  Vice President, CFO/COO |
|   |          March 30,  2009               |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Winthrop
Interim Partners I, A Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1.000
<CASH>                                           5,727,000<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      141,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                         102,617,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,137,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,395,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                        177,701,000<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (116,157,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,395,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,035,000
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,297,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,853,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,242,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,242,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,242,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (5,866.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5,866.42)
<FN>
<F1> Cash included $5,612,000 of restricted cash.
<F2> Includes accrued interest of $69,915,000.
</FN>



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 for Hallwood Energy Partners, L.P. 
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000768172
<NAME>                        Hallwood Energy Partners, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1,769
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,965
<PP&E>                                         625,257
<DEPRECIATION>                                 532,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,840
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     68,441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,650
<SALES>                                        32,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               32,630
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  20,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (283)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,924
<INCOME-TAX>                                   575
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9,924
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9,924
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .86
        


</TABLE>
#### Johann PETERSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
EXHIBIT 23.2
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No. 333-104319 (Form S–8for an aggregate 6,500,000 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value pertaining to the Amended andRestated Cosi Stock Incentive Plan and the Cosi Sandwich Bar, Inc.Incentive Stock Option Plan) and No. 333-116005 (Form S-4for the registration of 3,550,000 shares of common stock) ofour report dated March 18, 2004 (except for Note 2, as to which the date is March 14, 2005), withrespect to the financial statements and schedule as of December 29, 2003 and for each of the twoyears in the period December 29, 2003 included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedJanuary 3, 2005, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
New York, New York
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000766561
<NAME> HICKORY TECH CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            3633
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    14854
<ALLOWANCES>                                       517
<INVENTORY>                                       3147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 22651
<PP&E>                                          122294
<DEPRECIATION>                                   65277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  116060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11871
<BONDS>                                          41531
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           454
<OTHER-SE>                                       56583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    116060
<SALES>                                           6675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 20678
<CGS>                                             5137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    15066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5187
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3042
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67
        

</TABLE>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 11, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.203 Net Interbank Transactions** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32-1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. ss.1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report of Cosi, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for thefiscal year ended January 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Merritt, Interim Chief Executive Officer andPresident and Director of the Company and I, William Koziel, Chief Financial Officer,Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.        Date: March 19, 2007 /s/ ROBERT MERRITT   Robert Merritt   Interim Chief Executive
Exhibit 4.22

                                    AMENDMENT

THIS AMENDMENT is made September 20, 2003 among:

      March Networks  Corporation,  a Canadian business  corporation  having its
      offices  at  Tower  B,  555  Legget  Drive,  Ottawa,  ON K2K  2X3  ("March
      Networks")

-and-

      Mitel Networks  Corporation,  a Canadian business  corporation  having its
      offices at 350 Legget Drive, Ottawa, ON K2K 2W7 ("Mitel Networks")

-and-

      Mitel Networks  International  Limited, a Barbadian  business  corporation
      having its offices at Charnic Business Centre,  Spring Garden Highway, St.
      Michael, Barbados ("MNIL")

-and-

      Mitel Networks Limited,  a UK business  corporation  having its offices at
      Mitel Business Park, Portskewett, Caldicott, UK NPZ6 5YR ("MNL")

WHEREAS:

A.    March  Networks,  Mitel  Networks,  MNIL and MNL entered  into an alliance
      agreement  effective as of September 21, 2001 (the  "Alliance  Agreement")
      with a term of two years, expiring on September 20, 2003.

B.    Pursuant to Section 9.1 of the  Alliance  Agreement,  the parties  wish to
      renew the  Alliance  Agreement  on the same terms and  conditions  for one
      additional year term expiring on September 20, 2004.

NOW THEREFORE for good and valuable  consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby  acknowledged,  the parties to this Amendment hereby agree as
follows:

1.    The  term of the  Alliance  Agreement  is  hereby  extended  for one  year
      expiring September 20, 2004.


<PAGE>

2.    All terms and conditions of the Alliance Agreement to remain the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be signed by
their duly authorized representatives as of the date written above.

Mitel Networks Corporation                  March Networks Corporation

_________________________________           ___________________________________

_________________________________           ___________________________________

_________________________________           ___________________________________



Mitel Networks International Limited        Mitel Networks Limited

_________________________________           ___________________________________

_________________________________           ___________________________________

_________________________________           ___________________________________