alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard GIBSON, Sr., a/k/a Bernard Willis, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6970.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying in part his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We find that the criminal judgment filed in November 2002 accurately reflects the life sentence announced at the resentencing hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. *United States v. Gibson,*No. 8:94-cr-00454-PJM *216(D.Md. filed May 8, 2006, and entered May 9, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### State v. Cooper

Case below: 186 N.C. App.-(18 September 2007)

No. 490P07

AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-1356)

Allowed 10/08/07
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: DJ Christopher Lowe v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00 1 5 8

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 0

- DCR

- 05 5 3 9 7

Trial court: 400 th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief on December 18, 2014, concluding that the above

- referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). On January 8, 2015, because appellant’s

counsel failed to file a motion to withdraw and the notice required with his Anders brief, we ordered counsel to send the required letter and file the motion and not ice within 15 days of the date of that order. On January 20, 2015, a ppellant, acting pro se , has filed the

form motion requesting access to a copy of the record to prepar e a response to counsel’s

brief and requesting a 30

- day extension of time to file his pro se Anders brief response

. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We grant the motion requesting the record and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from the date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the pro se appellant. The trial court clerk shall further cer tify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon which delivery of the record to the appellant is made.

Finally, we grant appellant’s motion for an extension of time t o file a pro se Anders response. A ppellant’s pro se respons e to his counsel’s Anders brief shall be filed within 45 days of the date of this order

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 27, 2015
In the 

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 1 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 2 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 3 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 4 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 5 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 6 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 7 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 8 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 9 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 10 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 11 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 12 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 13 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 14 of 15 

USCA11 Case: 22-13547     Document: 49-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 15 of 15
Exhibit 10.93

**AGREEMENT**

 

AGREEMENT made and entered into as of the 26th day of September, 2006 between UNITED MARKETING GROUP, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (“UMG”), with offices located at 929 North Plum Grove Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173 and HANOVER DIRECT, INC., a Delaware corporation (“HDI”), with offices located at 1500 Harbor Boulevard, Weehawken, New Jersey 07086. 

 

**Recitals**

 

UMG is a developer, marketer and administrator of consumer membership services.

 

HDI is engaged in the direct marketing business and operates a portfolio of catalogs (“HDI Catalogs”) and associated e-commerce websites (“HDI Websites”) through the wholly owned corporations and limited liability companies listed on attached Schedule A (“HDI Affiliates”). (A reference in this Agreement to HDI shall be deemed, where the context requires, to include the HDI Affiliates.)  In addition to merchandise offered in HDI Catalogs and Websites, HDI also markets, among other things, membership programs. 

 

A wholly owned HDI subsidiary provides call center and e-commerce services to third party direct marketers. Some of the direct marketers listed on attached Schedule B (“Third Party HDI Affiliates”) permit HDI, from time to time, to market membership programs to their customers on inbound order calls.

 

UMG and HDI wish to enter into this Agreement whereby HDI will market and sell membership programs supplied by UMG and described in Schedule C (“ Programs”) on select inbound order calls placed by HDI Catalog customers and the customers of Third Party HDI Affiliates (“Telephone Customers”) and on select HDI Websites.

 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, HDI and UMG agree as follows:

 

**1.  RETAIL/WHOLESALE ELECTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES**

 

1.1  **Election.**HDI shall select whether to market Programs on a revenue sharing basis (a “Rev Share Election”) or on a wholesale basis (“Wholesale Election”) on no less than 60 days prior written notice to UMG. An election shall take effect on the first day of the fiscal week, which starts on Sunday, after a 30 day implementation period following the 60 day notice period. HDI has initially made a Wholesale Election and delegated to UMG the delegable functions specified in Sections 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8.  

 

1.2  **Assignment of  Responsibilities.**The chart below assigns responsibility for the various functions described in Section 2 below; certain functions are a party’s responsibility regardless of whether a Rev Share or a Wholesale Election is in effect while responsibility for other functions is dependent on which election is in effect. In addition, if HDI makes a Wholesale Election, HDI may request that UMG provide certain of the functions in which event UMG shall provide the delegated functions and HDI shall compensate UMG in the amounts set forth on Schedule F.

 

----
#### State of Mississippi *v.*Rufus E. L. Sullivan.

Criminal Law. *Selling mortgaged property. Code*1892, § 1184.

An indictment which shows that the mortgage debt was not due when the alleged sale took place is not maintainable under code 1892, §1184, making it a misdemeanor to sell or dispose of property subject to a mortgage or deed of trust, without the consent of the mortgagee or beneficiary, unless the lien be immediately discharged.

Erom: the circuit court of Winston county.

Hon. Guión Q. Hall, Judge.

Sullivan, the appellee, was indicted, under code 1892, § 1184, for that he did “sell and dispose of” certain property upon which he had executed a mortgage. The indictment showed that the mortgage debt matured on the 15th of December, 1899, and the selling was averred to have been committed December 2, 1899. Defendant demurred to the indictment; the court below sustained the demurrer, and the state appealed to the supreme court.

*Monroe McGlurg,*Attorney-General, for appellant.

The court should not have sustained the demurrer to the indictment, because the indictment is properly drawn and charged an offense, the commission of which is prohibited by § 1184, code 1892. Every separate offense in this statute is mentioned *597in clauses connected only by tbe disjunctive conjunction “or,” properly set off by commas, indicating each act which may be a violation of the statute. If the English language under proper construction, taking into consideration the rules of grammar, rhetoric, and composition, means anything, this indictment certainly charges a violation of § 1184, code 1892.

*George*Richardson, for appellee.

The gist of the indictment is, that the defendant executed a mortgage on the 17th day of November, 1899, to secure the beneficiaries on personal property. The mortgage was due and payable December 15, 1899, that before the maturity of the mortgage the defendant, within the county, sold the property set forth in the indictment without the consent of the beneficiaries, and without discharging the mortgage.. The indictment charges no offense under the statute. The indictment is evidently framed under § 1184, code 1892. The defendant held rights in the property. The condition of his mortgage had not been broken, and the debt had not become due.

Defendant could sell his equity of redemption, and upon this there was no Tien. Therefore, as rightfully held by the lower court, the indictment could not be sustained under § 1184, code 1892, and the court below rightfully sustained the demurrer.

Terral, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The lien upon property of a deed of trust is discharged by the payment of the debt secured thereby. The debt is the principal thing; the lien is but an incident to it; and the grantor is not bound to pay the debt, and thereby discharge the lien, until the debt is due. Now, here, Sullivan is indicted for not paying the debt (discharging the lien) before it comes due, and in that respect we think the indictment faulty.

*Affirmed.*
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-134879, 333-114166, 333-102988, 333-85160, 333-61866, 333-25661, 333-32159, 333-23085, 333-17501, 333-03507, and 333-107755) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-116624, 333-30558, 333-46990, 333-81243, 333-105694, 333-105693, 333-134878, 333-151395 and 333-175972), pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan, the 1993 Non-Employee Directors’ Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000 Employee Stock PurchasePlan, the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2004 Non-Employee Directors’ Equity Incentive Plan and the 2006 Equity Incentive Award Plan of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our reports dated February 22, 2012, related to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report on this Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2011. 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP 

Costa Mesa, California 

February 22, 2012
#### United States *v.*Six Hundred Tons of Iron Ore, etc.1

*(District Court, D. New Jersey.)*

Forfeiture for Undervaluation of Imports—Exceptions to Commissioner’s Report—Act June 22, 1874, 17 and 18.

Exceptions t.o tlie report of a United States commissioner, to whom a case lias been referred for summary investigation under tlie provisions of sections 17 and 18 of tlie act of congress of June 22, 1874, to ascertain tlie amount of freight due the owners of a vessel on importations forfeited byreason of undervaluation, should not lie passed upon by the court, but go with the report to the secretary of tlie treasury, and be considered by him in making up his judgment in the case ; and an expression of tlie commissioner as to the law of tlie case should be stricken from'the report as not coming within the reference.

On Petition for Remission, etc.

*A. 0. Keasbey,*U. 8. Atty., for the United States.

*Henry T. Wing,*for petitioners Henderson and others.

*B. F. Lee,*for petitioner Wells.

1

See S. 0. 9 Fed. Rep. 595.

Nixon, J.

Six hundred tons of iron ore, imported into this country from Spain by the steam-ship Italia, have been forfeited for under*138valuation. Since the forfeiture, Thomas Henderson and others, owners of the steamer, have presented a petition to me, pursuant to the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the act of June 22, 1874 praying for an allowance of freight from the proceeds of the sale, and one Joseph Wells has also petitioned to be reimbursed for certain advances of money made by him on the purchase of the property without knowledge of the violations of the revenue laws by the importer.

Under the provisions of the eighteenth section I directed the summary investigation, provided for by the act, to be made by William Muirheid, Esq., one of the United States commissioners for the district, ordering him to state and annex to the petition the facts appearing from the evidence, together with a certified copy of the evidence, in order that the same might be transmitted to the honorable secretary of the treasury for adjudication.

The commissioner has made his report, finding the facts which he was ordered to do, and also finding the law, which was not within the reference. The counsel for the'petitioners, Henderson and oth-' ers, have filed exceptions to the report of the commissioner, and asking that numerous changes should be made by the judge.

I think the fair construction of the act is that these exceptions should go with the report to the secretary of the treasury, and should be considered by him in making up his judgment in the case. I have accordingly declined to pass upon them. I should direct all expressions of opinion by the commissioner, as to the law of the case, to be stricken from the report, as not coming within the reference, if I supposed they would tend to prejudice the judgment of the secretary of the treasury.
The undersigned, in his capacity as a director of SI Diamond Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), after reviewing the Company's Form 10-KSB,does hereby appoint Douglas P. Baker, his true and lawful attorney to execute in his name, place and stead, in his capacity as a Director of said Company, theCompany's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, and all instruments necessary or incidental in connection therewith,including all amendments, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said attorney shall have the full power and authority to do andperform, in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any and all capacities, every act whatsoever requisite or necessary to be done in thepremises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, the undersigned hereby ratifying and approving the acts ofsaid attorney.
             IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument this 13th day of March, 2002.

                                      /s/ Dr. Zvi Yaniv                                              Dr. Zvi Yaniv
<PAGE>

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
           SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Frank J. Drohan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period
ended June 30, 2003 on Form 10-QSB of Alfa International
Corp.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this quarterly report;

4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
report is being prepared; and

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90
days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); 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.



<PAGE>
5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation
of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's 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 registrant's internal controls.

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 19, 2003

/s/ Frank J. Drohan
-------------------
Frank J. Drohan
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

The originally executed copy of this Certification will be
maintained at the Company's offices and will be made
available for inspection upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2325

JOHN A. LENHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and GE LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-174-3-MU) Submitted: April 11, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John W. Gresham, FERGUSON, STEIN, CHAMBERS, WALLAS, ADKINS, GRESHAM & SUMTER, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Scott Humphrey, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: John A. Lenhart appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to General Electric Company on Lenhart’s claims of discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001), and a related state law claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Lenhart’s motion for leave to file additional material, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lenhart v. Gen. Elec. Co. , No. CA-99-174-3-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 28, 2001 & entered Oct. 1, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                               (3,500)
<SECURITIES>                                         221,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                        114,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2,400
<INVENTORY>                                          255,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     591,200
<PP&E>                                               3,452,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,596,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       2,762,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                291,300
<BONDS>                                              515,500
<COMMON>                                             64,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           731,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         2,762,800
<SALES>                                              484,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     486,700
<CGS>                                                371,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        388,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     36,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   11,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      49,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                         19,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  30,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         30,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .49


</TABLE>