alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marquis HARDAWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50059

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*716Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Marquis Hardaway appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Hardaway argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence because the affidavit supporting the warrant that led to his arrest was a “bare bones” affidavit. ■ He contends that the magistrate judge was not presented with sufficient information to make an independent probable cause determination because the only fact provided to support the affiant’s conclusion that the informant was reliable was a reference to the informant having given1 “true and correct” information about controlled substances in the past.

If an affidavit is based on information supplied by a confidential informant, this court examines the informant’s veracity and basis of knowledge to determine if in the “totality of the circumstances” his information is credible. *See United States v. Satterwhite,*980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992); *United States v. McKnight,*953 F.2d 898, 904-05 (5th Cir.1992). Detective Saenz’s assertion that the informant had provided information in the past that proved to be true, reliable, and correct sufficiently established the informant’s veracity. *See McKnight,*953 F.2d at 904-05; *see also, Christian v. McKaskle,*731 F.2d 1196, 1200 (5th Cir.1984). Additionally, Saenz’s statement that the informant personally observed Hardaway possess cocaine at Hardaway’s residence twenty four hours before he gave his affidavit and that the informant knew Hardaway’s alias, race, and birth date established that the informant had a sufficient basis of knowledge. *See e.g., Mack v. City of Abilene,*461 F.3d 547, 551 (5th Cir.2006); *United States v. Jackson,*818 F.2d 345, 349 (5th Cir.1987).

Thus, the information contained in the affidavit was sufficient to support a good-faith conclusion by an objectively reasonable officer that the affidavit on which the warrant was based was adequate to establish probable cause. *See Satterwhite,*980 F.2d at 320. The district court did not err when it denied Hardaway’s motion to suppress the evidence.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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


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

     I, Borivoje Vukadinovic, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of Retrospettiva, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

Date:  November 18, 2008

/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic
-------------------------
Borivoje Vukadinovic
Principal Executive Officer


/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic
------------------------
Borivoje Vukadinovic
Principal Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2297 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                        March 29, 2012.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
2297) entitled ``An Act to promote the development of the Southwest 
waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.'', do 
pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            On page 5, after line 10, add the following:

SEC. 4. PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION, WASHINGTON CHANNEL, DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA.

    (a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation of the 
Corps of Engineers at Potomac River, Washington Channel, District of 
Columbia, as authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 
Stat. 1028), and described in subsection (b), is deauthorized.
    (b) Description of Project.--The deauthorized portion of the 
project for navigation is as follows: Beginning at Washington Harbor 
Channel Geometry Centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship 
channel, Centerline Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 441948.20, 
East 1303969.30, as stated and depicted on the Condition Survey 
Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and Magazine Bar Shoal Channels, 
Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 of 6, prepared by the United States Army 
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district, July 2007; thence departing the 
aforementioned centerline traveling the following courses and 
distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds E., 200.00 feet to a 
point, on the outline of said 400-foot-wide channel thence binding on 
said outline the following 3 courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 49 
minutes 15 seconds E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 degrees 
44 minutes 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S. 11 
degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point, thence; S. 78 
degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to a point binding on the 
centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational channel at computed 
Centerline Station No. 65+54.31, coordinates North 438923.9874, East 
1306159.9738, thence; continuing with the aforementioned centerline the 
following courses and distances: N. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds 
W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 68+85.10, thence; N. 
29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds W., 2,015.56 feet to a point, 
Centerline Station No. 89+00.67, thence; N. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 
seconds W., 1,472.26 feet to the point of beginning, the area in total 
containing a computed area of 777,284 square feet or 17.84399 acres of 
riparian water way.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 2297

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
EXHIBIT 23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No.333-83492 and Form S-4 No. 333-121985) and in the related Prospectus and in the RegistrationStatements (Forms S-8 No. 333-121075, No. 333-108022, No. 333-56106, No. 333-42932, No. 333-64167, No. 333-57781, No. 33-88426, No. 333-27835 and No. 333-27831) of GTECH HoldingsCorporation of our reports dated April 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of GTECH Holdings Corporation, GTECH Holdings Corporation management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of GTECH Holdings Corporation,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended February 25, 2006.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLPBoston, Massachusetts
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E.
Kevin Hrusovsky, Chief Executive 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, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
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.


