alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUBROUTINE LOGSF(P,SF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE SPARSITY
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE LOGISTIC DISTRIBUTION 
C              WITH MEAN = 0 AND STANDARD DEVIATION = PI/SQRT(3).
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION IS DEFINED FOR ALL X AND HAS
C              THE PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION
C              F(X) = EXP(X)/(1+EXP(X)).
C              NOTE THAT THE SPARSITY FUNCTION OF A DISTRIBUTION
C              IS THE DERIVATIVE OF THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION,
C              AND ALSO IS THE RECIPROCAL OF THE PROBABILITY
C              DENSITY FUNCTION (BUT IN UNITS OF P RATHER THAN X).
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--P      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE 
C                                (BETWEEN 0.0 AND 1.0)
C                                AT WHICH THE SPARSITY
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--SF     = THE SINGLE PRECISION
C                                SPARSITY FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION SPARSITY
C             FUNCTION VALUE SF.
C     PRINTING--NONE UNLESS AN INPUT ARGUMENT ERROR CONDITION EXISTS. 
C     RESTRICTIONS--P SHOULD BE BETWEEN 0.0 AND 1.0, EXCLUSIVELY.
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--FILLIBEN, SIMPLE AND ROBUST LINEAR ESTIMATION
C                 OF THE LOCATION PARAMETER OF A SYMMETRIC
C                 DISTRIBUTION (UNPUBLISHED PH.D. DISSERTATION,
C                 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY), 1969, PAGES 21-44, 229-231.
C               --FILLIBEN, 'THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION',
C                 (UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT), 1970, PAGES 28-31.
C               --JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--2, 1970, PAGES 1-21.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--JUNE      1972. 
C     UPDATED         --SEPTEMBER 1975. 
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS
C
      IF(P.LE.0.0.OR.P.GE.1.0)GOTO50
      GOTO90
   50 WRITE(IPR,1)
      WRITE(IPR,46)P
      RETURN
   90 CONTINUE
    1 FORMAT(1H ,115H***** FATAL ERROR--THE FIRST  INPUT ARGUMENT TO THE
     1 LOGSF  SUBROUTINE IS OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE (0,1) INTERVAL *****)
   46 FORMAT(1H , 35H***** THE VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS ,E15.8,6H *****)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      SF=1.0/(P-P*P)
C
      RETURN
      END
11011.

#### Edwards *v.*The State. Parks *v.*The State. Scott *v.*The State.

11012.

11013.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendants were convicted of a misdemeanor,— larceny from the house. The accusation charged that the articles stolen were “of the personal goods of J. L. Brannon and Company, and in the storehouse of the said J. L. Brannon and Company.” No demurrer to the accusation was interposed. Upon the trial the proof showed that all the property in the storehouse belonged to J. L. Brannon, but that the business was conducted in the name of J. L. Brannon & Company. This did not amount to a substantial variance between the allegata and probata, but was a mere technical and immaterial difference. See, in this connection, *Rogers*v. *State,*90 *Ga.*463 (16 S. E. 205); *Hainey*v. *State,*107 *Ga.*711 (33 S. E. 418); *Weaver*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*550 (42 S. E. 745); *Smith*v. *State,*121 *Ga.*618 (49 S. E. 677); *Thomas*v. *State,*125 *Ga.*286 (54 S. E. 182).

2. In a criminal case both the corpus delicti and the identity of the stolen property can be shown by circumstances. In this case the circumstantial evidence adduced to establish these two essential facts was extremely weak, but this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that the finding of the jury thereon was unsupported by any evidence; and, the finding having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.

3. Under the well-settled principle of law that all persons who assist or abet another in the commission of a misdemeanor are equally guilty as principals, the evidence in this case authorized the conviction of all *654three of the defendants, and the court did not err in refusing the ■written request to charge set out in the motion for a new trial.

Decided January 6, 1920.

Accusation of larceny from bouse; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Nunnally. October 6, 1919.

*W. B. Mebane,*for plaintiffs in error.

J. *F. Kelly, solicitor,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., coneur.*
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 Section 302 Certification
 
 I, Lowell W. Giffhorn, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Scientific Corportion;
  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 in order 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 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 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; and
  c) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting ;
  5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 function):
  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; 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: October 20, 2004
By:
/s/ Lowell W. GiffhornLowell W. GiffhornChief Financial Officer
|   | **Exhibit 32.2** |
|--------|------------------|

 

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| November 10, 2005

  | By:    | /s/        Brian D. Comer |   |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| (Date)

             |   | Brian D. Comer

President

 

                |   |
10887.

#### Keys *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for burglary; from Bartow superior court—Judge Tarver. August 2, 1919.

*W. G. Henson, A. L.*Henson, for plaintiff in error.

J. *M. Lang, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyt.es, C. J'.

1. The court did not err in failing to charge the jury upon the law of larceny.

2. The alleged newly discovered evidence, which is the basis of the second special ground of the motion for a new trial, is cumulative in character and is not such evidence as would probably cause a different result upon another trial of the case.

3. The evidence amply authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
H. R. 4176

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 122 West

Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Bobby Marshall Gentry Post

Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

122 West Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North Carolina, shall be

known and designated as the ‘‘Bobby Marshall Gentry Post Office

Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Bobby

Marshall Gentry Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
H. Res. 530

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 11, 1998.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.

Attest:

Clerk.
Fourth Amendment of Restricted Stock Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.78.2 
  
 FOURTH AMENDMENT OF RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT 
  
 This Fourth Amendment of Restricted Stock Award Agreement is between Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. (“Path 1”)
and John Zavoli (“Zavoli”) as of September 23, 2005. It amends the Restricted Stock Award Agreement between the parties dated October 23, 2003, as amended to date (the “Agreement”). 
  
 Zavoli is Path 1’s Director, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief
Financial Officer, General Counsel and Secretary. This Amendment is entered into in anticipation of Zavoli’s resignation as Director, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Secretary and an employee.

  
 1. A new Section 17 is added to the Agreement to read in
full as follows: 
  
 17. Resignation.
Notwithstanding anything in Section 3(b) or Section 16 to the contrary, in the event Zavoli resigns as Director, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Secretary and an employee effective
September 23, 2005, 10,000 of the shares of Restricted Stock shall vest immediately on September 23, 2005, whether or not such day is within a “closed window period,” and shall thereupon become Vested Stock; and thereupon the
provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 16 shall entirely cease to be effective as to those 10,000 shares; and all the remaining 55,000 shares shall vest immediately on the Special Vest Date, whether or not such day is within
a “closed window” period, and shall thereupon become Vested Stock; and thereupon the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 16 shall entirely cease to be effective as to those 55,000 shares; provided, that of Zavoli does not serve
Path 1 as an (unpaid) consultant through the Special Vest Date, such 55,000 shares shall not vest but instead shall be forfeited. The “Special Vest Date” shall be the second business day after Path 1’s third-quarter 2005 earnings
announcement. 
  
 2. The parties acknowledge that Zavoli never
entered into the Rule 10b5-l stock selling plan contemplated by Section 16 of the Agreement. 
  
 3. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect. 
  
 4. The parties acknowledge that they have the right to have been represented
by legal counsel of their own choosing, and that Heller Ehrman LLP and Hayden Trubitt are representing Path 1 and are not representing Zavoli. 
  

			
	
	 /s/ John Zavoli

	 JOHN ZAVOLI

	
	 PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Frederick Cary

	 	 	 Frederick Cary, Director and Authorized Agent
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-01-1998
<CASH>                                         858,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  323,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,182,076
<PP&E>                                      15,139,413
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,556,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,764,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,764,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,764,993
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               841,323
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  471,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   323,773
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
First Amendment to the A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 A. T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2005) 
  
 The A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is amended as follows: 
  
 1. The following new Section 7.04 is added to the Plan: 
  

	7.04.	Termination of Deferral Election for 409A Funds 

  
 A Participant may elect in accordance with Question and Answer 20 of IRS Notice 2005-1 to terminate any or all of his deferral(s) for any 409A Funds which
are held in the Plan and are vested as of December 31, 2005 (whether or not attributable to his deferral election or the Company’s contributions, and as adjusted for earnings or loss). Any such termination election shall be filed with the
Company a form specified by the Committee by such election deadline as it may set but in no event later than December 31, 2005. Any amount to be distributed pursuant to this Section shall be included in the Participant’s income for federal
income tax purposes in calendar year 2005 and shall be distributed on or before December 31, 2005. 
  
