alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jones *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J. — 1. The exercise of due diligence by the accused and his counsel would have enabled them to discover, before accepting a juror put upon them under the na’me of “T. G. Howell,” that he was the same person whose name appeared in the bill of indictment as “Thomas G. Howell,” and that he was a member of the grand jury which found the bill.

2. The evidence fully warranted the verdict; the newly discovered evidence is not such as to authorize the granting of a new trial; and no error was committed which would justify this court in setting aside the verdict after its approval by the trial judge.

October 8,1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Henry. Chattooga superior court. March term, 1894.

Wesley Shropshire and Copeland & Jackson, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and W. J. Nunnally, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors
Click Commerce, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-54432, 333-62462, 333-70084, 333-107485) of Click
Commerce, Inc. of our reports dated February 11, 2004, except as to Note 16,
which is as of March 18, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Click Commerce, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the
related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss,
shareholders' equity and cash flows, and the related consolidated financial
statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2003, which reports appear in the annual report on Form 10-K/A of
Click Commerce, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                                  /s/  KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
February 4, 2005
#### Scott Hansen, Appellant, v William Gilmore, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 911]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated March 17, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

On the morning of December 5, 2002 the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in a pothole on the defendant’s property which was covered by less than an inch of snow. After issue was joined, the defendant moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs theory of liability, as set forth, among other things, in his amended bill of particulars, is that the gravel design of the driveway, its use by 80,000-pound trucks, and poor drainage from the underlying compacted soil, caused ruts in the gravel that pooled water and ice. The defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden entitling him to summary judgment (see *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs.,*46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]), as the submissions in support of summary judgment failed to address the plaintiffs negligence theory regarding the design, use, and maintenance of the gravel driveway. As the burden never shifted to the plaintiff, the defendant’s motion must be denied without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Hughes v Cai,*31 AD3d 385 [2006]).

*665The defendant’s remaining contentions are either academic or without merit. Crane, J.E, Mastro, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5425

To amend a provision relating to privacy officers in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2005. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2004

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To amend a provision relating to privacy officers in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. Section 522 of the Transportation, 

4 Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government 

5 Appropriations Act, 2005 (division H of the Consolidated 

6 Appropriations Act, 2005), is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 522. Each agency shall have a Chief Privacy 

8 Officer, who shall assist the agency Chief Information Of9 ficer (designated under section 3506 of title 44, United 
2

•HR 5425 IH 

1 States Code) in matters relating to the use, collection, and 

2 disclosure of personally identifiable information.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Andrew D. Hyder, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2005 of Subjex Corporation.

2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

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

4.     The registrant's other certifying officers, 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 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 annual 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 evaluations; and

c)     Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.     The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

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 over
financial reporting.

Date: April 17, 2006                    By: /s/ Andrew D. Hyder
                                            --------------------------
                                            Chairman, President
Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 1 of 15 PageID: 14

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 2 of 15 PageID: 15

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 3 of 15 PageID: 16

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 4 of 15 PageID: 17

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 5 of 15 PageID: 18

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 6 of 15 PageID: 19

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 7 of 15 PageID: 20

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 8 of 15 PageID: 21

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 9 of 15 PageID: 22

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 10 of 15 PageID: 23

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 11 of 15 PageID: 24

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 12 of 15 PageID: 25

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 13 of 15 PageID: 26

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 14 of 15 PageID: 27

Case 2:11-cv-03388-FSH -PS   Document 5    Filed 06/15/11   Page 15 of 15 PageID: 28
#### Savannah, Florida & Western Rwy. Co. *v.*McMillan.

Bleckley, C. J. — A decision in a justice’s court, made by the presiding justice, to the effect that the plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to uphold the action, though the judgment be one dismissing-the suit, is an adjudication upon the merits as to the matter of fact involved in the trial; and the plaintiff is entitled, by virtue of §4157(a) of the code, to appeal to a jury in that court from- the judgment so rendered. There was no error in refusing to sanction the petition for *certiorari.*

October 22,1894.

Petition for *certiorari.*Before Judge Sweat. Pierce county. May 8, 1894.

McMillan sued the railway company for damages for-killing his cow. After plaintiff closed his evidence, the suit was dismissed by the magistrate, upon the ground that the plaintiff" failed to prove the killing of the property. Thereupon plaintiff" appealed to a jury. Upon the appeal trial defendant moved to dismiss the appeal,, upon the ground that an appeal will not lie to review errors of law committed by a justice’s court. This motion was overruled, and plaintiff' obtained a verdict. Defend'ant presented its petition for certiorari, alleging error in the refusal to dismiss the appeal. Sanction of the petition was refused, and defendant excepted.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*505Erwin, duBignon & Chisholm and Hitch & Myers, for plaintiff in error. S. W. Sturgis, *contra.*
ex10_25.htm



 







Exhibit 10.25





  


 


Celebrating Five Decades of International Exchange


 


	
 

	
December 9, 2009





 


By Facsimile, Certified Mail and Federal Express


 


People to People International


World Headquarters


911 Main Street, Suite 2110


Kansas City, MO 64105


 


Attn: Ms. Mary Eisenhower


 


Re:  Exercise of Option


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Pursuant to Section 2 of the Amendment to General Contracts, dated January 22, 2000, by and among People to People International, Ambassadors International, Inc. and Ambassador Programs, Inc. (the “Amendment”), we hereby exercise the option to extend the term of all of the Contracts (as defined in the Amendment) through June 30, 2020.


 


Please feel free to call me with any questions.


 


	
 

	
Regards,


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
/s/ Jeffrey D. Thomas


	
 

	
Jeffrey D. Thomas


Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION

I, Javan Khazali, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (principal
accounting officer) of Giant Jr. Investments, Inc. (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that

1.    The annual report on Form 10-KSB and amendments thereto of the Company for
      the annual period ended August 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

2.    The information contained in the Report presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the period set forth therein.

Dated: February 4, 2005
                                           Name: /s/ Javan Khazali
                                           ----------------------------------
                                                     Javan Khazali

                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Chief Financial Officer (principal
                                           accounting officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, 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 January 25, 2013

s0122 

# Order

January 25, 2013

146027

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146027

COA: 311398

Oakland CC: 2012

- 009653

- AR

SHAUN CLAYTON PENZIEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2012

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  E LIZABETH A IDAH ASKELL ; R EGINALD E NTO ; J EFFREY P ATRICK L YONS , J R .; A AKASH D ESAI , on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, No. 10-15152

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 

#  3:09-cv-04779-CRB K AMALAD. H ARRIS , Attorney ORDER General of California; E VA S TEINBERGER , Assistant Bureau Chief for DNA Programs, California Department of Justice,

Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Filed July 25, 2012

ORDER

KOZINSKI , Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
Judges Nguyen, Watford and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to whether the case should be taken en banc.

8561
#### Rogers *v.*The State.

Simmons, O. J. — Where a motion for a new trial had been twice continued for want of papers, the absence of which was attributable either to the fault or negligence of the counsel for the movant, and where, upon the motion coming on the third time for a hearing, the papers were still absent, and no sufficient cause for their non-production was shown, nor any motion made for a further continuance, this court will not reverse a judgment dismissing the motion for the want of papers. Inasmuch, however, as the present-case involves the imprisonment of the accused for life, direction is given that the presiding judge may, in his discretion, reinstate the motion for a new trial and hear and determine the same upon its merits.

February 18, 1895.

By two Justices'.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Gamble. Washington superior court. September term, 1894.

Charles M. Tyson and Hines & Hale, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, B. X). Evans, Jr.,, solicitor-general, and Harris & Bawlings, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed, with direction.*
#### The Wier *v.*The Padre.1

*(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

December 8, 1886.)

Goimstoít—Vessel sot at Axotiob—Storm.

Failure to see that a vessel is securely fastened when a storm arises will render her responsible in damages if, during the storm, the vessel breaks loose, and collides with another.

In Admiralty.

*Henry R. Edmunds,*for libelant.

*Charles Gibbons, Jr.,*for respondent.

1

 Reported by C. Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Butler, T.

It seems quite clear that the respondent is liable. Conceding that the bark was fastened with sufficient security for fair weather, it certainly was not for the tempestuous weather which prevailed for many hours before the accident. The respondent’s duty required him to see to the fastenings when the storm arose. The post to which the chain was attached was rotten, and insufficient to resist any strain, while the bowline was weak, and easily parted. These fastenings, I think, could scarcely be regarded as secure, even *in*ordinary weather.

A decree must be entered for the libelant accordingly.
[No. 53677-0-I.

Division One.

November 21, 2005.]

#### Melvin Rubin, *Appellant,*v. Juanita Shores Condominium Owner’s Association, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-2-20972-6, Gregory P. Canova, J., entered August 20, 2003. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Cook, J. Pro Tern.; Kennedy, J., indicated her concurrence prior to her death on September 16, 2005.
# table 1
Case 3:10-cr-00640-PGS Document 38 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 89
ex10_1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


  ROBERT


HALL


Winery


 


Sales Memo


Date: March 10, 2012


 



	 	
Seller

	
Robert Hall Winery


2975 Mitchell Ranch Way 


Paso Robles CA


 


 


Contact:  Don Brady 


Phone:     805-239-1616


Fax:           805-239-2464

	 	Buyer	
TRUETT & HURST


P.O. Box 1532


5610 Dry Creek Road


Healdsburg CA 95448


 


Contact: Ginny Lambrix


530- 270-9373; Phil Hurst


707-318-7480

	 





 



	 	 	 
	 	
DESCRIPTION & APPROXIMATE QUANTTTY:


Central Coast Cabernet Sauvignon wine (52,000 gallons) 


Central Coast Zinfandel wine (32,500 gallons) 


Central Coast Petite Sirah wine (13,000 gallons)


Central Coast Cabernet Franc wine (6,500 gallons)


Central Coast Merlot wine (58,500 gallons) 


Central Coast Syrah wine (32,500 gal1ons) 


All wine: 100% Varietal, 100% Vintage, 100% Central Coast

	 
	 	
UNIT PRICES, DOLLARS/GALLON BY VARIETY BY VINTAGE:

	 
	 	
Cabernet Sauvignon, Zinfandel, Petite Sirah, Cabernet Franc;

	 
	 	2012, $11.00/Gallon, 2013, $11.50/Gallon, 2014, $12.00/Gallon, 2015, $12.50/Gallon	 
	 	
Merlot, Syrah

	 
	 	
2012, $9.50/Gallon, 2013, $10.00/Gallon, 2014, $10.50/Gallon, 2015, $11.00/Gallon   

	 
	 	All FOB Robert Hall Winery, Paso Robles, CA

 


 


All based on approval of samples 


 


 


TERMS: 33% due at approval of samples (~1/15 of the year following harvest); balance due in 2 increments of 33% paid at 30 day intervals from the initial due date, or 30 days from delivery if this occurs first.


 


 


DATE OF TRANSFER: Prior to 3/31 of the year following harvest, any balance will be billed at a rate of $0.12/gallon per month of storage.

	 










 



	
For: Robert Hall Winery

	  	
For: Truett & Hurst


	
BW CA 6278

	  	  
	 	 	 
	 	3/12/2012	 	 	3/12/2012
	
Signature

	
Date

	  	
Signature

	
Date







 







 


3443 Mill Road


Paso Robles, CA 93446


Telephone: 805.239.1616 ~ Facsimile: 805.239.2464 ~Email: dbrady@roberthallwinery.com
|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |

| /s/ Richard E. Bagley                               |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard E. Bagley, President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)             |   |
| March 1, 2011                                            |   |

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5374 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

30777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, California, as the ‘‘Dalip 

Singh Saund Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2004 

Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mr. FILNER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mrs. 

BONO, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. COX, Mr. POMBO, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of 

California, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. 

MCKEON, Mr. DREIER, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. OSE, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. NUNES, Mr. HERGER, Mr. 

DOOLITTLE, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. BACA, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. MATSUI, Ms. 

WOOLSEY, Ms. PELOSI, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. LANTOS, Ms. LOFGREN, 

Mr. FARR, Mr. CARDOZA, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. 

BECERRA, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Ms. ESHOO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 30777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, 

California, as the ‘‘Dalip Singh Saund Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5374 IH 

1 SECTION 1. DALIP SINGH SAUND POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 30777 Rancho California Road 

4 in Temecula, California, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Dalip Singh Saund Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the Dalip Singh Saund 

10 Post Office Building. 

Æ
# Over age 65 and NAICS 11

Fatal occupational injuries to workers 65 years of age and older in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector by eventexposure, 2015-2016 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries to workers 65 years of age and older in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector by eventexposure, 2015-2016		

Fatal occupational injuries to workers 65 years of age and older in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector by eventexposure, 2015-2016 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries to workers 65 years of age and older in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting sector by eventexposure, 2015-2016		

Page &P