alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America v. John DE VINCENTIS.

Cr. No. 61-287.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

March 1, 1962.

*72W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., William Madden, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Nicholas Barbadoro, Quincy, Mass., Francis DiMento, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

CAFFREY, District Judge.

On November 2, 1961, the grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging defendant with willfully evading income taxes due and owing by him for the calendar years 1955, 1956, and 1957, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7201. On November 6,1961, defendant appeared without counsel for arraignment and a plea of not guilty was entered by order of the Court. On November 20, 1961 the case was called for assignment of a trial date and counsel appeared for defendant and was notified as to a tentative trial date in January 1962. No request was made for leave to file any motion of any kind on that date, November 20.

On February 5, 1962, different counsel for defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars. Argument on this motion was heard on February 7, 1962 and on February 19 memoranda were filed, primarily with reference to the timeliness or untimeliness of this motion. Assuming without deciding that a District Court has discretion, under Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., to entertain a motion for a bill of particulars filed more than ten days after arraignment, I find that in view of the information contained in each count of the three-count indictment, and in view of the Government’s admission in its memorandum that it is relying on the so-called “net worth-expenditure” method, the defendant is not entitled to the granting of a motion for a written bill of particulars. See United States v. Finegan, 189 F.Supp. 728 (N.D.Ohio, 1960), at 730, where the Court said:

> “The Government says that, with respect to each count in the indictment, it has used ‘the so-called “net worth and expenditure method” ’ of computation. This statement, together with the language of the indictment, which is clear, simple and precise, sufficiently apprises the defendant of the nature of the offense charged to enable him to prepare his defense and to protect him from double jeopardy.”

See, also, United States v. Chapman, 168 F.2d 997 (7 Cir., 1948); United States v. Carb, 17 F.R.D. 242 (E.D.N.Y.1954); United States v. Caserta, 199 F.2d 905, 910 (3 Cir., 1952).

Motion denied.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller
      and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C,
      ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,





1)
            the
                Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
            the
                information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





By
      /s/
      Antonio Estrada


Antonio
      Estrada


Corporate
      Controller and


Principal
      Financial Officer


December
      14, 2007
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 









 


100 King Street West


First Canadian Place


Mezzanine Level


Toronto, Ontario


M5X 1A3







December 13th, 2011







Tucows.com Co.


96 Mowat Avenue


Toronto, Ontario


M6K 3M1







To Mr. Mike Cooperman

















LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT







The Bank hereby provides its consent to temporarily remove in full the $2 Million share repurchase threshold for Tucows.com Co.’s (the “Borrower”) acquisition / share repurchase facility (the “facility”). The threshold is being temporarily removed to enable the Borrower to repurchase any amount of shares it deems necessary with in the facility as long as the total advances under the facility remains within the $8 Million authorization limit. The threshold will be re-instated on March 31st, 2012.







Please confirm receipt of this letter, and acknowledge the foregoing by signing and returning the enclosed copy to the address listed above.












Yours truly,







/s/ Mike Hayes







Mike Hayes


Commercial Account Manager

















Signed at _____________________ this 13th day of December, 2011.

















               Tucows.com Co.












/s/ Mike Cooperman                             


Mike Cooperman, CFO


 

 


“I/We have the authority to bind the Corporation”
EXHIBIT
32.2



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



In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio
Estrada Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,



| | 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                                         and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By | /s/
    Antonio Estrada Jr. | 
|-- | --------------------------- | 
|   | Antonio
    Estrada Jr.     | 
|   | Chief
    Financial Officer | 
|   | February
    20, 2015       |
ex10-9.htm


EXHIBIT 10.9


 


AMENDMENT TO SECURED CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE


 


FIRST AMENDMENT, dated as of December 14, 2011 and effective retroactively, to SECURED CONVERTIBLE DENBENTURE, made by and between PROGREEN PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Henrik Sellmann (the “Lender”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the Debenture.


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Lender are parties to that certain Secured Convertible Debenture, dated November 5, 2009, (the “Debenture”) pursuant to which the Company has borrowed the amount of $500,000 from the Lender;  and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Lender have agreed to amendments relating to the payment of interest on the Debenture; and


 


WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Debenture, the Company and the Lender hereby approve the amendment of the Debenture as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.  By their respective execution of this Agreement, the Company and the Lender agree that Section 1 of the Debenture is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“1. Rate and Payment of Interest. The principal balance of this Debenture shall bear interest at a fixed rate per annum equal to thirteen and one-half percent (13.5%), payable annually in arrears. Interest shall commence to accrue on the date hereof. Interest payments shall be payable in shares of Common Stock of the Company, par value $.0001 per share ("Common Stock"), valued at the Conversion Price as of the due date of the interest payment; provided however, that the Company, at its sole option, may elect to pay any interest payment hereunder in cash, such cash interest payment to be
payable no later than ninety (90) days from the original interest payment due date. If this Debenture is prepaid pursuant to the terms of Section 3 hereof, the prepayment sum shall include all unpaid interest accrued through the date of prepayment paid, at the sole option of the Company, either (x) in cash or (y) in shares of Common Stock at the Conversion Price as of the date of prepayment.







2.  Except as expressly provided herein, the Debenture shall continue in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Lender have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.


 


PROGREEN PROPERTIES, INC.


/s/  Jan Telander


By:_______________________


Name:


Title:


 







LENDER:


 /s/ Henrik Sellmann


By:_______________________


Name: Henrik Sellmann


Title:
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________
No. 22-40043

____________ Feds for Medical Freedom; Local 918, American Federation of Government Employees; Highland Engineering, Incorporated; Raymond A. Beebe, Jr.; John Armbrust; Et al.,
Plaintiffs—Appellees ,

versus
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his official capacity as President of the United States ; The United States of America; Pete Buttigieg, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation ; Department of Transportation; Janet Yellen, in her official capacity as Secretary of Treasury ; Et al.,
Defendants—Appellants

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CV-356

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED ORDER United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 26, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40043 Document: 354-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2024No. 22-40043

2 Before Richman, Chief Judge , and Jones, Smith, Barksdale, Stewart, Dennis, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Ho, Du ncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which vacated and remanded our judgment. Biden v. Feds for Med. Freedom , 144 S. Ct. 480, 480–81 (2023). Accordingly, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we REMAND this case to the district court and direct it to VACATE as moot its order granting a preliminary injunction. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

_____________________

* Judges Douglas and Ramirez joined the court after this case was submitted to the en banc court and did not participate in this decision. Case: 22-40043 Document: 354-2 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2024
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

September 20, 2024

CR-2023-0349

City of Huntsville v. Dillon Barrett (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CC-22-

3440) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on September 20, 2024, the following action was 

taken in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
Exhibit 13.02

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Graña y Montero S.A.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mónica Miloslavich, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley-Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

/s/ Mónica
Miloslavich

Name:
Mónica Miloslavich

Title: Chief Financial Officer

April 30, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 253 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 253

 Welcoming King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain on their official 
     visit to the United States, including visits to Miami and St. 
                          Augustine, Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2015

   Mr. Nelson (for himself, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Kaine) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Welcoming King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain on their official 
     visit to the United States, including visits to Miami and St. 
                          Augustine, Florida.

Whereas King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain are visiting St. Augustine, 
        Florida, to celebrate the 450th Commemoration of the city and to 
        participate in the annual United States-Spain Council forum;
Whereas Spanish explorer Ponce de Leon landed on the east coast of Florida in 
        1513 and named the land he discovered La Florida;
Whereas St. Augustine was founded by Spanish admiral Pedro Menendez de Aviles on 
        September 8, 1565;
Whereas St. Augustine is the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in 
        the United States;
Whereas the United States-Spain Council serves an important purpose in bringing 
        the United States and Spain closer through trade, investment, education, 
        and culture, as well as by fostering military cooperation between the 2 
        countries;
Whereas the United States-Spain Council is holding its annual forum in St. 
        Augustine from September 18-20, 2015;
Whereas the people and Governments of the United States and Spain have both 
        benefitted from strong economic and cultural ties;
Whereas Spain has played a special role in the history and culture of St. 
        Augustine and Florida; and
Whereas King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia met with President Barack Obama on 
        September 15, 2015, for their first official visit to the White House: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) welcomes King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia of Spain 
        during their visit to the United States; and
            (2) expresses its appreciation for the efforts of King 
        Felipe VI and Queen Letizia to strengthen the bonds between the 
        people and Governments of the United States and Spain.
                                 <all>
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Julian Graham and Julian Graham Chevrolet, Inc. v. Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Inc., et al.