 As evidence of its adoption of this amendment of the Plan, A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc. has caused this document to be signed by its undersigned
officer, this 14th day of November, 2005, effective January 1, 2005. 
  

			
	A. T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, INC.
	
	 /s/ Don L. Blankenship


	By:	 	Don L. Blankenship
	Its:	 	Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	and President
Exhibit 21.1

# LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES As of January 4, 2005

# 

|                                                            | Jurisdiction of
|----------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------
|
|Advanced Thermal Hydronics, Inc.                            |                
|Axon Electric, LLC                                          |                
|Boyertown Foundry Company                                   |                
|Deltex Partners, Inc.                                       |                
|Engel Industries, Inc.                                      |                
|Formtek, Inc.                                               |                
|Met-Coil Systems, LLC                                       |                
|Hill Engineering, Inc.                                      |                
|Formtek Metal Forming, Inc. (f/k/a Formtek Cleveland, Inc.) |                
|Yoder Manufacturing, Inc. (sub of SNS)                      |                
|Iowa Rebuilders, Inc.                                       |                
|Formtek Metalforming Integration, LLC                       |                
|Formtek Metal Processing, Inc.                              |                
|Formtek Machinery (Beijing) Co., Ltd                        |                
|Gentex Partners, Inc.                                       |                
|Mestex, Ltd. (Texas limited partnership)                    |                
|Yorktown Properties, Ltd. (Texas limited partnership)       |                
|Keyser Properties, Inc.                                     |                
|Lexington Business Trust (Massachusetts business trust)     |                
|1470604 Ontario, Inc.                                       |                
|Mestek Canada, Inc.                                         |                
|Omega Flex, Inc.                                            |                
|Omega Flex Limited                                          |                
|Exton Ranch, Inc.                                           |                
|Pacific/Air Balance, Inc.                                   |                
|Westcast, Inc.                                              |
11039.

#### Walker *v.*The State.

Decided January 6, 1920.

Indictment for possession of intoxicating liquor; from Newton superior court—Judge Hutcheson. October 25, 1919.

*Rogers & Knox,*for plaintiff in error.

*George M. Napier, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant, upon the hearing of his motion for a continuance on account of an absent witness, not showing that the witness had been subpoenaed, or that he expected to have the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court, the court did not err in overruling the motion.

2. There being both direct and circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant with the transaction charged, the court did not err, in the absence of a timely written request, in failing to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Chancellor Media Corporation:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-36855, 333-44401 and 333-47629) and the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-83124, 333-04379 and 333-35039) of Chancellor
Media Corporation of our report dated February 10, 1998 except for notes 2(b)
paragraphs 1 and 3-5 as to which the date is February 20, 1998 and 9(b)
paragraph 6 as to which the date is March 13, 1998, related to the consolidated
balance sheet of Chancellor Media Corporation and subsidiaries as of December
31, 1997 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows and related financial statement schedules for the year
ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Chancellor Media Corporation.

                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Dallas, Texas
March 30, 1998
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135606 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: 135606 COA: 280754 Muskegon CC: 81-023561-FY BENJAMIN J. ALLISON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0616 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
RAKESH VERMA

,

Appellant,

v.

NEHA VERMA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2061

_________________ ____________/

Opinion filed June 13, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. James H. Daniel , Judge

.

Rakesh Verma, pro se

, Appellant.

Neha Verma, pro se

, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED

.

ROBERTS, C. J., WOLF and RAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.