November 9, 2004


                                                          /s/ E. Kevin Hrusovsky
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                              E. Kevin Hrusovsky
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
Caliper's under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.


                                       32
**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, AS AMENDED
OF
AMERICAN BIOGENETIC SCIENCES, INC.**

1. The name of the Corporation is AMERICAN BIOGENETIC
SCIENCES, INC.

2. The address of its registered office in the State of
Delaware is 25 Greystone Manor in the City of Lewes, DE 19958, County of Sussex. The name
of its registered agent at such address is Harvard Business Services, Inc.

3. The nature of the business or purposes to be
conducted or promoted is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations
may be organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware.

4. The Corporation shall be authorized to issue nine
hundred and ten million (910,000,000) shares of capital stock, of which nine hundred
million (900,000,000) shares shall be shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value
("Common Stock") and ten million (10,000,000) shares shall be shares of
preferred stock, $0.0001 par value, which may be issued in one or more series
("Preferred Stock"). The Board of Directors of the Corporation is authorized to
fix the powers, preferences, rights, qualifications, limitations or restrictions of the
Preferred Stock and any series thereof pursuant to Section 151 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.

5. The Corporation is to have perpetual existence.

6. In furtherance and not in limitation of the powers
conferred by statute, the Board of Directors is expressly authorized to make, alter or
repeal the by-laws of the Corporation.

7. Elections of Directors need not be by written ballot
unless the by-laws of the Corporation shall so provide.

Meetings of stockholders may be held within or without
the State of Delaware, as the by-laws may provide. The books of the Corporation may be
kept (subject to any provision contained in the statutes) outside the State of Delaware at
such place or places as may be designated from time to time by the Board of Directors or
in the by-laws of the Corporation.

8. The Corporation reserves the right to amend, alter,
change or repeal any provision contained in this Certificate of Incorporation, in the
manner now or hereafter prescribed by statute, and all rights conferred upon stockholders
herein are granted subject to this reservation.

9. No Director of the Corporation shall be liable to the
Corporation or any of its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty
as a Director, except for liability (1) for any breach of the Director's duty of loyalty
to the Corporation or its stockholders, (2) for acts or omissions not in good faith or
which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law, (3) under Section 174
of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or (4) for any transaction from which the
Director derived an improper personal benefit.

Signed on November 29, 2005

/s/ Richard Rubin, Chairman of the Board of Directors
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2775 

To repeal a limitation in the Labor-Management Relations Act regarding 

requirements for labor organization membership as a condition of employment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. SHERMAN (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. STARK, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. NORTON, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. 

BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MICHAUD, Ms. SUTTON, and Ms. KAPTUR) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To repeal a limitation in the Labor-Management Relations 

Act regarding requirements for labor organization membership as a condition of employment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL. 

4 Section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

5 U.S.C. 164) is amended by striking subsection (b) and re6 designating subsection (c) as subsection (b). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                        17953429
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2738400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     221375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              20525424
<PP&E>                                        81566394
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3805036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               141747320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         21329645
<BONDS>                                      117191994
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     3275680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 141747319
<SALES>                                       68475663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              68475663
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 66492701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (638445)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            12174554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (9553137)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (452692)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1982962
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (9100445)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (9100.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (9100.45)
        

</TABLE>
franklin_10q-ex1003.htm








EXHIBIT 10.3


 


AMENDMENT 2


to


 COMMON STOCK REPURCHASE AGREEMENT







This Amendment 2 (“Amendment”) to the Common Stock Repurchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made between C-Motech Co., Ltd (“C-Motech”) and Franklin Wireless Corp. (“Franklin”) and is dated effective January 28, 2011.  C-Motech and Franklin entered into the Agreement on July 27, 2010. The parties desire to modify the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment 1.


 


The parties agree to the following:


 


1.   Section 1 a) and Section 1 b) of the Agreement are deleted in their entirety and the following Section 1a) is inserted in their place as follows:


 


a) US$1,873,064.70 (for the repurchase of 1,803,684 shares) to be paid by March 31, 2011.


 


This Amendment 2 is hereby signed by authorized representatives of C-Motech and Franklin.


 




	 	
FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP.


	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:      /s/ OC Kim                                                
	 	Print Name:     OC Kim                                          
	 	Title:      President                                                





 


 



	 	

C-MOTECH CO. LTD.




	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:       /s/ T.S. Kim                                             
	 	Print Name:     T.S. Kim                                       
	 	Title:                CEO
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 96-40548

Summary Calendar

_______________________

REGINALD R. GOSS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF TEXAS,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(C-95-CV-556)

_________________________________________________________________

February 24, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald R. Goss, Texas prisoner #684326, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for

failure to exhaust his state remedies. Goss is now required to

obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to appeal the

district court’s order. We will not issue a COA, however, as Goss

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 
2

constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also

Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 756 (5th Cir. 1996). In the

alternative, if the district court was authorized to issue COA, we

conclude that because the state record indicates that Goss failed

to present his claim that the prosecution withheld exculpatory

evidence to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district court

did not err in dismissing Goss’ § 2254 petition for failure to

exhaust his state remedies. See Dispensa v. Lynaugh. 847 F.2d

211, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1988).

For the foregoing reasons, COA is DENIED; and the

judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### GOODY’S FAMILY CLOTHING, INC., et al., petitioners, v. MOUNTAINEER PROPERTY CO. II, LLC, et al.

No. 10-437.

Nov. 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.67



LOGO



November 8,
2004



Mr. Klaus H. Jung

Reeves Park, Inc.

5050 Lincoln Drive

Suite 470

Edina, MN 55436



Re: Amendment to Manufacturing Agreement



Dear Klaus:



This letter sets forth the agreement of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (C&C) and Reeves Park, Inc. (Buyer) to amend the standard Terms and Conditions as set forth in the Manufacturing
Agreement dated August 12, 2004 between C&C and Buyer. Notwithstanding any provision of such Terms and Conditions, by mutual agreement C&C and Buyer may extend various terms to Buyer and payment shall be due in full pursuant to the terms as
set out on the applicable C&C invoice to Buyer.



Other than as set out in
this amendment, the terms and conditions of the Manufacturing Agreement shall remain in effect. If the foregoing meets with your understanding of our agreement, please sign and return one copy of this letter for our files.



|                        |  |                                |  |        |  |               
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | ------ |  | --------------
|Charles & Colvard, Ltd. |  | Agreed and Accepted by Buyer
|                        |  |                                | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ James R. Braun             |  | By:    |  | /s/ Klaus Jung
|Name:                   |  | James R. Braun                 |  | Name:  |  | Klaus Jung    
|                        |  |                                | 
|Title:                  |  | Vice President Finance & CFO   |  | Title: |  | President     



LOGO
Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Schick Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Schick, Chief Executive 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,
that:

(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/ David Schick
                                                  ----------------
                                                  David Schick
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  Schick Technologies, Inc.
                                                  August 8, 2002


                                       16
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### James E. Revell v. Robert Jeffreys et al.

August 1, 1984

Case No. (Chancery) 3220

By JUDGE BERNARD G. BARROW

The defendant seeks a pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of a contract of sale recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Virginia Beach Circuit Court. The contract is purportedly signed by both the buyer and the seller; however, only the buyer’s signature, and not the seller’s, is acknowledged as required by Section 55-113 of the Virginia Code.

Since the signature of the seller in this contract for the sale of real property was not acknowledged, the document was not properly recorded. See Va. Code § 55-113 (1981). Since it was not properly recorded, it may not be considered notice to a subsequent purchaser. See *Kiser*v. *Clinchfield Coal*Corp., 200 Va. 519 (1959).

Therefore, the contract of sale recorded in the Clerk’s Office of this Court in Deed Book 2244, Page 2006, is not constructive notice of the transaction to the defendant, Robert Jeffreys, and may not be introduced into evidence for that purpose. This is not intended to be an expression of an opinion as to the admissibility of the document for some other purpose, including the issue of actual notice of the contract.
Order entered October 2 6 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00745
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.B., A CHILD On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Coll in County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296
- 54975
- 2014

ORDER On September 16, 2020, the Court informed Janet L. Dugger, Official C ourt R eporter for the 296 th Judicial District Court, that the reporter’s record was overdue and directed her to file, within thirty days, the record, written verification no hearings were recorded , or written verification appellant had not requested the record

. To date, Ms. Dugger has not complied. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Dugger to file the reporter’s record or requested ver ification no later than November 9, 2020

. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Dugger and the parties. /s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE