alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Lee MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79-5555

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 25, 1980.

Richard B. Bergstresser, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Lurana S. Snow, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, REAYLEY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

Mitchell was arrested February 21, 1978, and given a preliminary hearing March 10, 1978. Fourteen and a half months after arrest Mitchell was indicted, with a codefendant, on multiple counts charging that he violated the National Firearms Registration & Transfer Act, by possessing, making and unlawfully transferring firearms (sawed off shotguns). In a bench trial, conducted July 25,1979, the court acquitted Mitchell on several counts on the basis of entrapment, because in these incidents Mitchell had produced unaltered shotguns and government agents had directed him where to saw off the barrels. Mitchell was convicted of incidents in which he had altered the guns ahead of time and delivered them in their illegal form.

The sole issue on appeal is whether Mitchell’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. *Barker v. Wingo,*407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The 15-month delay from arrest to indictment was sufficiently long to inquire into the other *Barker*factors. *U. S. v. Carter,*603 F.2d 1204 (5th Cir. 1979).

The government contends that it was conducting further investigation, as demonstrated by the indictment of the codefendant.

Mitchell says that he raised the speedy trial issue at his preliminary hearing. The hearing has not been transcribed. Five days after he was indicted he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial.

This case can be decided on the fourth prong of *Barker v. Wingo,*prejudice to the defendant. There was no oppressive pretrial incarceration, and Mitchell has not *1134contended that he was subjected to anxiety. His sole argument is that his defense was impaired. The major thrust concerns lapses of memory by Government Agent, and prosecution witness, Regentine. But her inability to recall details related to the occurrences for which Mitchell was acquitted. Mitchell also asserts that a material witness was unavailable, but this witness was not shown to have any relation to any incidents except the first, on which Mitchell was acquitted.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.(i)(H)(1)   
                               Schedule 1                         
                       To Long Term Credit Agreement






                                            Commitment   Termination       




The Bank of New York                       40,200,000       9/06/00
The Bank of Nova Scotia                    40,200,000       9/06/00
CIBC, Inc.                                 40,200,000       9/06/00
NationsBank of North Carolina              40,200,000       9/06/00
The Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd.   36,850,000       9/06/00
Credit Lyonnais Chicago Branch and Credit 
     Lyonnais Cayman Island Branch         33,500,000       9/06/00
The First National Bank of Chicago         33,500,000       9/06/00
Banca Commerciale Italiana, Chicago Branch 20,100,000       9/06/00
The Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank, Ltd., 
     Chicago Branch                        20,100,000       9/06/00
The Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd, Chicago Branch   20,100,000       9/06/00
Bank of America National Trust and Savings
     Association                           16,750,000       9/06/00
Bank of America Illinois                   16,750,000       9/06/00
The Northern Trust Company                 16,750,000       9/06/00
The Sakura Bank, Ltd.                      16,750,000       9/06/00
The Sanwa Bank, Ltd, Chicago Branch        16,750,000       9/06/00
Swiss Bank Corporation                     16,750,000       9/06/00
U.S. National Bank of Oregon               16,750,000       9/06/00
Union Bank                                 16,750,000       9/06/00
ABN AMRO Bank N.V.                         13,400,000       9/06/00
First Bank National Association            13,400,000       9/06/00
The First National Bank of Boston          13,400,000       9/06/00
The Fuji Bank, Ltd.                        13,400,000       9/06/00
PNC Bank, National Association             13,400,000       9/06/00
The Yasuda Trust and Banking Co., Ltd.     13,400,000       9/06/00
The First National Bank of Maryland        10,050,000       9/06/00
Istituto Bancario San Paolo di Torino, 
     S.P.A., New York Bank                 10,050,000       9/06/00
Kredietbank N.V.                           10,050,000       9/06/00
Union Bank of Switzerland, Chicago Branch  10,050,000       9/06/00
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.                     10,050,000       9/06/00
Banca di Roma, S.P.A.                       6,700,000       9/06/00
Comerica Bank                               6,700,000       9/06/00
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>                                                           5 

        
<S>                                                       <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         FEB-28-1993 
<PERIOD-START>                                            MAR-01-1992 
<PERIOD-END>                                              FEB-28-1993 
<CASH>                                                              0 
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0 
<PP&E>                                                              0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      0 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         768,912 
<BONDS>                                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                                         0 
<COMMON>                                                       50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                  1,141,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                (768,912)
<SALES>                                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    0 
<CGS>                                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<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>                                                        0      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0 

         

</TABLE>
10640.

