alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11174.

#### Pitts v. The State.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Indictment for assault witli intent to rape; from Floyd superior court — Judge Wright. November 14, 1919.

Under an indictment charging assault with intent to rape, the defendant was convicted of an assault. A witness for the State testified that the defendant was “apparently 13 or 14 years of ag'e;” also that he was “14 or 15 years old.” Another witness testified that she knew when he was born, and that he was only 12 years old. It was testified that the girl upon whom it was alleged the assault was committed was 12 years old. She testified: “After I had left school and gone up and through town and just gotten by the depot at Cave Spring and some hundred yards by the depot,-this boy was tying a cow which he had been holding, picking grass, and got down behind a pile of coal at the railroad tracks and stuck his head up and said to me, ‘Here, give me some. When I saw him behind the coal I started to run down the path, the way I was going home, an 1 he started to run after me, and I said T see daddy/ thinking he *32would stop, and lie ran after me through, the field. I showed father how far he went. Tony Pitts ran after me, and I looked back and he was gaining on me, and he did not stop until I screamed. There were stores in sight of the place, and people walk along in the path in which I was walking, almost all times through the day. After leaving the place where this occurred, in order to go to my home you go through the woods to where I live. I have often seen this boy minding the cow he had this day. He lives near where he had the cow and just on the edge of town, but I live on out in the country from town.” It was testified that this witness showed where the defendant ran her through the field, and that the distance was 187 yards. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said: "I was minding the cow the day this happened, and then went and tied her. After I did this I then ran on down to the path and stalled on home in the path, and this little girl saw me and got to crying and ran on off. I did not know what was the matter with her, but she went on towards her home and I went on home and never knew anything further until they arrested me. I never thought of hurting the little girl.” There was no further testimony as to what was done by the defendant at the time referred to.

*31Luke, J.

The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize the conviction of the accused, and, the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, this court will not interfere. The judgment overruling the motion for a now trial is

*Affirmed.*

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

*32
      *M. B. Mebane,*for plaintiff in error, cited *Dorsey*v. *State,*108 *Ga.*477.

*C. H. Porter, solicitor-general, E. S. Taylor,*contra,

cited: *Duggan*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*846; *Jackson*v. *State,*322, 329.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40422

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

MARIE ANN WATKINS ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 520

Filed: June 4, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN U NPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Fall County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one

- half years , for grand theft

, affirmed

.

Fuller Law Offices; Daniel S. Brow n, Twin Falls, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Marie Ann Watkins pled guilty to grand theft . Idaho Code §§ 18

- 2403(1), 18

- 2407(1)(b)(1) . The district cour t sentenced Watkins to a unified term of fourteen years, with a
minimum period of confinement of one and one

- half years

. Watkins appeals asserting that the
district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 101 4

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho2 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Watkins ’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Gary L. Dreher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ Gary L. Dreher     Gary L. Dreher    Chief Executive Officer    May 12, 2006
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Oren G. Shaffer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Qwest Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining 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 disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 8, 2007



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/    OREN G. SHAFFER                   
|Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.8(b)

Schedule of Secured Convertible Notes (new financings through October 31, 2005)
       issued by NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind and Outstanding as of
                                October 31, 2005


                                                                 Conversion
     Issue Date           Due Date              Principal          Price
     ----------           --------              ---------          -----
      05/16/05            11/16/05            $   350,000         $0.0123
      06/10/05            12/10/05                350,000         $0.0100
      06/24/05            12/24/05                576,000         $0.0160
      07/26/05            01/26/06                350,000         $0.0100
      08/08/05            02/08/06              5,000,000         $0.0100
      08/24/05            02/24/06                300,000         $0.0080
      09/26/05            03/26/06                350,000         $0.0050
      10/14/05            04/14/06                300,000         $0.0049
      10/31/05            04/30/06                325,000         $0.0041

                                        ------------------
                                              $ 7,901,000
                                        ==================
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To First Chicago NBD Corporation:

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated January 16, 1996, included in this Form 10-K, into the
Corporation's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-62713,
Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 33-64755, Form S-3 Registration Statement
No. 33-65431, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-21036, Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-48773, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-
46906, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-50300, Form S-8 Registration
Statement No. 33-53928, Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 33-60788, and 
Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-17494.


                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Chicago, Illinois,
March 25, 1996
Incorporating 

Standards Education 

into the Digital 

Forensics Curriculum 

Sankar Roy

Computer Science Department

Bowling Green State University

sanroy@bgsu.edu
Background

• There is a wide gap between the demand and supply of digital 

forensics workforce.

• BGSU has recently started offering a digital forensics 

specialization for BS (in CS) and MS (in CS) students.

• Two assistant professors in the CS department (Yan Wu and 

Sankar Roy) applied for a NIST grant 

• Project goal: To incorporate NIST standards in digital forensics 

curricula at BGSU, and to disseminate materials to others

• In 2017 September, Wu and Roy were awarded this NIST grant 

(about $55K). 

• The official project period is until December of this year (2019). 

• Education expert Kristina LaVenia (at BGSU) serves as the evaluator.

2
Incorporating Standards in the Classroom

• Standards for evaluating a deleted file recovery tool

• Developed case studies and modularized lab (i.e., hands-on activity) 

materials.

• The related course has been offered twice at BGSU so far.

• The hands-on activities could be readily used by others.

• Standards for evaluating a hardware write blocker tool

• Developed modularized lab (i.e., hands-on activity) materials.

• The related course has been offered twice at BGSU so far.

• The hands-on activities could be readily used by others.

3
Dissemination

• In summer of 2019 at BGSU a daylong workshop was offered to 

fellow educators, students, and professionals in the locality

• More than 20 participants

• The participants attended lectures, and they experienced hands-on 

activities involving NIST standards in digital forensics

• An electronic copy of the modules and hands-on activity materials were 

made public to download.

• One paper summarizing the project challenges and contributions 

has been presented and published in 2019 IEEE ISDFS conference.

• One research paper on evaluation of deleted file recovery tools 

using NIST standards is in submission.

• 3 undergrad students actively participated in the research and made 

important contributions in fundamental research

• A dedicated website and a youtube channel are being built.

• Containing the developed modules and hands-on labs 

• Two undergrad students have been hired for few weeks.

4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1277270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    52928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    2358346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4597328
<PP&E>                                         5779628
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2085797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9617921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1236494
<BONDS>                                        2639755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        825649
<OTHER-SE>                                     3835327
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9617921
<SALES>                                       11372471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              11372471
<CGS>                                          8625822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 11048828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                101877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               64603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 290131
<INCOME-TAX>                                    112468
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    177663
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7913

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL CRANDALE WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. 

Howard, Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00009-H-1)

Submitted: March 6, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Crandale Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, 

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Crandale Williams appeals the district court’s 

order granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and reducing his sentence to the low 

end of his amended Guidelines range.* We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. See United States v. Williams, No. 

2:95-cr-00009-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2013). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * Williams contends he is entitled to a further reduction.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Patrick Kilkenny, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Redwood Empire Bancorp;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:                a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;                b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and                c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial 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, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):                a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and                b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  November 2, 2004

By:  /s/ Patrick Kilkenny       -------------------------       Patrick Kilkenny       Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         1,915,228
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,865,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (136,959)
<INVENTORY>                                      246,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,338,108
<PP&E>                                         9,908,046
<DEPRECIATION>                                (4,026,078)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11,664,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,302,390
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           1,126
<OTHER-SE>                                      (583,393)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11,664,405
<SALES>                                        2,488,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,653,069
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,659,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,058,840
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               136,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    9,819
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               43,761
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       9,819
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .02
        


</TABLE>
11349.

#### Gordon *v.*Foundation Company.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Savannah — Judge Freeman. November 24, 1919.

As to the amendment offered by the plaintiff, it appeared from the judge’s note, qualifying the bill of exceptions, that when counsel for the plaintiff was allowed to reopen the case for the purpose of introducing additional testimony after a motion for a nonsuit had been made, he stated that he desired to offer an amendment, but he did not then tender it, and at the conclusion of the additional testimony the judge asked if he had anything further to offer, and he replied that he had not. The motion for a nonsuit was renewed and granted, and the amendment was not tendered until the next day.

*Kenan & Ulmer,*for plaintiff in error.

*O’Byrne, Hartridge & Wright,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, that an exception to the refusal to allow a witness, on the direct examination, to answer a question will not be considered by the *reviewing court*unless it affirmatively appears that the trial judge was notified at the time of the ruling what answer was expected from the witness, the several exceptions to the refusal of the court to allow certain named witnesses to answer certain questions is not considered.

2. Under the facts of the case, as disclosed by the note of the trial judge qualifying his approval of the bill of exceptions, it was not error to disallow the proffered amendment to the plaintiff’s petition.

3. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff not authorizing a finding by the jury that the defendant was negligent in any of the ways alleged in the petition, the court did not err in awarding a nonsuit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*