alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10626.

#### Booth *v.*The State.

Decided October 14, 1919.

Indictment for arson; from Sumter superior court—Judge Little-john. May 3, 1919.

*Hixon & Pace,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jule Felton, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bboyles, C. J.

1. The court’ did not err in excluding as hearsay the testimony set out in the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. The defendant in a criminal case can not impeach a witness voluntarily called by him, except where he can show to the court that he has been entrapped by the witness by previous contradictory statements. Penal Code (1910), § 1050. This rule applies where the defendant voluntarily calls as a witness one who has been subpoenaed by the State as a witness, but who has not been put upon the stand. And in such a case it is not error for the judge, after the defendant has examined the witness, to refuse to allow the defendant to contradict the witness’s testimony where there is no contention that he-(the defendant) was entrapped by the witness by previous contradictory statements. This is true even though the judge may have inadvertently suggested this procedure to the defendant’s counsel.

3. There is no substantial merit in any of the other grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

4. The evidence amply authorized the conviction, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., eoneur.*
AMENDMENT TO PLAN AND AGREEMENT OF MERGER

     AMENDMENT, made and entered into as of June __, 1996 (this "Amendment"), to
the PLAN AND  AGREEMENT  OF  MERGER,  dated as of April 24,  1996  (the  "Merger
Agreement"),  by and between J.  MICHAELS,  INC.,  a New York  corporation  (the
"Company"),   and  MURIEL  SIEBERT   CAPITAL  MARKETS  GROUP  INC.,  a  Delaware
corporation wholly-owned by Muriel Siebert ("MSCMG").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the Company and MSCMG have entered into the Merger Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and MSCMG desire to amend the Merger Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1.  Amendment  to the  Merger  Agreement.  Section  10.1(d)  of the  Merger
Agreement shall be amended by deleting reference to "July 30, 1996" appearing in
the third line thereof and substituting in its place "September 30, 1996."

     2. Approval of this Amendment.  All authorizations,  approvals and consents
(including consents of the Boards of Directors)  necessary for the execution and
delivery by the Company and MSCMG of this Amendment have been given or made.

     3.  Governing  Law.  This  Amendment  shall be  construed  and  enforced in
accordance  with and governed by the laws of the State of New York applicable to
contracts executed in and to be performed solely within such state.

     4. Status of the Merger  Agreement.  All other terms and  conditions of the
Merger Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, as amended hereby.

     5.  Miscellaneous.  (a)  Headings.  All headings in this  Amendment are for
convenience  of  reference  only and are not  intended  to limit or  affect  the
meaning of any provision hereof.

     (b)   Counterparts.   This  Amendment  may  be  executed  in  one  or  more
counterparts  with the same effect as if the signatures to all such counterparts
were upon the same instrument,  and all such  counterparts  shall constitute but
one instrument.






<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed
by a duly  authorized  officer  and to become  effective  as of the day and year
first above written.


                                        J. MICHAELS, INC.


                                        By:  /S/  JAMES MICHAELS, President
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              Name: James Michaels
                                              Title: Pres


                                         MURIEL SIEBERT CAPITAL MARKETS
                                           GROUP INC.


                                         By: /S/  MURIEL F. SIEBERT
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              Name: Muriel F. Fiebert
                                              Title:



                                       -2-
Exhibit 11.1

# MESTEK, INC.

# Schedule of
Computation of Earnings Per Common Share

|                                                       |         | Years Ended December 31, |          
|------------------------------------------------------ | ------- | ------------------------ | ---------
|
|
|Income (Loss)                                          | $21,534 | ($43,165)                | ($1,071) 
|Cumulative Effect of a Change in Accounting Principle:
|Gross Impairment (Expense)                             | ---     | ---                      | (31,633) 
|Tax Benefit                                            | ---     | ---                      | 2,299    
|Net Impairment (Expense)                               | ---     | ---                      | (29,334) 
|Net Income (Loss)                                      | $21,534 | ($43,165)                | ($30,405)
|Basic Earnings (Loss) per Common Share:               
|Net Income (Loss) before Cumulative Effect             | $2.49   | ($4.95)                  | ($0.12)  
|Cumulative Effect of a Change in Accounting Principle  | ---     | ---                      | (3.36)   
|Net Income (Loss)                                      | $2.49   | ($4.95)                  | ($3.48)  
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding              | 8,658   | 8,722                    | 8,722    
|Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share              
|Net Income (Loss) before Cumulative Effect             | $2.48   | ($4.95)                  | ($0.12)  
|Cumulative Effect of a Change in Accounting Principle  | ---     | ---                      | (3.36)   
|Net Income (Loss)                                      | $2.48   | ($4.95)                  | ($3.48)  
|Diluted Weighted Average Shares Outstanding            | 8,678   | 8,722                    | 8,722
Exhibit 99.1


      Certification of Chief Executive Officer/Principal Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Valley Forge Scientific
Corp., I, Jerry L. Malis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Valley Forge
Scientific Corp., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

          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 this report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of Valley Forge Scientific Corp.


Date: May 13, 2003                     /s/ JERRY L. MALIS
                                       ----------------------------
                                       Jerry L. Malis
                                       President,
                                       Chief Executive Officer, and
                                       Principal Financial Officer


                                      -21-
Exhibit 10.8 

SCHEDULE OFDIRECTORS/OFFICERS 

IndemnificationAgreements 

        TheIndemnification Agreement entered into by the Directors and/or Officers of Mestek, Inc.and certain Directors of Mestek’s wholly owned subsidiaries are identical in allrespects, except for the name of the indemnified director or officer and the date ofexecution. 

        Setforth below is the identity of each director and officer of Mestek, Inc. and the date uponwhich the above Indemnification Agreement was executed by the Director or Officer.
Employment letter



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 November 28, 2005 
  
 Mr. Robert Kees 
 2806 Northlake Drive 
 Richmond, VA 23233 
  
 Dear Bob: 
  
 It is with great pleasure that we offer to you the
position of Senior Vice President and CFO with Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. 
  
 Should you accept the position, you will report to Jack Reasor, and your salary will be $8,601.42 gross per pay period. Effective January 1, 2006, your vacation accrual will be 6.67 hours per pay period, 20 days per year. Effective
January 1, 2007, your vacation accrual will be 8.34 hours per pay period, 25 days per year. Your responsibilities and salary may be subject to periodic review and modification in accordance with Old Dominion’s operational needs, as they
may change over time. Your employment with Old Dominion is at-will and is indefinite. 
  
 This offer is made on the condition that you accept this offer by signing and returning the enclosed copy to Old Dominion so that we receive it by November 30, 2005, and that you agree to commence your duties on January 1, 2006.

  
 Sincerely, 
  
 Tammy M. Coburn 
 Human Resources Coordinator 
  
 AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY: 
  

					
	 /s/ Robert L. Kees

	  	 	  	Dated: 11/28/05
	Bob Kees
Order filed October 5 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00652

- CV

____________ LINDA M. SMITH , Appellant

V.

MARY DAVIS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 09413



### ORDER
Appellant’s brief was filed on September 15, 2015 . The c ourt has determined that appellant has not properly presented this cause in the brief on file. Appellant failed to substantially comply with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. In particular, appellant has failed to provide “clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities
and to the record.” T ex. R. App. P. 38.1( i ).Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 38.9, the court orders appe llant to rebrief. See

Tex. R. App

. P. 38.9 . Appellant’s amended brief is due 30 days from the date of
this order , and appellee’s responsive brief shall be due 30 days after appellant’s
revised brief is filed. If appellant fails to file a brief on or before November 5 , 2015 , the appeal will be dism issed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32(a)

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 DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Michael S. Steiner, Principal Executive 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 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.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 26, 2006

| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ Michael S. Steiner     
| |                            
| | Michael S. Steiner         
| | Principal Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,654
<PP&E>                                     180,400,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              96,090,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,325,859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,505
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  84,199,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,325,859
<SALES>                                      3,452,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,463,055
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  408,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,054,782
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,054,782
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
October 20, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DANIEL LIMBRICK, Appellant

NO. 14-10-00390-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28649]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of Commission Business Meeting.

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

DATES: Date and Time: Friday, December 12, 2014; 9:30 a.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Place: 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, 
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public 
Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#205349474e4c414e47554147456055534343520e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c2f353b32303d323b293d3b391c292f3f3f2e723b332a">[email protected]</span></a> at least seven 
business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Program Planning
    <bullet> Review and Vote of the 2015 Statutory Enforcement Report 
Discovery Plan
    <bullet> Discussion and Vote on Updating Select Commission Reports
III. Management and Operations
    <bullet> Presentations from the Illinois and Georgia SAC Chairs on 
their Immigration Projects
    <bullet> Staff Director's Report
IV. State Advisory Committee (SAC) Appointments
    <bullet> Indiana
V. Adjourn Meeting

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Marlene Sallo,
Staff Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-28649 Filed 12-3-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
10439.

#### Cox *v.*Charles Cone Realty Company.

Decided October 9, 1919.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Ellis. January 22, 1919.

The exceptions were to the overruling of a certiorari in a case from the municipal court of Atlanta in which W. S. Cox was sued by the Charles Cone Realty Company for a commission of $190 alleged to be due the plaintiff as agent for the defendant in the sale of a certain meat market and grocery store. The trial in the municipal court resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount sued for. The defendant, in his petition for certiorari, contended that the judgment was contrary to law and without evidence to support it, because “the declaration alleges that W. S. Cox is due the plaintiff certain commissions for the sale of a meat market and grocery store, whereas it is shown by the proof that said market was owned by a partnership composed of W. S. & H. J. Cox, and that H. J. Cox, a member of said firm, employed the plaintiff to sell the place of business owned by said partnership.” The answer to the suit was a general denial of indebtedness. There was evidence that W. S. Cox was the owner of the meat market and store at the time of the sale, that the business conducted there had been held out to the public as a partnership business under the name of Cox Brothers, and was listed with the plaintiff for sale under that name by H. J. Cox, the defendant’s brother, that the preliminary negotiations in the sale were conducted through H. J. Cox, and that W. S. Cox ratified the acts of H. J. Cox and prior to the consummation of the sale agreed personally to pay the commission.

*Anton L. Etheridge, F. A. Hooper & Son,*for plaintiff in error,

cited: 11 Ga. App. 517*(3); 21 Ga. App.*436-8.

*O. L. Pettigrew, Robert H. Jones Jr.,*contra,

cited: 27 Ga. 305; 131 *Ga.*637 (4).

Bloodworth, J.

The judge of the superior court did not err in this case in rendering the following judgment: “It is considered, ordered and adjudged, that the within certiorari be and the same is hereby overruled and the judgment allowed to proceed in favor of Chas. Cone Realty Co. *v.*W. S. Cox, for the principal sum of one hundred ninety and no/100 dollars, interest and costs.”

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and*Luke, *J., concur.*
WWW.EXFILE.COM, INC. -- 13929 -- MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. -- EXHIBIT 10.3 TO FORM 10-Q


    EXHIBIT
      10.3

    
 

    AMENDMENT
      #2

    TO
      

    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

     

    AMENDMENT
      #2, dated as of September 30, 2005, between Michelle Rush (“Borrower”),
      and Medis
      Technologies Ltd., a Delaware corporation (“Lender”).

     

    WHEREAS,
      Borrower has heretofore delivered to Lender a Promissory Note, dated as of
      April
      25, 2005 (the “Note”);
      and

     

    WHEREAS,
      such Note was amended by the Borrower and Lender in an amendment dated as of
      May
      9, 2005, and

     

    WHEREAS,
      Borrower and Lender desire to further amend the Note as hereinafter set
      forth.

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, the
      parties agree as follows:

     

    1.    The
      Note
      is hereby amended to change the maturity date from September 30, 2005 to
      November 30, 2005.

     

    2.    Except
      as
      expressly amended hereby and in the amendment dated May 9, 2005, the Note shall
      remain in full force and effect.

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower
      and Lender have executed this Amendment #2 as of the date hereinabove set
      forth.

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	MICHELLE
              RUSH, Borrower
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/ Michelle
              Rush
	 	
              

            
	 	 


    

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	MEDIS
              TECHNOLOGIES LTD., Lender
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/
              Howard Weingrow
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 8, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Capstar Broadcasting Corporation and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1997, and for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 1997.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Austin, Texas
August 31, 1998
10867.

#### CHILDS *v.*THE STATE.

The evidence failed to identify the pecans in the possession of the accused as pecans taken from the house alleged to have been broken into; and the verdict finding him guilty was unauthorized.

Decided December 12, 1919.

Indictment for burglary; from Crisp superior court—Judge Dower. July 23, 1919.

*590
      *J. T. Hill, J. L. Wimberly,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Wall, solicitor-general, Drum & Jones,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The indictment in this case charges that plaintiff in error “did unlawfully, fraudulently, and privately take” from a certain house, into which he had broken and entered, “four hundred pounds of pecan nuts of the personal goods of the Byrom Corporation.” The evidence showed that the pecans “that were missed from that house were paper-shell pecans, Schleys;” that the Byrom Corporation had pecans stored at other places near the house alleged to have been burglarized, and that “there were some paper-shell trees in the cottonfield cultivated by this boy.” Some days after the date of the alleged burglary the accused sold some paper-shell pecans to each of two witnesses, Howard and Statham. In his statement the defendant said in part, “Of course I hauled a few pecans over the river and sold them to Mr. Howard and Mr. Statham, but I didn’t take none out of no house, and I haven’t been in no house at all, nobody’s house. I ain’t been accused of no burglary at all before; they had a lot of pecans around the house and we would gather them, we would pick them up on the roadside, and on my farm I picked up a right smart of them. Mr. Mayo he told me to keep the pecan trees on my part of the farm cleaned around good and nice, and to keep_ the grass from around them, and I could use some of them, and well, I picked up some, of them, a good deal of them, and my folks when they was working would pick up some of them, and we would get some there at twelve o’clock, pick them up around the house and in my cotton there, and I didn’t have no intention of stealing, I wasn’t stealing them at all, I thought I had a right to them when I hired under Mr. Mayo.” There is no evidence to show that the pecans sold to Howard and Statham were “Schleys,” and no evidence to show that they were the identical pecans that came from the house alleged to have been broken into. The evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.

2. As a new trial must be ordered under the forgoing ruling, it is unnecessary to consider the allegations of error other than those dealt with above.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, Q. J., and Luke, J., concur.*