November 15, 2002

Case No. LP-1723

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

Before the court is defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs claim for defamation contained in Count I and their claim of misappropriation of plaintiffs, name, likeness, or image under Va. Code § 8.01-40(A) of plaintiffs Motion for Judgment.

In considering a demurrer, the court assumes all the facts in the pleadings as true, along with reasonable inferences from these facts. *Riverview Farm Assoc.*v. *Board of Supervisors,*259 Va. 419 (2000).

There are two parties plaintiffs named in the motion for judgment: Julian Graham, an individual, and Julian Graham Chevrolet, Inc., a corporation. Defendants argue that the defamatory statements alleged were regarding a corporation, and not about the owner of the corporation, Julian Graham. Thus, plaintiff Julian Graham has not alleged a cause of action of defamation. Plaintiffs contend that statements regarding the corporation and Graham clearly identified Graham with the corporation and must be considered together under *WJLA-TV*v. *Levin,*264 Va. 140, 152-53 (2002). The court agrees with plaintiff in that defendant’s statements could refer to the corporation and its owner. Whether the persons who knew of the car dealership and its owner could or could not disassociate the two is a question *377for the jury. Therefore, the court overrules the demurrer as to the defamation claim.

Regarding the claim on a violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-40(A), defendants claim that this provision has an exception for newsworthy items under *Falwell*v. Flynt, 797 F.2d 1270, 1277 (4th Cir. 1986),’ *rev ’don other grounds.*Plaintiffs claim that disseminating information regarding a private business is not a newsworthy issue on matters of public interest or concern. The court agrees with the defendants that the reporting on a local car dealership issue is a newsworthy item and of public interest. Therefore, the court sustains the demurrer as to the Va. Code § 8.01-40 claim. This claim can, in no way, be deemed a use of name for “advertising purposes or for the purpose of trade....” within the meaning of Va. Code § 8.01-40, according to the assertions made.
EXHIBIT 11
                 Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                   (Unaudited)



Nine Months Ended September 30                           2003             2002
---------------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------

Numerator:
   Net Loss                                      $  (400,183)    $  (2,717,420)


Denominator:
   Weighted average common shares                  1,685,445         1,716,477


Earnings Per Share:
   Net Loss                                          $ (0.24)          $ (1.58)






Three Months Ended September 30                           2003            2002
---------------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------

Numerator:
   Net Income (Loss)                               $  252,875      $  (472,479)


Denominator:
   Weighted average common shares                   1,685,228        1,715,811


Earnings Per Share:
   Net Income (Loss)                                   $ 0.15          $ (0.27)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,262
<INVENTORY>                                     70,295
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,768
<PP&E>                                          25,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,984
<BONDS>                                         29,216
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           136 
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,973
<SALES>                                        538,966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               538,966
<CGS>                                          485,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  485,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,619
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,178
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,836
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,836
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2422

P. F. THOMAS, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GOVERNMENT MICRO RESOURCES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 98-2450

P. F. THOMAS, III,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GOVERMENT MICRO RESOURCES, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-96-1725-A)

Submitted: March 16, 1999 Decided: May 3, 1999
2

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

P. F. Thomas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Willard Dunham, Jr.,

Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, COHEN, GETTINGS & DUNHAM, Arlington,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

P. F. Thomas, III, sued his former employer, Government Micro

Resources, Inc. (“GMR”), alleging racial discrimination and breach

of contract. The jury returned a verdict in favor of GMR on the

employment discrimination claim and in favor of Thomas on the

contract claim. Following the jury’s verdict, the district court

entered an order denying GMR’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on the contract claim. Both parties have

appealed. Our review of the record and the district court’s order

denying GMR’s Rule 50 motion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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