alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

See Appendix for a copy of Judge Clement’s order.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

March 28, 2001 Session

KAREN STEMPA, ET AL. v. WALGREEN CO., ET AL.

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County

No. 1-281-98 Dale C. Workman, Judge

FILED MAY 4, 2001

No. E2000-02223-COA-R3-CV

Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge, concurring.

I concur in the majority opinion authored by Judge Swiney, which is in accord with an

opinion by the Western Section of this Court sitting in Nashville, authored by Judge Lillard. I write

separately, however, to suggest that had this Court not already specifically spoken on the subject I

would be inclined to follow the reasoning of Circuit Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.,1 in the case of

Tillman v. Haffey, presently on appeal, which holds to the contrary.

_________________________________________

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
HJLK
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,471,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,986,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                   196,000
<INVENTORY>                                    387,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,699,970
<PP&E>                                       2,528,840
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,344,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,161,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,730,429
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     23,718
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,390,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,161,439
<SALES>                                      8,377,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,537,895
<CGS>                                        7,300,219
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,412,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             513,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,432,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,176)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,420,895)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,757,703)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,178,599)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.95)


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Tim Kopra and Yuri Malenchenko","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NOWldET6Go\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/tim-kopra-yuri-malenchenko-2\/\">Tim Kopra and Yuri Malenchenko<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/tim-kopra-yuri-malenchenko-2\/embed\/#?secret=NOWldET6Go\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Tim Kopra and Yuri Malenchenko” — NASA\" data-secret=\"NOWldET6Go\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/jsc2014e084472-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Christopher Raul Olivas, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-15-50146-PHX-DJH

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk or danger to any other person or to the community pursuant

to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

The Court also concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a

danger and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure

the safety of the community.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 5th day of February, 2018
CIPHER
HOLDING CORPORATION
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 Exhibit
31.1
 
 I,
Patrick Rooney, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer, certify
that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Cipher Holding
Corporation;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 4. The
Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such
disclosure controls and procedures 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
quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The
Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The
Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date:
October 19, 2005
 
 /s/Patrick
Rooney
 Chief
Executive Officer
\**Exhibit 10.2****KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.****INCENTIVE PLAN****RESTRICTED UNIT CERTIFICATE**     This Certificate, when executed by a duly authorized officer of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(the “Company”) and by Participant, evidences the grant by the Company to the Participant namedbelow of Restricted Units of the Company.     1. Name and Address of Participant:                                     2. Date of Grant:            3. Type of Grant: Restricted Units          4. Number of Shares:            5. Restricted Period: The restrictions upon the Restricted Unitsshall lapse upon the first anniversary of thedate of grant.     6. Date of Payment:                     , except as otherwise set forthin the Restricted Unit Grant Agreement.This Restricted Unit grant is subject to and governed by the terms of this Restricted UnitCertificate, the Restricted Unit Grant Agreement attached hereto and incorporated by referenceherein and the Company’s Incentive Plan.       **KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**       By:           Name:    Title:       **PARTICIPANT**        This Restricted Unit Certificate may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of whichshall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute but one and the sameinstrument. Facsimile or photographic copies of originally signed copies of this Restricted UnitCertificate will be deemed to be originals.
 

 
**RESTRICTED UNIT GRANT AGREEMENT**
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

October 15, 2010

By the Court:

No. 09‐3847

GREGORY J. TURLEY, Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Southern

Plaintiff‐Appellant, District of Illinois.

v. No. 3:09‐cv‐00829–GPM

DONALD GAETZ, et al., G. Patrick Murphy, Judge.

Defendants‐Appellees.

O R D E R

The opinion of this court issued on October 14, 2010, is WITHDRAWN.  This appeal

remains under advisement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SCHMITT
INDUSTRIES, INC. INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT AND CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED MAY 31, 1999, 1998, AND 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         268,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,423,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,444,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,507,929
<PP&E>                                       2,580,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                 926,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,282,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          695,854
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,284,445
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,282,414
<SALES>                                      7,957,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,957,723
<CGS>                                        4,145,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,303,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               118,310
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (22,736)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (395,274)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (135,967)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (295,307)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
October 30, 2015

Hon. Keith Hottle, Clerk Fourth Court of Appeals 300 Dolorosa Ste 3200 San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037 Re: Lieber v. State; No. 04-14-00818-CR Dear Mr. Hottle: Mr. Schulman, who appeared for the State at oral argument on October 13, 2015, reported that Justice Martinez asked questions regarding whether expecting the defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of the value of stolen property constituted a shifting of the burden of proof. Please advise the members of the Court that the State does not believe the defendant is required to put on any evidence of value, and that it remains the State’s burden to establish the value of the stolen items beyond a reasonable doubt. However, as was recently stated by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Bullock v. State , S.W.3d (Tex.App. - Houston [14th] No. 14-14-00304-CR; October 20, 2015): In a theft case, the State has the burden to prove the property’s value through evidence of either “(1) its fair market value at the time and place of the offense, or (2) the cost of replacing it within a reasonable time after the theft if fair market value could not be ascertained.” Smiles v. State , 298 S.W.3d 716, 719 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (citing Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.08). “Fair market value is the amount of money that the property would sell for in cash, given a reasonable time for selling it.” Id. When an owner of the property testifies about value, we “presume that an owner’s testimony regarding the value of property is an estimation of the property’s fair market value.” Id. An owner may testify about fair market value “in terms of purchase price or the cost to him of replacing the stolen property.” Id . “Because such testimony is an offer of the owner’s best knowledge of the value of his property, it is legally sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to make a determination as to value based on the owner’s credibility as a witness.” Id. “If a defendant wishes to rebut the owner’s opinion evidence as to value he must do more than merely impeach the witness’s credibility during cross-examination; he must actually offer controverting evidence as to the value of the stolen item.” Id

. Bullock , slip op. at 3. ACCEPTED 04-14-00818-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/30/2015 8:50:23 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKIt is the State’s p osition that the defendant is entitled to introduce evidence c ontr o v e rt i n g the evidence

produced b y the State as to the value o f the stolen property if he or she chooses to do so. The defendant is never required, however, to introduce any evidence. The jury, of course, is free to accept either the evidence introduced by the State or that introduced by the defendant.

In the instant case, Appellant chose to introduce what he perceived to be controverting evidence as to v alue. The jury rejected that evidence, as it was free to do. Please accept this letter as a supplem ental post-subm ission letter brief.

Enclosures cc: M. Patrick Maguire
|Exhibit 31.1
|------------

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard J. Fitzpatrick, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cowlitz Bancorporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,
and other financial information included in this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly 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; and

c) disclosed in this quarterly 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
likely to materially affect the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies 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; and

b) 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 13, 2006
|-----------------------



| | /s/ Richard J. FitzpatrickRichard J. Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive OfficerCowlitz Bancorporation
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# DATE AND TIME:

 Thursday, October 30, 2014, 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE:

 Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

# SUBJECT:

 Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

# SUMMARY:

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its August 13, 2014 meeting and a resolution to propose Board meeting dates in 2015. The Board will consider establishing a new Board special committee on the future of the Voice of America. The Board will convene a panel discussion titled, “What's the Secret to Media Brand Loyalty? Storytelling in the Digital Age.”

                        This meeting will also be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web site at                         *www.bbg.gov.*                         Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's public Web site.                    

                        The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at                         *https://bbgboardmeetingoctober2014.eventbrite.com*                         by 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on October 29. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 203-4400 or by email at                         *pubaff@bbg.gov.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,

Director of Board Operations.

[FR Doc. 2014-25381 Filed 10-22-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8160-01-P