alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The District Court of the 1st Judicial District. County of Lewis and Clark.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. GRIFFITH HUGHES, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. CDC-2006-278 DECISION

On April 19,2007, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Fifteen (15) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Assault on a Peace Officer or Judicial Officer, a felony; Count II: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, all time suspended, for the offense of Criminal Endangerment, a felony; Count III: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, all time suspended, for the offense of Criminal Endangerment, a felony; and Count IV: A commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections for a term of thirteen (13) months, followed by a five (5) year suspended sentence, for the offense of DUI, a felony. The sentences imposed for Counts II - III shall run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentences imposed for *60Counts I and IV.

On August 5,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to continue his hearing to have additional time to prepare his case with counsel.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the defendant’s application for review of sentence shall be continued to the next set of hearings in November 2010.

Done in open Court this 5th day of August, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DENALDO FORBES

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1599

[ February 28, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Elizabeth Anne

Scherer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 005062 CF10A

.

Denaldo Forbes, Arcadia, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, M AY and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,017
<INVENTORY>                                     30,619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,262
<PP&E>                                          11,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,424
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,453
<SALES>                                        125,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,170
<CGS>                                           97,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (6)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,408)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,012
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.91)
        

</TABLE>
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 OCTuS, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John C. Belden, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.



|By:  /s/   John C. BeldenJohn C. Belden
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer | March 18, 2004
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------





---
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 Columbia Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence A. Gyenes, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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.








/s/ Lawrence A. Gyenes


Lawrence A. Gyenes


Senior Vice President-


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


November 4, 2010
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 1245

JOSEPH A. STALLARD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 01236

- LMB

- JFA )

Submitted : July 20, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Joseph A. Stallard, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virgin ia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1245 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Joseph A. Stallard appeals the district court’s order granting the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss Stallard’s civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 to 5 59. Stallard ’s action challenged § 1202.10 of the USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure , which provides examining attorneys with guidance on criteria for evaluating an application to re gister a character in a creative work as a trademark. Upon review of the record , we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Stallard v. USPTO , No.
1:22

- cv - 01236

- LMB

- JFA ( E .D. Va

. Mar. 1, 2023 ). 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 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1245 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
exv10w17



 





Exhibit 10.17




			
	 	 	 
	
	 	Woodward Governor Company

1000 East Drake Road

P.O. Box 1519

Fort Collins, CO 80522-1519 USA

Tel: 970-482-5811

Fax: 970-498-3058






	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	April 11, 2005
	 
	 	 
	To:

	 	Dennis Benning
	 

	 	Vice President, Fluid Systems and Controls CoE
	 
	 	 
	From:

	 	Tom Gendron
	 

	 	President and Chief Operating Officer
	 
	 	 
	Subject:

	 	Job Offer Clarification and Revision






Dear Dennis,




The purpose of this letter is to clarify and revise one provision of your offer letter dated May
22, 2002 (later revised on May 29, 2002). On page 2, a Special Relocation Benefit was
authorized, which provided the following:



     The
company will authorize full relocation for you and your wife consistent with our
relocation policy for a return move to Rockford, IL. If you decide to exercise this
benefit, the move must be completed within 1 year of your retirement date from Woodward.



After
consideration, your return move does not need to be limited to Rockford, IL
following your retirement date. As a result, the above provision will be modified
and serve as an addendum to your May 2002 original offer letter:



     The company will authorize full relocation for you and your wife consistent with our
relocation policy for a return move to anywhere within the United States. If you decide
to exercise this benefit, the move must be completed within 1 year of your retirement date from
Woodward.



All other provisions of the offer letter remain unchanged. Dennis, hopefully this will
give you some additional flexibility when you decide to retire. If you have any questions or need
clarification, please contact me.



Sincerely,









Tom Gendron




Cc: Steve Meyer/Personnel File
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


EXECUTION COPY


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


BETWEEN


ZENITH NATIONAL INSURANCE CORP.


AND


STANLEY R. ZAX


 


1.  Zenith National Insurance Corp. (“Zenith”)
and Stanley R. Zax (“Employee”) are parties to that certain Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement with an Effective Date of December 11, 1997 (the
“Employment Agreement”).  Capitalized
terms have the meaning ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement, unless
otherwise defined herein.


 


2.  This Amendment dated as of October 12, 2004
is hereby made a part of, and expressly incorporated into, the Employment
Agreement as an amendment thereto.  In
the event any provision of this Amendment and any provision of the Employment
Agreement are inconsistent or conflicting, the inconsistent or conflicting
provision of this Amendment shall control.


 


3.  The parties agree to amend the Employment
Agreement, as follows:


 


A.     The first Recital is
modified to delete the position as President of Zenith Insurance Company.


 


B.      Section 3, Term of
Employment, is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted
therefor:


 


3.  Term of Employment.  The term of employment hereunder shall be a
period commencing on the Effective Date and terminating December 31, 2009
(“Expiration Date”) unless sooner terminated as elsewhere provided herein
(“Term of Employment”).


 


C.      Section 4.1 is
deleted in is entirety and the following is substituted therefor:


 


4.1  Employee
shall be paid the following amounts, subject to such other increases as the
Board of Directors of Zenith may from time to time determine (“Base
Compensation”):


 


(a) 
From the Effective Date through December 31, 2000:  $1,000,000 per year;


 


(b) 
From January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002:  $1,200,000 per year;


 
















 


(c) 
From January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004:  $1,350,000 per year;


 


(d) 
From January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006:  $1,500,000 per year;


 


(e) 
From January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009:  $1,500,000 per year;


 


Except as specifically modified
herein, the parties expressly reaffirm the terms and conditions of the
Agreement.


 


	
  Zenith
  National Insurance Corp.

  	
   

  	
  Employee

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ William
  J. Owen

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Stanley
  R. Zax

  	
   

  
	
  William J. Owen

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Stanley R.
  Zax

  
	
  Sr. Vice President

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  As agent for and on behalf of

  Zenith and each and all of its

  subsidiaries (“Employer”)
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Written Statement of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350) The undersigned, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Orbital
Sciences Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, on the date hereof:  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
Quarter Ended September 30, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the  Report ) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ David W. ThompsonDavid W. ThompsonChairman and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 25, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, Wayne P. Garten,
President and Chief Executive Officer and John W. Swatek, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
of Hanover Direct, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certify that to his knowledge the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended September 24, 2005 of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(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 for the period specified. Signed at the City of Weehawken, in
the State of New Jersey, this 9th day of December, 2005. /s/ Wayne P. Garten 
      
      
      Wayne P. Garten 
      President and Chief Executive Officer/s/
      John W. Swatek
      
      
      John W. Swatek 
      Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

HHS gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees for the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

*Facility:*                         University of Rochester.                    

*Location:*                         Rochester, New York.                    

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                         Laboratory Technicians who worked in the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project laboratory building.                    

*Period of Employment:*                         September 1, 1943 through June 19, 1945.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV.*

Christine M. Branche,

Acting Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. E9-12007 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SUPERMARKETS
GENERAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 13
WEEKS ENDED APRIL 29, 2000 AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET ON APRIL 29, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           FEB-3-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                          12,948
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,168
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (971)
<INVENTORY>                                    151,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               268,386
<PP&E>                                         857,105
<DEPRECIATION>                               (391,086)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 840,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,632,981
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          111,544
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,458,980)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   840,254
<SALES>                                        919,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               919,196
<CGS>                                          661,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  661,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (42,136)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,261)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (24)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,285)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,285)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### BOWLES, Price Adm’r, v. MONTAGUE et al.

Civil Action No. 2388.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

Jan. 12, 1946.

Charles J. Ware, Dist. Enforcement Atty., and B. V. O’Hare, Enforcement Atty., both of Harrisburg, for plaintiff.

Herbert B. Cohen, of York, Pa., for defendants.

WATSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Chester Bowles, Administrator of the Office of Price Administration, brought this action on October 13, 1945, seeking treble damages and an injunction for violation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, '50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., and Maximum Price Regulation 172 governing charges for the sale of materials or services in connection with articles of apparel, apparel furnishings and accessories made by cutting and sewing methods, or knitting processes.

Before answering, the defendant filed a motion for a more definite statement, which motion was presented on briefs, and is now before the Court for disposition.

The complaint sets forth only that: “During the period from October 1, 1944 and the date of this complaint, the defendant, a contractor of said garments, supplied services * * * apparel, apparel furnishings * * * at prices in excess of the maximum prices established therefor by the said regulation.” The amount of the overcharges, treble the amount of which is claimed as damages, was nowhere mentioned in the complaint.

Defendant moves that the plaintiff be directed to furnish (1) the manner wherein the defendant has exceeded the maximum price for the items mentioned above, and (2) the name and address of persons to whom the alleged services at prices in excess of the maximum prices were supplied and the date or dates on which such acts took place.

In my opinion the defendant is entitled to some of the information requested and, therefore, the following order is made:

The plaintiff is ordered and directed to file a more definite statement within thirty *84days containing the subject matter of the violations and the manner in which the overcharges were made, whether through services, apparel, apparel furnishings or accessories made by either cutting, or sewing, or knitting methods; and further containing the maximum prices allowed by the regulations and amounts charged in excess of those prices. These facts must have been in the plaintiff’s possession in order to determine that there were overcharges; and it should not be necessary for the defendant to submit to an examination before such a definite statement is furnished.

The second request, that the plaintiff furnish the names and addresses of the persons to whom the services were supplied and the specific date of each overcharge, is denied.