alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH 31, 2000
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VINEYARD NATIONAL BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARY AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       7,502,468
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          99,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,660,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  9,434,597
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     85,696,540
<ALLOWANCE>                                    783,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,807,277
<DEPOSITS>                                 106,127,272
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,900,234
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,106,258
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,673,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             117,807,277
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,077,189
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              133,995
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                36,940
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,248,124
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             508,140
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             509,210
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,738,914
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   36,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,815,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                251,476
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,476
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.90
<LOANS-NON>                                    538,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              3,983,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               764,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   20,000
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              662,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           662,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
11258.

#### Gordon *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

1. In the absence of an appropriate written request for fuller instructions, the following charge was a sufficient instruction with reference to the burden of proof, and the degree thereof essential to a conviction: “Notwithstanding this indictment, the defendant enters into the trial of this case with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that presumption remains with the defendant throughout the entire trial, in the nature of evidence, as a shield and protection, until the State satisfies your minds by the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt.”

2. An instruction to the jury with reference to the prisoner’s statement, which follows, either literally or in substance, the language of section 1036 of the Penal Code (1910), omitting the last sentence only of that code-section, can never afford cause for a new trial. *Pitts*v. *State,*
      *190114*Ga. 35*(3) (39 S. E. 87); *McDonald*v. State, 129 *Ga.*452 (2) (59 S. E. 242): *Washington*v. State, 136 *Ga.*66 (2) (70 S. E. 797).

Decided April 13, 1920.

Reheabing denied May 12, 1920.

Indictment for sale of liquor; from Jones superior court'—■ Judge Park. December 20, 1919.

*J. B. Jackson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.

3. Whisky is, as a matter of law, an intoxicant, and this fact need not he proved in a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors. *Hodge*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*852 (1) (43 S. E. 255); *Maddox*v. *Eatonton,*8 *Ga. App.*817 (2) (70 S. E. 214). The court therefore did not err in failing to submit this fact to the determination of the jury. *Mundy*v. *State,*9 *Ga. App.*835 (5) (72 S. E. 300).

4. The evidence authorized' the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a now trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Exhibit 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Mobil Corporation of our report dated February 23, 1996, included in the 1995
Annual Report to Shareholders of Mobil Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Mobil Corporation 
and the summarized financial data of Mobil Oil Corporation listed in Item 14(a).
This schedule and the summarized financial data are the responsibility of the 
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule and summarized 
financial data referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic 
financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (No. 33-18130) pertaining to the Employees Savings Plan of Mobil Oil
Corporation; Form S-8 (No. 33-5797) pertaining to the 1986 Mobil Incentive
Compensation and Stock Option Plan; Form S-3 (No. 33-34133-01) of the Mobil Oil
Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan Trust for the registration of
$300,000,000 principal amount of debt securities guaranteed by Mobil
Corporation; Form S-3 (No. 33-43745) for the registration of $1,500,000,000 of
Mobil Corporation Debt Securities; Form S-3 (No. 33-49945) for the registration
of $1,500,000,000 of Mobil Corporation Debt Securities; Form S-8 (No. 33-48887)
pertaining to the 1991 Mobil Incentive Compensation and Stock Option Plan; Form
S-3 (No. 33-50943) pertaining to the Mobil Corporation Stock Purchase and 
Dividend Reinvestment Plan for the registration of 5,000,000 shares of Mobil 
Corporation Common Stock and related Preferred Share Purchase Rights; Form S-8 
(No. 33-61657) pertaining to the 1995 Mobil Incentive Compensation and Stock 
Ownership Plan; and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated February 23,
1996, with respect to the financial statements incorporated herein by reference
and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule and the summarized financial data included in this Annual 
Report on Form 10-K of Mobil Corporation.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                                            Ernst & Young LLP



Fairfax, Virginia
March 6, 1996



Mobil                                - 30 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) FORM
10QSB FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1999 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         276,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  686,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,892,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,855,568
<PP&E>                                       1,039,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,078,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,056,786
<BONDS>                                      3,959,158
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       894,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,573,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,078,168
<SALES>                                      1,706,124
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,984,568
<CGS>                                        1,648,778
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,648,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               432,343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (141,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (141,983)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1587
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1587


</TABLE>
#### Glass et al. *v.*The State.

*Recognizance.—Suit on.—Criminal*Courts.—An action cannot be commenced against the bail upon a forfeited recognizance, until after the adjournment of the term of court at which the forfeiture occurred; and this rule applies to criminal courts, that hold but two terms in each year.

APPEAL from the Jefferson Common Pleas.

Worden, J.

Samuel Rea was 'indicted in the criminal court of Jefferson county for a felony, and entered into a recognizance for his appearance in that court on the 14th of November, 1870, to answer the charge, with George Glass as his surety. On the non-appearance of Rea, the recognizance was duly declared forfeited by order of the proper court.

This suit was commenced on the recognizance against both ' the principal and surety, on the 8th of December, 1870. The recognizance was taken on the 17th of September, 1870, and during the July term of the criminal court for that year.

The question is raised, whether the action was not prematurely brought. It appears by an answer filed, to which a *206demurrer was sustained, that when the action was commenced, the July term of said criminal court had not ended, but that the court was still in session as a part of the July term aforesaid.

*y. V Allison*and *W. T. Friedley, for*appellants.

*B, W. Hanna,*Attorney General, for the State.

The act organizing the criminal court of Jefferson county provides that it shall sit on the first Mondays in January and July of each year, “and shall hold for six months if the business require it.” 3 Ind. Stat. 176, sec. 2.

Sec. 47, 2 G. & H. 398, provides for declaring a recognizance forfeited. The next following section provides, that the prosecuting attorney may, at any time after the adjournment of the court, proceed by action against the bail upon the recognizance.

Under this statute, an action cannot be commenced against the bail until after the adjournment of the court at which the recognizance is declared forfeited. The forfeiture might be set aside during the term, and perhaps afterward, on good cause shown; and, indeed, the bail may surrender his principal at any time before final judgment against himself on the recognizance, and on payment of costs be discharged from all liability thereon. Sec. 44.

The creation of criminal courts with six-month terms was probably not contemplated when the above cited provision was enacted; and some legislation may be needed to prevent long delay in bringing suits in some cases upon forfeited recognizances. But if this be so, it is not matter of surprise. No new system in law is perfect in its inception. Time and experience only can develop its imperfections and indicate the needed amendments. We leave the matter in the hands of the legislature, and hold that under the law, as it now stands, an action cannot be commenced against the bail upon a forfeited recognizance until after- the adjournment of the court at which the forfeiture was declared.

The court below erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer in question.

The judgment below is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NABISCO, INC. WHICH WERE FILED WITH SEC
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>0000069526
<NAME> NABISCO, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             111
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      506
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,537
<PP&E>                                           4,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,859)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,706
<BONDS>                                          3,619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,925
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,116
<SALES>                                          8,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,400
<CGS>                                            4,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   530
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (31)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (71)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (71)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.1






 


JOINDER
TO SERIES B PREFERRED SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This
Joinder Agreement (this “Joinder Agreement”) is made as of the date written below by the undersigned (the “Additional
Investor”) in accordance with the Section 3.3 of that certain Series B Preferred Share Purchase Agreement dated as of
October 19th, 2014, as amended (the “SPA”) by and among Spondoolies Tech Ltd. (the “Company”)
and the Investors listed therein, as the same may be amended from time to time. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein
shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the SPA.


 


By
executing and delivering this Joinder, the Additional Investor hereby: (i) joins in and becomes a party to the SPA and, subject
to and effective as of the Deferred Closing therewith, to the Amended Investor Rights Agreement dated as of October 19th,
2014 by and among the Company, the Founders and the Investors listed therein, as may be amended (the “IRA”),
and further acknowledges, agrees and confirms that the undersigned shall be bound by and subject to the terms and conditions of
each of such agreements as an Additional Investor and, as applicable, as an Investor, for all intents and purposes under the SPA,
and as an Investor for all intents and purposes under the IRA; (ii) without derogating from the generality of the foregoing, the
undersigned Additional Investor shall deliver to the Company, all documentation and certificates to be delivered to the Company
following the Deferred Closing or in connection therewith, as set forth in the SPA; and (iii) represents and warrants to the Company,
and acknowledges that the Company is entering into this Joinder Agreement (and, consequently, into the SPA and IRA) therewith
in reliance that the representations and warranties set forth in Section 5 of the SPA are true and correct in respect of the undersigned
Additional Investor and its respective investment in the Company, and shall be true and correct as of the Deferred Closing therewith
as if made on such Deferred Closing.


 


Attached
hereto is the Updated Schedule I to the SPA, reflecting the Shares to be issued against payment at the Deferred Closing.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Joinder Agreement, to become effective as of the date on which the Company
countersigns this Joinder Agreement.


 


	 	NAME:
    BITCOIN SHOP INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Charles Allen
	 	Name:
    	Charles
    Allen
	 	Title:
    	CEO
	 	Address
    for Notices:
	 	1901
    North Fort Myer Drive, Suite #1105
	 	Arlington,
    VA 22209


 


 


	ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:	 
	 	 	 
	Spondoolies Tech Ltd.	 
	 	 	 
	By: 		 
	 	Guy
    Corem, CEO	 
	 	 	 
	Date: May ___, 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-1625

Filed December 21, 2022

MICHAEL EARL HILSON,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha J.

Gronewald, Judge.

Michael Earl Hilson appeals the dismissal of his third application for 

postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Debra S. De Jong of De Jong Law Firm, P.C., Orange City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

In 2010, Michael Earl Hilson was convicted of first-degree burglary and 

third-degree sexual abuse. His conviction was affirmed by this court in 2013. State 

v. Hilson, No. 10-0665, 2013 WL 541621, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013). He 

filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR), the denial of which was affirmed

by this court. Hilson v. State, No. 15-0679, 2016 WL 6652329, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. 

Nov. 9, 2016). His second application for PCR relief was dismissed. See Hilson 

v. State, No. 18-2189, 2020 WL 2060300, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020).

On August 10, 2021, Hilson filed a third application for PCR, asserting 

actual innocence, newly-discovered evidence, and ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Some issues raised by Hilson were raised and decided in the earlier PCR 

cases. See Clark v. State, 955 N.W.2d 459, 464 (Iowa 2021) (noting the doctrine 

of “issue preclusion prevents parties from relitigating issues already raised and 

resolved in a prior action”). The evidence relating to his remaining claims could 

have been discovered and raised within the limitations period of Iowa Code section 

822.3 (2021), and therefore the claims are time-barred.

1

 We affirm without further 

1

Iowa Code section 822.3 sets a three-year limitations period: 

[PCR] applications must be filed within three years from the date the 

conviction or decision is final or, in the event of an appeal, from the 

date the writ of procedendo is issued. However, this limitation does 

not apply to a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised 

within the applicable time period. For purposes of this section, a 

ground of fact includes the results of DNA profiling ordered pursuant 

to an application filed under section 81.10.
3

opinion. Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e) (“A full opinion would not augment or clarify 

existing case law.”).2

AFFIRMED.

2 The State raised a jurisdictional question about the timeliness of Hilson’s appeal. 

We consider his post-ruling motions to be akin to a motion under Iowa Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.904(2), extending the jurisdictional deadline to thirty days after the 

court’s ruling on the motion. Hilson’s notice of appeal was filed within the extended 

time.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL )

ASSOCIATION, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-0703-WS-C

 )

LONGCRIER HOMES, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

CONSENT JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on this date, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and

DECREED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff, Wachovia Bank, National

Association, and against the defendants, Longcrier Homes, Inc., Adrian J. Longcrier, and Russell

Judkins, jointly and severally, in the amount of $315,000.00. The parties are to bear their own

costs.

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00703-WS-C Document 30 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Principal Financial
Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Of 2002



In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of The
InterGroup Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company,
serving as its Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | · | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
5(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David T. Nguyen

David T. Nguyen

Treasurer and Controller

(Principal Financial Officer)



Date: August 24, 2012



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to The InterGroup Corporation and will be retained by The InterGroup Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.