alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.1






          Excerpt from the Notice of Meeting and Proxy Statement of the
Registrant dated October 7, 1996 and filed with the Commission on October 15,
1996.

          On August 28, 1995, Mr. Guarino and North Star Distributors, Inc.,
now known as Metro, Inc., were indicted in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada for the interstate transportation of allegedly obscene
video cassettes in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1462 and 2.  The charges
regarded two shipments made by North Star into Las Vegas, Nevada in June and
July, 1991, prior to the acquisition of North Star by the Company; accordingly
the previous owner of North Star agreed to indemnify the Company for all legal
fees incurred and fines paid in connection with the defense of this matter.  On
September 24, 1996, in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of
litigation, the Company pled guilty to the one count of the indictment and 
agreed to pay a fine of $200,000 (which fine will be paid by the former owner
of North Star and will have no impact on the Company's financial condition). 
The charges against Mr. Guarino were dismissed. Even though North Star entered
a plea of guilty to effect a settlement of this matter, there was no judgement 
or finding that the videotapes were obscene or violated any law.








                                       16
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10059 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Tommy Allen Dickenson,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:21

- CR

- 60

- 1

Before **Southwick, Oldham,**  and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Tommy Allen Dickenson appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He contends for the first time on appeal that Section 922(g) is an unconstitutional exercise of power under t he Commerce Clause and,

* Pur suant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
Ju ly 25, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10059 Document: 00516405473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2022No. 22

- 10059

2 alternatively, that it should be construed to require either recent movement of a firearm across state lines or movement in commerce as a consequence of the defendant’s conduct. Dickenson acknowledges that these arguments are forec losed , but he explains that he seeks to preserve them for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file its brief.
As Dickenson concedes, his arguments are foreclos ed . See United States v. Perryman , 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 2524 (2021). The Government is thus correct that summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
**GRANTED** , the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time
to file a brief is **DENIED** , and the district court’s judgment is

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-10059 Document: 00516405473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2022
10594.

#### BENTON TRADING COMPANY *v.*BAILEY.

It not appearing that the alleged promise of the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the plaintiff’s execution against another was in writing, or that the promisor was, by mutual agreement of the plaintiff, the debtor, and himself, substituted for the debtor, and the original debtor released, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition, from which it appeared that the defendant bought from the debtor certain property under an agreement to take up the liens against it, and promised the plaintiff to pay off the execution if the plaintiff would not levy on the debtor’s property, *241and that, relying on this promise, the plaintiff did not levy, and thereafter the defendant in execution became insolvent.

Decided October 9, 1919.

Complaint; from Miller superior court—Judge Worrill. April 39, 1919.

*M. E. O’Neal, N. L. Stapleton,*for plaintiff,

cited: *Holcomb*v. *Mashburn,*10 *Ga. App.*783, and cit.; Clark on Contracts, 98, 100; *Sext*v. *Geise,*80 *Ga.*698; Civil Code (1910), § 3333 (3); *Stovall*v. *Hairston,*55 *Ga.*1; *Vason*v. *Beall,*58 *Ga.*507 (3); *Wooten*v. *Wilcox,*87 *Ga.*474.

*W. I. Geer,*for defendant,

cited: Civil Code (1910), § 3333; *Davis*v. *Tift,*70 *Ga.*53 (3); *Bedingfield*v. *Lamb,*19 *Ga. App.*486, and cases cited in the following decision.

Luke, J.

Benton Trading Company brought suit against Bailey alleging that it owned an execution against Spooner; that Bailey notified it and its attorney that he had purchased practically all the real estate and personal property of Spooner, and that undeT the terms of the purchase he was to assume all liens against the property and pay to Spooner the remainder of the purchase-price; that he did not wish the plaintiff to levy the execution on Spooner’s property; that if they would wait for awhile he would pay the fi. fa. in full; that subsequently he did pay $400 on the execution, and that, relying on Bailey’s promise to pay the execution, the plaintiff did not levy the fi. fa., that Spooner thereafter became insolvent; and by reason thereof the plaintiff was damaged in an amount equal to the balance due on the execution. The defendant demurred, upon the grounds: that the petition set forth no cause of action; that it did not appear that the promise to pay was in writing; that the petition failed to show that the plaintiff was prevented from levying the fi. fa.; and that there was no agreement between the three persons and concurred in by them whereby Spooner was released and Bailey accepted as the debtor.

It was not error for the court to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the suit. In every such case, in order to take the transaction out of the operation of the statute of frauds, it must appear that the person substituted for the debtor was, by agreement between the creditor, the debtor, and himself, substituted for the original debtor, and the latter released from the obligation. See *Palmetto Mfg. Co.*v. *Parker,*123 *Ga.*798 (51 S. E. 714); *Fields*v. *Bullington, 2*0 *Ga. App.*102 (92 S. E. 653).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Blood-worth, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT 31.A****CERTIFICATION**     I, Stephen C. Beasley, certify that:1.      I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ANR Pipeline Company;2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 3, 2006     */s/ Stephen C. Beasley*     Stephen C. Beasley  Chairman of the Board and President  (Principal Executive Officer)  ANR Pipeline Company
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAVID CRANK

,

Appellant

, v. Case No. 5D 22

- 335
LT Case No. 2016

- CA

- 979

- A

MARY JANE CRANE AND LUZ M. SAMA

,

Appellee s

. ________________________________/

Decision filed March 14, 2023

Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Citrus County

, Carol A. Falvey , Judge.

Kevin K. Dixon, of Kevin K. Dixon,
P

. A

. , Inverness, for Appellant.

Casey C

. Harrison, of Harrison Estate Law, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellee , Mary J. Crane

.

No A ppearance for Appellee, Luz M. Sama

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS

, EISNAUGLE and MACIVER , JJ., concur.
National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Working Group

K12 Subgroup

Removing Roadblocks for Hands-on Cybersecurity Experiences in K12 

Project Team Lead(s): Laurin Buchanan, Davina Pruitt-Mentle

1. Project Team Purpose

Students must be able to practice hands-on skills in order to prepare for 

today’s cybersecurity career. Problems faced in the daily duties require the 

professional to look at security issues from both the attack/defend perspectives 

and critical business-centric functions and to adapt to ever-changing threats. 

Therefore, a hands-on experience is likely to produce the most effective results in 

training cybersecurity professionals. However, parents, teachers, and school 

administrators continue to express concerns about teaching hands-on 

cybersecurity skills to students, and many do not support cyber clubs and 

competitions. Developing a resource that highlights the advantages and 

addresses stakeholders’ concerns will help remove the roadblocks that keep 

schools from supporting hands-on cybersecurity curriculum and competitions.

2. Project Team Objectives

• Creation of a one-page handout that can help mitigate concerns from 

parents, teachers and school administrators about teaching cybersecurity

• The one pager will address hands-on activities like games and 

competitions. 

• The one pager is not intended to address CTE specific curriculum. 

3. Project Team Deliverables

• Draft list of perceived roadblocks with related counterpoints (< 45 days)

• Draft content for one pager, send for review by NICE K12 Subgroup (<4 

months)

• Refine draft content and submit to NICE Program Office < 6 months)
<PAGE>   1
   
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.17

                         [HOGAN & SLOVACEK LETTERHEAD]
              


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


     We consent to the use of our report dated July 17, 1998, with respect to 
the financial statements of Summit Environmental corporation, Inc. included in 
two Registration Statements (Amendment No. 5 to Form SB-2 and Amendment No. 5 
to Form S-4) of Summit Environmental Corporation, Inc.


                                         /s/ HOGAN & SLOVACEK



Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
November 3, 1998
Filed 6/26/08 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2008 ND 126

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Tilmer Paul Everett, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20070074

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Cynthia M. Feland (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 514 East Thayer, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4413, for plaintiff and appellee.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek (on brief), 402 First Street NW, Mandan, N.D. 58554- 3118, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Everett

No. 20070074

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Tilmer Everett appeals a district court judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition, a class AA felony.  Everett argues:  1) the State, in its closing argument, violated his constitutional right to remain silent; 2) the court erred by not admonishing the jury before taking two recesses during trial; and 3) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.  We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and Everett’s other arguments are without merit.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (3).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers
#### Joshua B. Wright v. Clerk of the Circuit Court for Huron County.

*Files of Supreme Court*— Custody,

A simple order from the Supreme Court is enough to compel a county clerk to return files which have been remitted to him by mistake. In such cases the Court retains authority over the papers, and a mandamus is not the proper remedy.

Motion for order to show cause..

Submitted June 6.

Decided June 9.

*Engle da Efigie*for the motion.
<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>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,271,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                    76,000
<INVENTORY>                                 30,631,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,827,215
<PP&E>                                       5,964,961
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,358,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,770,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,999,505
<BONDS>                                      2,058,599
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    24,674,808
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,864,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,770,881
<SALES>                                     31,902,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,902,042
<CGS>                                       27,041,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,041,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,645,525
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,215,163
<INCOME-TAX>                                   398,511
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            816,652
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   816,652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .033
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .033
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      12,312,890
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               50,336,203
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,911,638)
<INVENTORY>                                 45,761,163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           124,967,965
<PP&E>                                      20,116,674
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,814,536)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             209,732,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       57,901,524
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    976,755
<COMMON>                                       147,018
<OTHER-SE>                                 154,996,401
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               209,732,582
<SALES>                                    148,327,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           148,327,057
<CGS>                                      101,387,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              101,387,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            40,893,686
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             377,950
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,909,527
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,879,905)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,029,622
<DISCONTINUED>                               (374,432)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,655,190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         143,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,817,700
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,182,500)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,737,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,603,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,737,900
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                128,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   128,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
4.26


 





 


Vodafone
International Holdings B.V.


Rivium
Quadrant 173 - 177, 15th floor


2909
LC Capelle aan den IJssel


The
Netherlands


 


Capelle
aan den IJssel, 8 July 2005


 


 


Dear
Sirs,


 


Euro 1 billion Revolving Credit Facility Agreement
made on 2 June 2005 between Vodafone International Holdings B.V. (as
Lender) and MobiFon Holdings B.V. (as Borrower), (the “Facility”)


 


We
hereby notify you of the following change to the terms of the above Facility
with effect from        8 July 2005:


 


‘1.           Definitions
and Construction


 


“Commitment Termination Date” shall mean 2 June 2011.’


 


Pursuant
to Clause 2 “Facility Amount” of the Facility, please be advised that we wish
to cancel EUR 800,000,000 (eight hundred million euro) of the facility,
resulting in a new “Facility amount” of EUR 200,000,000 (two hundred million
euro).


 


 


Please
signify your acceptance of these amendments by signing where indicated below.


 


 


	
  /s/ Erik de Rijk

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Michiel Heere

  	
   

  
	
  MobiFon Holdings B.V.

  	
  MobiFon Holdings B.V.

  
	
  Erik de Rijk

  	
  Michiel Heere

  
	
  Director

  	
  Director

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Erik de Rijk

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Michiel Heere

  	
   

  
	
  Vodafone International Holdings B.V.

  	
  Vodafone International Holdings B.V.

  
	
  Erik de Rijk 

  	
  Michiel Heere

  
	
  Director

  	
  Director

  
						



 


 


MobiFon Holdings B.V.


Rivium
Quadrant 173-177, 15th floor


2909
LC Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands


Telephone:
+31 10 498 7711, Facsimile: +31 10 498 7722


 


Registered
at the Chamber of Commerce No.: 34 17 10 18
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1149

DONNA M. HICKS, Widow of Troy E. Hicks,

Petitioner,

versus

EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(95-1980-BLA)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donna M. Hicks, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark Elliott Solomons, Laura

Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADEN, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece,

Rodger Pitcairn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington,

D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision

and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black

lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.

1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision

is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Hicks v.

Eastern Associated Coal Corp., No. 95-1980-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 26,

1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED