alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Morgan’s Foods, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of February 25, 2007, based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 29, 2007 /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir       Leonard R. Stein-Sapir    Chairman of the Board,    Chief Executive Officer
47
#### Mary G. Russell *v.*Cicero Reynolds.

Husband and Wife — Purchase by Wife — Consideration—Burden of Proof.

In an action on a note purchased by a married woman, the burden is on plaintiff to show what the consideration for the note was, that it was a necessity for the defendant’s family, and that it was sold hy him.

*417APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 8, 1874.

*Dunlap, for appellant.*

*Hill & Alcorn, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

If the horse sold by appellee to W. H. Russell, the husband of appellant, was the consideration for the note sued on, her general estate cannot be held bound for its payment, as it is neither alleged nor proved that the horse was sold' at her instance, nor that the credit was extended' to her. A wife’s general estate can only be subjected to the payment of her debts contracted before marriage, and for such contracted after marriage, on account of necessaries for herself or any member of her family, her husband included, as shall be evidenced by writing signed by her and her husband. Subsec. 1, Sec. 1, Art. 2, Chap. 47, Rev. Stat. *Gatewood v. Bryan, 7*Bush 509. It is not shown that she participated in the transaction ’further than to sign the note; and the legal presumption arising from the language and phraseology of the note, is that the husband was the. principal obligor and the wife a mere surety. Appellee seems to have been in some doubt as to what was the real consideration of the note; and after proving the sale of the horse at a period som'e months anterior to its execution, he introduces another witness who shows that it was executed in consideration of the surrender or cancelment of a bond for title to twenty.-five acres of land held by appellee. It cannot be assumed from anything in this record that the title bond was a necessary for Mrs. Russell or any member of her family. The onus was upon the appellee to show what the consideration for the note was, that it was a necessary for Mrs. Russell’s family, and that it was sold to her. In each of these essential particulars he has failed. The judgment of sale is reversed and cause remanded with instructions to set aside the sale, and to dismiss appellee’s petition so far as relief against Mrs. Russell’s estate is sought.
2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-7-2013

Wayne Prater v. City of Philadelphia

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-3979

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Wayne Prater v. City of Philadelphia" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1468.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1468
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3979

___________

WAYNE PRATER,

 Appellant

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; POLICE OFFICER EDWARD SOLVIBILE, Badge #1694,

individually and as a police officer for the City of Philadelphia; 

POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH WALSH, BADGE #5315

individually and as a police officer for the City of Philadelphia

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 11-cv-00667)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Timothy R. Rice

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 16, 2013

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 7, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Wayne Prater appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 
2

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entered after a jury trial in his civil rights case. Prater 

raises essentially two claims in his brief on appeal: (1) the elimination of the only Black 

juror in the jury pool violated Batson,

1

and (2) the jury did not follow the instructions 

given by the judge. We will dismiss the appeal.

It is the appellant’s duty to arrange for the trial transcript, and we may dismiss an 

appeal if an appellant fails to do so. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(2); 10(b)(1); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 

11.1; Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990) (dismissing appeal by 

inmate in civil rights action for failure to provide a transcript). Because Prater did not 

order transcripts, we have no record of the jury selection process, and similarly cannot 

assess whether the jury followed the instructions given by the judge. We require the 

transcript not only to assess the merits of these issues, but to determine whether Prater

preserved them for appellate review. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal.

 

1 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), holds that the 14th Amendment’s equal 

protection clause bars the use of peremptory strikes to exclude jurors on the basis of race. 

The Supreme Court has also extended Batson to civil cases. Edmonson v. Leesville 

Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 631 (1991).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11105

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KLINT JONATHAN HALE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-106-2

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Klint Jonathan Hale has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Hale has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11105 Document: 00514519771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
No. 17-11105

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-11105 Document: 00514519771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 ) 

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 08-0061-WS 

 ) 

GUITTEN HIPPOLITE, ) CIVIL NO. 09-0450-WS-N 

 ) 

Petitioner. )

ORDER

 This matter comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (doc. 69) entered 

by the Magistrate Judge back on June 30, 2010. In particular, the Magistrate Judge 

recommended that petitioner’s motion to vacate filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be dismissed 

without prejudice on the grounds that (1) petitioner had submitted a letter motion asking that his 

§ 2255 petition be voluntarily dismissed to enable him to file a new action later, and (2) 

petitioner failed to respond to a court-provided opportunity to amend his petition now in lieu of 

taking a voluntary dismissal. 

 Petitioner has not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so 

has long since expired. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed 

relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated June 30, 2010, is adopted

as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, petitioner’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (doc. 67) 

is granted and his § 2255 petition is dismissed without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cr-00061-WS-N Document 71 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Debra L. Spencer, Secretary/Treasurer of Imagenetix, Inc. (the "small
business issuer"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the small
business issuer;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this Quarterly Report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this Quarterly Report;

     4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small
business issuer and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the small business issuer,
          including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by
          others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
          disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period
          covered by this Quarterly Report; and

     c)   presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the small business issuer's
          ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
          have identified for the small business issuers auditors any material
          weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the small business
          issuer's internal controls; and


Dated: 2/22/2005                     Signature:/s/Debra L. Spencer
                                               ----------------------
                                               Debra L. Spencer
                                               Secretary/Treasurer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards
Inc.

Date: December 6, 2004
By:	 /s/ James W. Bernau
Name: James W. Bernau
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
#### Omar Wilson et al. *v.*M. B. Moore.

Conversion — Amount of Recovery.

Where the owner of property might have treated a sale of the property as a nullity, hut, instead of doing so, elects to treat it as a conversion, he is not entitled to more than the value of the property at the time and place of conversion.

APPEAL FROM NICHOLAS CIRCUIT COURT.

February 17, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

We have examined the pleadings in this case with great care; they are certainly more remarkable for length than perspicuity.

We are in doubt as to the character of the action, and equally uncertain as to> the nature of the defense. From all we can gather from the petition, it seems that Moore intends, to treat the sale of his lot of mules by Alvin and Burbridge to Thompson Boyd & Co., as a conversion. In law such sale was a conversion, as the sellers and buyers were all members of the same firm', and as the mules were from' the time of its consummation treated as firm.' property. Moore does not state that he accepted the note of Alvin. & Co. without knowledge of the fact that the parties to whom, the sale was made were partners of his agents, nor that he was ignorant of the circumstances attending the transaction. An issue as to his knowledge of all the facts attending the sale is raised, however, by the answer. The conversion is, in effect, admitted. The questions therefore to be determined by the jury were:

*511*Ross, Kennedy, Lacy, Nesbitt, Gudgell, for appellants.*

*T. Turner, J. S. Hurt; for appellee.*

First. Was the lot of mules at Columbus, Ga., on the day of the pretended sale to Thompson & Boyd, worth more than $105 per head, and if so how much more ?

Second. When Moore accepted the note of Wilson, etc., was, he fully advised of all the circumstances attending the transaction, and did he with such knowledge ratify and confirm] the action of his agents, Wilson and Burbridge?

There is still another issue, and that is as to the averment that Wilson and Burbridge claimed and obtained credit for a greater sum for expenses, than they were entitled to.

The instructions in the case are all based upon the idea that Moore intended to treat the sale to Thompson and Boyd as a nullity, and to insist that it did not divest him: of title, and therefore that he was entitled to the profits realized by the resales of the prop^ erty. That he might have done so we have no doubt, but he elected to treat it as a conversion, and therefore has no right to demand anything more than the value of his, property at the place and on the day the conversion took place.

For the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial upon principles consistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 4.19


 


Deed of settlement and release – Mr Frank J Cicutto


 


The
deed of settlement and release for Mr Frank J Cicutto is incorporated by
reference to National Australia Bank Limited’s Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Commission
on March 26, 2004.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 10, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11117

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALICIA LOUISE SILLER, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (USDC No. 6:03-CR-009-C)

_______________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Due to the jury’s conflicting findings, there was no clear factual determination regarding the amount of methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy. The verdict will not support the sentence in excess of the statutory maximum of 20 years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(c). Sentence Vacated. Remanded.
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

DRYCLEAN USA, Inc.
Miami, Florida

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-8 (File No.  333-37574,  333-37576  and  333-37582) of our
report  dated  September  10,  2003  relating  to  the  consolidated   financial
statements  of DRYCLEAN USA,  Inc.  appearing in the Company's  Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003.

                                                     BDO Seidman, LLP

Miami, Florida
September 29, 2003
Exhibit
      (10)(f)(6)







AMENDMENT
      NO. 5


TO


ALLTEL
      CORPORATION


1998
      MANAGEMENT DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN





Effective
      September 1, 2006, the Alltel
      Corporation 1998 Management Deferred Compensation Plan is hereby amended as
      follows:





1.
            Section
                6.7(c)(iii) is amended by adding the following sentence to the end
                thereof:





“Notwithstanding
      anything contained in this Section 6.7(c)(iii), a Designated Participant who
      was
      employed by the Corporation on September 1, 2006 shall be permitted to modify
      his or her distribution election to elect payment (or commencement of payment)
      of his or her Deferred Compensation Account on any specified date in 2009 or
      later year, provided such revised distribution election is filed with the
      Corporation on or before December 31, 2006 and the distribution elected
      otherwise complies with the requirements of this Section 6.7(c).”





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 1st
      day of
      November, 2006.





ALLTEL
      CORPORATION




By: /s/
      Scott T.
      Ford


Title:
      President and Chief Executive
      Officer
Sample Mounting for

10T Lemon

OD=48mm

ID=1.75”

440mm

Bottom wall is 

3mm thick

339mm

neutron 

window

98 mm

106mm (max 

sample height)

Mixing Chamber: 

Bottom mounting 

flange with a 5/16-18 

threaded hole in it, 

3/4“ deep

Sample center is 

~72mm below MC

• Sample holder needs to be made from 

OFHC copper, like this one

• Sample diameter <=35 mm

• Sample length <= 100 mm

• Sample center is ~72mm below the 

mounting surface

The Lakeshore 370 relay box has some magnetic 

materials inside it. Please make sure it is located 

as far from the magnet as possible otherwise 

lakeshore 370 will read some weird temperature 

values at high B fields.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheets for Metaline Mining & Leasing Company at December 31,1999, the Statements
of Income for the year ended December 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety
by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,059,724
<SECURITIES>                                    13,614
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,073,338
<PP&E>                                           4,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,077,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,022
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       954,282
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,077,460
<SALES>                                         46,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,848
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (14,969)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,879
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,969
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,910
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0








</TABLE>