#### GUGGENHEIMER *&*CO. *v.*WHITEHURST.

The evidence was insufficient to establish the contract set up in the defendant’s plea, and the verdict in his favor was without evidence to support it.

Decided January 6, 1920.

Complaint; from Twiggs superior court—Judge Kent. May 1, 1919.

*Hardeman, Jones, Park & Johnston,*for plaintiff.

*L. D. Moore,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

Suit was brought upon an open account, the defendant admitted the correctness of the account, and pleaded that the *651plaintiff had become indebted to him by reason of the breach of a certain contract for the shipment of other goods; the defendant alleged that the contract had been lost, and undertook to establish the contract. The evidence for the defendant was to the effect that he could but estimate the goods enumerated in the original contract, and there was no positive evidence from the defendant as to the exact items named in the contract. The evidence of the plaintiffs #was positive that no such contract as the defendant sought to establish was entered into; that they had no knowledge of any such purported agreement. The jury found a verdict in favor of the defendant.

From a careful examination of the record it appears that the defendant is unable to show a positive contract, or to show the essential of a contract,—that the minds of the parties were in accord as to the same agreement. The verdict for the defendant was without legal evidence to support it, and it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
  (1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Odimo Incorporated for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Odimo
Incorporated for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Odimo
Incorporated at the dates and for the periods indicated.
  Date: April 2, 2007
    /s/ Amerisa KornblumAmerisa KornblumChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive  Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                        68
<INVENTORY>                                      1,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,711
<PP&E>                                           2,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                     490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,583
<BONDS>                                            587
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,927
<SALES>                                          2,679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,679
<CGS>                                            1,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    137
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 85
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        85
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30199

Conference Calendar

 

WADE P. JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHNNY SCOTT, Captain,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-336-B

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wade P. Jackson, Louisiana prisoner No. 113076, has filed a

motion for permission to file a supplemental brief and a “Motion

for Written Verification and Answers.” The motions are DENIED. 

Jackson argues that the district court erred by entering

summary judgment in favor of the defendant without allowing

Jackson to complete discovery of his medical records. Jackson

has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion 

by entering summary judgment without ordering further discovery. 

Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990). 
For the first time on appeal, Jackson argues that the

defendant sprayed a “whole can” of mace into his cell and that he

has suffered permanent injuries as a result. These allegations

were not presented to the district court and they involve factual

matters that cannot be decided by this court for the first time

on appeal. Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th

Cir. 1995); United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.

1995).

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.03
 
                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in Station Casinos, Inc. and Crescent Real Estate Equities Company
joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and Registration Statement on Form S-4 of our 
report dated April 23, 1998 (except for Note 13, as to which the date is 
June 15, 1998 and Note 6, as to which the date is June 18, 1998) included in 
Station Casinos, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,
1998 and to all references to our Firm included in this joint Proxy Statement/
Prospectus and Registration Statement on Form S-4.  We have not audited any 
financial statements of Station Casinos, Inc. subsequent to March 31, 1998 or 
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.
 
                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Las Vegas, Nevada
June 24, 1998
10836.

#### Bell, administrator, v. Johnson.

Broyles, C. *J.*

This was a suit against an administrator, for damages on account of failure of the decedent to keep his promise to make a deed to the olamtiff to a certain tract of land, the consideration being “additional compensation for services rendered during last fifteen years *542and one dollar in hand paid.” The petition, properly construed (most strongly against the plaintiff), shows that no services were contemplated, but that all of the services had been rendered and fully paid for, and that the decedent’s statement to the plaintiff, that he was going to deed the land to her as *additional*compensation for her “services rendered during the last fifteen years,” was a mere voluntary promise, without any valid consideration to support it, and was therefore unenforceable. It follows that the court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Decided December 9, 1919.

Action for damages; from Decatur superior court—Judge Harrell. July 19, 1919.

*T. 8. Hawes,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. V. Custer,*J. *R. Wilson,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luhe and, Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                        INSPIRE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
                                RIGHTS AGREEMENT


     This First Amendment to the Rights Agreement by and between INSpire
Insurance Solutions, Inc. and U.S. Trust Company of Texas, N.A. dated as of July
30, 1997 (the "Rights Agreement") hereby amends the Rights Agreement as follows
effective as of April 7, 1998:

     1. Section 7(b), which describes the Exercise Price, is hereby amended by
deleting the first sentence and inserting in its place the following sentence:

     "The Exercise Price shall be $100.00 for each one one-hundredth (1/100) of
     a share of Preferred Stock issued pursuant to the exercise of a Right."

     2. As amended by the foregoing, the Rights Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.


                                      INSPIRE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC.


                                      By:
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         F. George Dunham, III
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer



                                      U.S. TRUST COMPANY OF TEXAS, N.A.


                                      By:
                                         -----------------------------------
                                      Name:
                                           ---------------------------------
                                      Title:
                                            --------------------------------
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of China Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha
Nutra, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Pu Yue, Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha Nutra, Inc.) and will be retained by China
Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha Nutra, Inc.) and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






May
      24, 2010
                
                /s/
      Pu YuePuYue (Principal Accounting and
      Financial
Officer)
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 March 31, 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.


May 12, 2005                         By    /s/ David A. Wheat
------------                               -------------------------------------
   (Date)                                    David A. Wheat
                                             Director, Senior Vice President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
Phase I Testing Laboratory

Relevant text in OFCA MRA 002 Issue 5

4. A foreign testing laboratory must fulfill the following requirements before it

becomes eligible for recognition by OFCA :

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) the scope of accreditation shall cover the equipment types and technical

regulations for which recognition is sought;

(d) ...

(e) ...

Scenario 1

Applicant Sub-contracted lab

Subcontract Passed

Scenario 2

Applicant No sub-contractor

Passed

No accreditation to 

radiation protection 

standardsreferenced 

in HKCA 2001

Accredited to 

radiation protection 

standardsreferenced 

in HKCA 2001

Accredited to 

radiation protection 

standardsreferenced 

in HKCA 2001
Accredited to 

radiation protection 

standardsreferenced 

in HKCA 2001

Phase II Certification Body

Relevant text in OFCA MRA 002 Issue 5

5. A foreign certification body (FCB) must fulfill the following requirements before 

it becomes eligible for recognition by OFCA:

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) ...

(d) the scope of accreditation of in-house testing laboratory combined with that of

the subcontracted testing laboratories shall cover the entire scope for which 

recognition is sought;

(e) ...

(f) ...

Scenario 1

Applicant Sub-contracted lab

Subcontract Passed

Scenario 2

Applicant No sub-contractor

Passed

Office of the Communications Authority

Hong Kong

June 2022

No accreditation to 

radiation protection

standardsreferenced 

in HKCA 2001

Accredited to 

radiation protection

standardsreferenced 

in HKCA 2001
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4299 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 410 South Jackson Road in Edinburg, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Dr. Miguel A. Neva ́rez Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 4299 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 410 South Jackson Road in Edinburg, Texas, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dr. Miguel A. 

5 Neva ́rez Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Dr. Miguel A Neva ́rez Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 428 Lower Tribunal No. CF 2 1

- 00 5554

- XX

_____________________________

J ODY H ILL I S , Appellant
,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

.

Melissa Gravitt , Judge.
February 13, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

.
TRAVER , C

. J. , and WHITE and SMITH , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Joanna Beth Conner, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AN D DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED