alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOEL BALLANCE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 97 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 12-00188-CG

)

KENNETH LAMAR WILLARD, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

For good cause shown and pursuant to the provisions of Fed.R. Cr.P. 36, 

governing the correction of clerical mistakes contained in a judgment in a criminal 

case, the court hereby AMENDS nunc pro tunc the judgment on revocation of 

supervised release (Doc. 41) entered in the above styled case on August 8, 2013, to 

reflect the correct PACTS number as 12301. 

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cr-00188-CG-C Document 42 Filed 08/28/13 Page 1 of 1
#### Peacocke *v.*Mauck et al.

Supreme Court.—Evidence.—The rule that the Supreme Court will not reverse a judgment upon the weight of conflicting evidence is perhaps rendered more clearly applicable by the fact that two juries have found upon the issue in the same way.

APPEAL from the Harrison Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

This action was brought by the appellant against the appellees and resulted in a judgment for the defendants. The only question presented by the assignment of errors is as to the correctness of the ruling of the court in refusing to grant a new trial on the motion of the plaintiff Sarah Mauck, one of the defendants, was the widow of one Joseph Charley, deceased, and the administratrix of his estate. She afterward married John Mauck, her co-defendant, who filed his written consent that she should continue to act as such administratrix. Mrs. Peacocke had been the widow of one Samuel H. Keene, who was an attorney, and as such had collected certain claims due to the estate of Charley, placed in his hands by Mrs. Mauck, the administratrix. One Robert Leffler was executor of the will of Keene, and as such, assisted by one Tracewell, who appears to have acted as ■ attorney of both parties, made a settlement with Mrs. Mauck relating to such collections, and paid her a balance found to be due. After the settlement of both estates, the appellant, who is sole devisee and legatee under the will of Keene, and who was again married to one Peacocke, brought this action, alleging in one paragraph that three of the items allowed and paid by Leffler, as such executor, were improperly paid, and in another setting up a claim for money had and received. Among other paragraphs of the answer, the defendants pleaded a general denial. A trial by jury ended in a verdict for the defendants. A new trial was granted, and upon the second trial there was another verdict for the defendants. A second new trial being refused, final judgment was rendered-for the defendants.

*479A *Peacocke, J. E. McDonald,*and *% M. Butler,*for appellant.

*A. Stephens,*for appellee.

Passing over the question which is presented by a cross error assigned, whether Mrs. Peacocke can maintain the action, under the circumstances, we have examined the evidence, to see whether the question of fact was or was not rightly decided against her. The evidence as to the main questions involved was mostly the testimony of Tracewell on the one side and Mrs. Mauck on the other, As to one of the items, a former receipt purporting to have been signed by Mrs. Mauck was found and offered in evidence. She denied the execution of this receipt, and there was little evidence to the contrary. As to the other items, there seemed to be nothing new discovered since the settlement was made. The credibility of the witnesses was fairly involved, with the other circumstances bearing on the question. Ordinarily, this court does not reverse a judgment under these circumstances, and perhaps the fact that two juries have found in the same way upon the questions involved would bring the case more clearly within the rule.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.*

*

Petition for a rehearing overruled.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 27, 2009 

d0518 

Order 

 

May 27, 2009 

138245 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138245 

 COA: 282324 

Calhoun CC: 2007-002128-FH 

LARAY ANTAWN WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LORI BARTON, pro se, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0642-CG-C

PATRICK R. DONAHUE, ERIC 

HOLDER, LEANDER HARRIS, 

Defendants.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, granting Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED 

that judgment is entered in favor of Defendants, Patrick R. Donahue, Eric 

Holder and Leander Harris, and against Plaintiff, Lori Barton, and this case is 

hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00642-CG-C Document 46 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Basil Bailey *v.*Milton Lykins.

Waiver by Appearance.

A defendant in a suit for forcible detainer, who bas appeared and defended in the justice court, cannot in the circuit court take advantage for want of proper service of the writ.

APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

November 5, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

It is not necessary to decide whether or not a constable has the right to execute a warrant for forcible detainer.

In this case the appellee appeared at the trial in the county, and *206made defense. He cannot, therefore, take advantage in the circuit court, upon the traverse, for want of proper service of the writ. *Philips v. Harmon, et al.,*1 Dana 468; *Williamson v. Boucher,*7 J. J. Marsh. 252. The judgment of the justice or of the circuit court may still be carried out by the sheriff, and the rights of the appellee could not have been prejudiced by the summoning of the jury, or the service of the writ by the constable. The judgment of the circuit court quashing the warrant and the service thereof is *reversed,*and the cause remanded for a trial of the issue raised by the traverse.

*George M. Thomas, for appellant.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         December 16, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 9, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 22 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-15, CP2015-19.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2014-29378 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.1



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



              In connection with the Annual Report of Score One, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Hoi-ho Kiu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Lai Ming Lau, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

          (2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all
               material respects,  the consolidated  financial  condition of the
               Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated  result of
               operations of the Company for the periods presented.


                                        ----------------------------
                                        Hoi-ho Kiu
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        April 17, 2006


                                        ------------------------------
                                        Lai Ming Lau
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        April 17, 2006
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




FISCAL 2006 SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive Officer	 	Title	 	New Base Salary
	Michael J.
Blumenfeld
	 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	$	375,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Adam Blumenfeld
	 	President
	 	$	375,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	William R. Estill
	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 	$	245,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	Executive Vice
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	President, U.S.
	 	 	 	 
	Tevis Martin
	 	Operations
	 	$	175,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Arthur J. Coerver
	 	Chief Operating Officer
	 	$	152,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Harvey Rothenberg
	 	Vice President, Marketing
	 	$	145,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 






Commencing as of the first day of fiscal 2006 (July 1, 2005), each of the executive
officers, other than Mike Blumenfeld and Tevis Martin, will be eligible to receive a bonus
of (a) up to 25% of his base salary if Collegiate Pacific’s earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) for fiscal 2006 is at least $15,000,000 and
(b) up at an additional 8% of his base salary for each $1,000,000 of additional EBITDA of
Collegiate Pacific for fiscal 2006 up to a maximum fiscal 2006 EBITDA of $18,000,000.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM")
on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence Fensterstock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                      By: /s/ Lawrence Fensterstock
                                              Lawrence Fensterstock
                                              Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2003
#### Commonwealth *v.*George Norton.

Bail Bond — Surrender by Bondsmen — Release from Liability.

To release a bondsman on a bail bond tbe bondsman at any time before a forfeiture may surrender tbe defendant to tbe jailer of tbe county in wbicb tbe offense was committed, accompanied with a certified copy of tbe bail bond to be delivered to tbe jailer wbo must detain tbe defendant and give a written acknowledgment of tbe surrender.

APPEAL PROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT.

June 8, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer :

George Norton, being in custody, charged with unlawfully and maliciously stabbing and wounding, gave bail, with the appellee as his surety, for his appearance at the then ensuing term of the Knox circuit court; and having failed to appear, his bond was forfeited and a summons issued thereon which was served on the surety, who responded that between the time of executing the bond and the term at which he undertook that Norton should appear, fearing that he would leave the commonwealth, he obtained a copy of the bail bond, and found the said Norton in the power of the sheriff of *473Knox county, under arrest for malicious stabbing; that he delivered a copy of the bond to the sheriff, who arrested Norton at his (appellee’s) instance, to be taken to jail; that the court before which Norton was returned had him put under guard to be held for trial, and that while he was so under guard, and before the sheriff was permitted to deliver him to the jailer under the arrest made at appellee’s instance, Norton made his escape from the guard.

*John Rodman, for appellant.*

The commonwealth demurred to the response, but the demurrer was overruled and the proceeding dismissed.

“At any time before the forfeiture of their bond, the bail may surrender the defendant, or the defendant may surrender himself to the jailer of the county in which the offense was committed; but the surrender must be accompanied with a certified copy of the bail bond, to be delivered to the jailer, who must detain the defendant in custody thereon as a commitment, and give a written acknowledgment of the surrender; and the bail shall thereupon be exonerated.” Sec. 81; Criminal Code.

We are not aware of any other provision of law under which bail may be exonerated, before a forfeiture of the bond. Having become bound for the appearance of Norton, he was at appellee’s risk until he should be placed in the custody of the jailer; and he could not rid himself of that responsibility by placing a copy of the bond in the hand of the sheriff and causing him to arrest the defendant. The law did not make it the duty of the sheriff to take Norton into custody, so as thereby to exonerate his bail, and the sheriff was, therefore, the agent of the appellee, and not the representative of the commonwealth.

Wherefore the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer, and for further proceedings.
No. 87-5826.

#### Parham *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
dpdm_ex103.htm


 


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 



6
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO


 


WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES OF


 


COMMON STOCK OF


 


AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION


 


This AMENDMENT TO WARRANT
TO PURCHASE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK (this “Amendment”), dated as of , 2015 (the “Amendment Date”),
is made between AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation, a Washington corporation (the “Company”) and the holders on
Exhibit A hereto (the “Holders”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company previously issued the Warrants to Purchase Shares of Common Stock of the Company on or about , 2013 (the “Warrants”);


 


WHEREAS, the
Warrants may be amended only with the written consent of the Company and the holders representing at least two-thirds of the aggregate
number of shares of Common Stock issuable upon the exercise of the Warrants; and


 


WHEREAS, and
the Company and the undersigned Holders, who represent at least two-thirds of the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock issuable
upon exercise of the Warrants, now desire to amend the Warrants as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration for the mutual convents set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto agree as follows:


 


1.            Terms
Defined in Warrants. All capitalized terms used in this Amendment (including in the recitals hereof) and not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Warrants.


 


2.            Amendments. The Company and the undersigned Holders, on behalf of themselves and all other holders of the Warrants,
hereby provide their written consent to amend each Warrant as follows, effective as of the Amendment Date:


 


(a)                
Section 10(e) of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


(b)                
Section 10(f) of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


3.             References within Warrants. Every reference in each Warrant to “this Warrant” and the words “hereof,”
“herein,” “hereunder,” or words of like import, shall mean and be a reference to the Warrant as amended
by this Amendment.


 


4.             Warrants Otherwise Not Affected. Except as expressly amended pursuant hereto, each Warrant shall remain unchanged
and in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.


 


5.             Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate
counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute
but one and the same agreement.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 





	 	AmplipHI BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 




  




    	 



    	 



    

 





	Warrant No(s).: 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	If the Holder is an INDIVIDUAL:
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Print Name(s)	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Signature(s) of Holder(s)	 




 


 


If the Holder is a PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION,
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY or TRUST:


 


 





	 	 	 
	 	Name of Partnership,	 
	 	Corporation, Limited 	 
	 	Liability Company or Trust	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 	 
	 		Name:	 
	 		Title:
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM")
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerome
S. Flum, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

                                      By: /s/ Jerome S. Flum
                                              Jerome S. Flum
                                              Chief Executive Officer

May 17, 2004


                                       21
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6999

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN EDWARD FORNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-93-83, CA-96-30-T) Submitted: July 31, 1998 Decided: September 1, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Grant Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, forAppellant. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under former 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The omission of the language “andcarry” in the description of the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994), conviction on the judgment order does not amount to error requiring 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We deny Appellant’s motion for summary reversal and dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED