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

• Lumpkin, J. — The language, “ I want to stay here awhile,” addressed by a man to a woman, is not, *per se,*either obscene or vulgar; and although the indictment charged that by the use of this language the *476former meant to ask the latter to have sexual intercourse with him, the evidence entirely failed to support this charge; and therefore the conviction of the accused of the offense of using obscene and vulgar language in the presence of a female was contrary to law and evidence, and the court erred in overruling the *certiorari.*

October 15, 1894.

*Certiorari:*Before Judge Jenkins. Greene superior court. August term, 1894.

Stamps was tried in the county court upon an indictment charging that he, a colored person, used to and in the presence of Mrs. McJunkin, a white lady, the following iudecent and vulgar language: “I want to stay here awhile,” that is,in the house with Mrs.McJunkin,“meaning by said language to ask the said Mrs. Sarah M. Mc-Junkin to have sexual intercourse with him; said language then and there tending to cause a breach of the-peace.” He demurred to the indictment, .upon the ground that it set forth no crime, and that the language alleged as being indecent and vulgar was not so in law. The demurrer was overruled. He was found guilty, and the conviction was sustained on *certiorari.*The State introduced the following evidence: The home of Mrs. McJunkin is in Greene county, about three hundred yards from the public road from Siloam to Veazey. During the morning of February 12, 1894, while she was at home alone, defendant came to her house and asked for a drink of water. She went into the house, got the water and gave it to him. He asked her if her husband was at home. She told him it was none of his business, and ordered him to leave the place. He did not go, but said to her, “I want to stay here awhile.” He came to the house on a mule, and rode round to the back door and asked for the water. While she was getting the water he got off the mule an'd came to the-door, and she handed him the water from the door. At first she did not know who he was. She asked him who-he was, and he said his name was Allen Stamps, that *477he was Julia Stamps’ son. He staid around there about fifteen or twenty minutes after she ordered him to leave, and then got on his mule and rode ofi‘ Avithout saying .anything. He did not come into the house. The house had been occupied by'negroes prior to the McJunkins moving into it in January, 1894, and there was a negro house on the public road about a half-mile away.

*476*Judgment reversed.*

*477Edavard Young and Hart & Sibley, for plaintiff in •error. II. G-. Lewis, solicitor-general, by Hines & Eelder and A. II. Davis, *contra.*
MARCH 31, 2003
                   CERTIFICATION BY TIM DEHERRERA PURSUANT TO
            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned,  President and Chief Executive Officer of Medplus Corporation,
(the  "Company"),  hereby  certify,  to  the best of my knowledge, that the Form
10-KSB/A  of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2003 (the "Annual Report")
accompanying  this  certification  fully  complies  with the requirements of the
Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d))  and  that  the  information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly
presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of
operations  of  the  Company. The foregoing certification is incorporated solely
for  purposes  of  complying  with  the  provisions  of  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  and  is  not  intended  to  be  used  for  any
other  purpose.

/s/ Tim DeHerrera
Tim DeHerrera
President and Chief Executive Officer
Dated: October 15, 2003



<PAGE>
#### Grantham *v.*The State.

Simmons, C. J. — 1. Where in a trial for burglary it was shown that the accused had possession of goods taken from the storehouse alleged to have been broken, and he, not denying this fact, contended that he and the owner were on friendly terms, that they frequently drank and “gambled” with each other, and that the goods in question were won from the owner in a game of cards, all of which was denied by the latter in his testimony, and where the time of the alleged burglary was left uncertain by the evidence, it was error to refuse to allow the accused to prove that before and after the time of the burglary, he and the prosecutor were seen in the latter’s store, and at other places, gaming, and that the prosecutor was seen drunk at his store both before and after the alleged burglary.

2. Other than as indicated in the preceding note, there was no error requiring a new trial.

February 27,1895.

Indictment for burglary. Before Judge Smith. Pulaski superior court. November term, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

*460Jordan & Watson, for plaintiff in error. Tom Eason, solicitor-general, by Felder & Davis, *contra.*
MEMC Exhibit 10.28 - Cash Bonus Plan Description - 12.31.12


Exhibit 10.28




 
Written Description of 
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. Cash Incentive Plan 
Covering Executive Officers 
 
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. ("MEMC" or the "Company") maintains a cash incentive plan that covers the Chief Executive Officer and the Company's other executive officers. Under current practice, the Compensation Committee (the "Committee") makes annual cash awards under the plan to executive officers to recognize and reward Company and individual performance. 
For each participant, the Committee establishes threshold, target and maximum bonus levels that are defined as a percentage of the participant's base salary. The “threshold” level of performance for a particular performance goal represents the lowest level of performance for which any bonus would be earned on that performance goal. The "maximum" level of performance represents the level for which the maximum bonus would be earned for that particular goal, and the "target" represents the target level of performance. The actual bonus, if any, attributable to each performance goal is calculated based on the actual performance compared to these “threshold," "target" and "maximum" performance levels. The "threshold," "target" and "maximum" levels for each category of executives under the plan are generally as follows: 
 
	
				
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Threshold 
 
	Target 
 
	Max 
 

	CEO
	63%
	125%
	250%

	EVP
	38%
	75%
	150%

	SVP
	25%
	50%
	100%

	VP
	     15-20%
	30-40%
	50-80%




The plan has two main components: a Company milestone component and a personal goal component.  The Company-based and personal performance metrics account for varying levels of the total potential award under the 2012 short term incentive plan as follows: 
 
	
			
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Company Metrics 
 
	Personal Metrics 
 

	CEO,
	80%
	20%

	EVP, SVP
	80%
	20%

	VP
	60%
	40%






 
 
As a result, the bonus paid to the CEO, if any, is 80% tied to Company metrics.  The Company's executive officer s have a number of quarterly, semi-annual and/or annual performance objectives including those tied to the Company's financial performance, along with a number of individual performance and financial objectives applicable to each executive officer's functional area. These objectives are reviewed and approved by the Committee on an annual basis. Based on the achievement against these performance objectives, the executive officers are entitled to receive cash awards, which are generally paid on an annual basis.  


The plan is non-contractual.  The Company maintains the right to terminate or amend the cash incentive plan at any time.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kevin LOVE, also known as Kelvin Love, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30426

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, Kelly Pomes Uebinger, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, For Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rebecca Louise Hudsmith, Esq., Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, For Defendants Appellant.

Kevin Love, Oakdale, LA, pro se.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Love has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Love has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Love’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





SPRING
      CREEK CAPITAL CORPORATION


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Jagjit
      Jay Sidhu, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Creek
      Capital Corporation
      (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002,
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            the
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal period
                endedJune
                30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
                13(a)
                or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
                78o(d));and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to Creek Capital Corporation and will be retained by Creek Capital Corporation
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




By:
      /s/ Jagjit Jay Sidhu


Jagjit
        Jay Sidhu





Date:
      February 7, 2007
S06A0121.

#### EDWARDS v. LEWIS.

(629 SE2d 248)

Melton, Justice.

Appellant Michael Edwards’ conviction for cocaine possession with intent to distribute and the resulting sentence was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in *Edwards v. State,*253 Ga. App. 837 (560 SE2d 735) (2002). Edwards thereafter filed a petition for habeas relief asserting ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel.1 During the hearing, the habeas court indicated on the record that it believed Edwards had met his burden on the “significant issue” of trial counsel’s failure to challenge the jury array prior to the jury being empaneled.2 It instructed the State to file a brief within 30 days of the hearing to show why Edwards should not be granted habeas relief and advised Edwards’ habeas counsel that counsel would have three weeks to respond to the State’s argument raised in the supplemental brief. Rather than file a brief as instructed, the State waited over a year, and submitted to the court a “proposed order” that included a final adjudication on the jury array issue. The habeas court entered the order two days later. We granted Edwards’ application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the order to determine “whether the habeas court erred in entering the proposed order without providing the petitioner the opportunity to respond to the respondent’s ‘brief,’ as stated during the hearing.”

We conclude it was fundamentally unfair for the habeas court to decide Edwards was not entitled to habeas relief without allowing Edwards a meaningful opportunity to respond to the State’s allegation, albeit submitted in order form, regarding the jury array and the effectiveness of his counsel. See *Ramos v. Terry,*279 Ga. 889 (1) (622 SE2d 339) (2005) (essence of due process is a meaningful opportunity to be heard). Accordingly, we vacate the habeas court’s judgment and remand this case with direction that the habeas court reconsider Edwards’ petition for writ of habeas corpus after Edwards has been given a meaningful opportunity to present the court with his response to the State’s allegations regarding his attorneys’ deficient performances in connection with the jury array.

*Judgment vacated and case remanded.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*442Decided April 25, 2006.

Michael Edwards, *pro se.*

*Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Vonnetta L. Benjamin, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

*Sarah L. Gerwig-Moore,*amicus curiae.

1

 Because Edwards’ trial and appellate counsel were both employed by the DeKalb County Public Defender’s office, Edwards’ claim against his trial counsel was not procedurally defaulted for his failure to raise it in the direct appeal.

2

 The issue raised the propriety of DeKalb County summoning jury arrays based upon a 1990 census, even though the results of the 2000 census showing a demographic change in the county had been published.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

49. Certification and licensing status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over by

employment status, 2020 annual averages

Employment status

Number of persons (in thousands) Percent distribution

Total

With a certification or license1

Total

With a certification or license1

Total

With a

certification,

but no

license

With a

license2

Without

a

certification

or

license

Total

With a

certification,

but no

license

With a

license2

Without

a

certification

or

license

Civilian noninstitutional population............ 260,329 44,405 4,127 40,278 215,924 100.0 17.1 1.6 15.5 82.9

Civilian labor force........................... 160,742 38,729 3,585 35,144 122,013 100.0 24.1 2.2 21.9 75.9

Employed................................... 147,795 36,906 3,390 33,517 110,889 100.0 25.0 2.3 22.7 75.0

Usually work full time................... 123,188 32,191 3,023 29,168 90,997 100.0 26.1 2.5 23.7 73.9

Usually work part time................. 24,607 4,716 367 4,349 19,891 100.0 19.2 1.5 17.7 80.8

Unemployed................................ 12,947 1,823 196 1,627 11,125 100.0 14.1 1.5 12.6 85.9

Not in the labor force........................ 99,587 5,676 542 5,134 93,911 100.0 5.7 0.5 5.2 94.3

1 A person may have more than one certification or license.

2 Persons with a license may also have a certification.

NOTE: Certifications are issued by a non-governmental certification body and convey that an individual has the knowledge or skill to perform a

specific job. A license is awarded by a government agency and conveys a legal authority to work in an occupation. Full time is 35 hours or more per

week; part time is less than 35 hours. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 4
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 5
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 6
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 7
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 8
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 9
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 10
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 11
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of Baoshinn Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, I, Benny Kan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:  1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated:  November 15, 2010 BAOSHINN CORPORATION By:  /s/ Benny Kan Benny Kan  Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of Baoshinn Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, I, Sean Webster, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:  1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated:  November 15, 2010 BAOSHINN CORPORATION By:  /s/ Sean Webster Sean Webster
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARY ANN SIVOLELLA, et al.

Civil Action No. 11-4194 (PGS)

Plaintiffs,

V.

AXA EQUitABLE FUNDS

MANAGEMENT, LLC, et a!.,

Defendants.

GLENN D. SANFORD, et al. Civil Action No. 13-3 12 (PGS)

Plaintiffs,

V.

AXA EQUITABLE FUNDS

MANAGEMENT, LLC, et a!., ORDER

Defendants.

SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’

Demands for a Jury Trial (dkt. nos. 42, 7). Plaintiffs have opposed the Motion (dkt. nos. 51, 15).

The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Arpert for a Report and Recommendation

pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 72 and L. Civ. R. 72.1. The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and

Recommendation in this action on July 12, 2013, (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant

Defendants’ motion. (See dkt. nos. 62, 23, R&R.) The Plaintiffs filed objections to the R&R

(dkt. nos. 63, 24), and the Defendants responded (dkt. nos. 65, 26).

Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 66 Filed 08/15/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1310
WHEREAS The Court has carefully considered Judge Arpert’s R&R, and the briefs of

the parties. The Court finds the R&R to be both well-reasoned and thorough, and agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that the Defendants’ motion should be granted. Therefore, for good cause

having been shown,

IT IS on thisayof August, 2013

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that was

entered on July 12, 2013 (dkt. entry nos. 62, 23) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court; and

it is further

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Demands for a Jury Trial (dkt.

nos. 42, 7) is GRANTED.

DATE:

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

2

Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 66 Filed 08/15/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1311
PAUL J. FISHMAN

United States Attorney

JORDAN M. ANGER

Assistant U.S. Attorney

970 Broad Street, Room 701

Newark, NJ 07102

(973) 645-645-2829

J1V1A2859

FLU:KCPB

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT CoURT

DISTRICT OF NEWJERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Hon. Jose L. Linares

Plaintiff

v. CRIMINALNo. 11-473

SWISS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

GARNISHEE ORDER

Defendant.

and

PNC BANK,

and its successors or assigns,

Garnishee.

An Application and Order for Writ of Garnishment was filed by the United States of

America. and a Writ of Garnishment directed to Garnishee was duly issued. The Garnishee

waived service ofthe Writ of Garnishment by United States Marshal and accepted service by

federal express mail. Pursuant to the Writ of Garnishment, the Garnishee has filed an Answer to

the Writ stating that at the time of the service of the Writ he had in his possession, custody or

under his control, personal property belonging to and due defendant, and that garnishee was

Case 2:11-cr-00473-JLL Document 11 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 44
indebted to defendant in the sum of $6.372.03.

IT IS ORDERED that the garnishee liquidate the defendant’s account so that it may be

applied to the defendant’s financial obligation to the United States of America.

DATED: I

H9/JOSE TLINARES, JUDGE

> TED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:11-cr-00473-JLL Document 11 Filed 06/25/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 45
v. : Civil Action No, 3:1 1-cv-03788 (FLW)(LHG)

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. andMYLAN INC..

Defendants.

[PORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiff Orexo AB

(“Plaintiff’) pursuant to Local Rule 5.3(c) to seal: (a) Plaintiffs Opening Markman Brief. (b)Declaration of Dr. Nicholas A. Peppas; (c) Exhibits B, 6—9, 17—26 to the Declaration of Dr.

Nicholas A. Peppas; and (d) Exhibit 32 to the Declaration of Anna Brook, all filed on October 5,2012 [D.i. 96j (the “Subject Material”); and the Court having considered the written submissions

ofthe parties, and having determined that this action involves allegations requiring the disclosure

of confidential and proprietary information, and the Court being satisfied ofthe following:

1. This is a complex patent case requiring discovery of highly sensitive competitive

materials, including business, trade-secret or proprietary information. The parties to this case

have produced confidential information in discovery, the public disclosure of which could affectlegitimate business interests.

2. To protect the confidentiality’ ofthis information, the parties agreed to a

Stipulated Discovers’ Confidentiality Order. entered in this liti ation on March 26, 2012 D4. 47.

the “Order”). The Order allows the parties or third parties to designate information as

Co fidential ot Highly Confidential , and prns ides that a parts wishing to use materiais so
, 

p

p

y

information, the disclosure of which would destroy the value ofthe parties information and the

competitive advantage which attaches thereto, The parties have a legitimate interest in the

continued confidentiality ofthis information.

4. Absent an order sealing the Subject Material, Plaintiff cannot include the

confidential information in support of its Opening Mathnan Briel without wholly disregarding

the parties’ designation. The omission ofthis confidential information from Plaintiffs

submission would significantly limit Plaintiff’s ability to adequately advocate for its position.

5. Upon consideration of the papers submitted in support ofthe motion, and the

material sought to be sealed, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has met its burden under Local

Civil Rule 5.3(c) and applicable case law, and that this material should be sealed.

6. Specifically, the Court concludes that:

(a) the Subject Material contains information concerning both

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ proprietary, business or financial information that the parties have

designated ‘Confidential”;

(b) the parties have a legitimate interest in maintaining the

confidentiality ofthe Subject Material;

(c) the omission of the Suect Material from Plaintilis Opening

Markrnan Brief would significantly limit Plaintiffs ability to advocate for its position; and

td ‘here is m’ less IestrILtIL alternane tn the rLlIef sotht
y 

tokeal t

e Subject

Material

Hon Lois H Goodman U S M J