alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### T.M. PATENTS, L.P., and T.M. Creditors LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2014-1161.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 8, 2014.

*897Stephen J. Driscoll, Saul Ewing, LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel was Joey Tsu-Yi Chen, of Baltimore, MD.

J. Anthony Downs, Goodwin Procter LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Daniel M. Forman and Lana S. Shiferman. Of counsel on the brief were John C. O’Quinn and Jason M. Wilcox, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of Washington, DC.

PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered And Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### MILLTOWN INDUSTRIAL SITES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BOROUGH OF MILLTOWN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Submitted May 3, 1993

Decided June 16, 1993.

Before Judges PETRELLA and KEEFE.

*Berger & Bomstein,*attorneys for appellant *(Robert A Bom-stein,*on the brief).

*McGimpsey & Cafferty,*attorneys for respondent *(Thomas J. Cafferty*and *Arlene M. Turinckak,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a decision of the Tax Court, Milltown Industrial Sites (Milltown) challenges the determination that *N.J.S.A*54:3-27 required it to pay municipal utility charges as *145part of all municipal charges in addition to real estate taxes before it could maintain a tax appeal.

Milltown contends that the phrase “municipal charges” in the statute was not intended to include electric, sewer and water charges as “municipal charges” within the scope of *N.J.S.A.*54:3— 27. It argues that payment of such charges should not be held to be a condition for maintaining a real estate tax appeal. Judge Andrew, in a well-reasoned opinion, concluded that the statute required plaintiff to pay all such municipal charges in addition to real estate taxes before it could maintain a tax appeal.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Andrew in his August 25,1992 opinion, reported at 12 *N.J.Tax*581 (Tax 1992).
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1934 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1934

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for the Federal 
              Maritime Commission, and for other purposes.





103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1934

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
   To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for the Federal 
              Maritime Commission, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Maritime Commission 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Maritime 
Commission $19,450,000 for fiscal year 1994.

SEC. 3. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NONPERFORMANCE OF VOYAGES.

    Section 3(b) of Public Law 89-777 (46 App. U.S.C. 817e(b)) is 
amended by striking ``and such bond or other security shall be in an 
amount paid equal to the estimated total revenue for the particular 
transportation.'' and inserting a period.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 18, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
Order entered November 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00003-CR

BRANDON EDENILSON VELASQUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-12442-Y

ORDER

The State’s first motion for an extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED and the 

Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to file the State’s brief tendered to the Court.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2389 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2389

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that future increases 
 in the monthly amount paid by the State of New York to blind disabled 
veterans shall be excluded from the determination of annual income for 
  purposes of payment of pension by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 1993

  Mr. Walsh introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that future increases 
 in the monthly amount paid by the State of New York to blind disabled 
veterans shall be excluded from the determination of annual income for 
  purposes of payment of pension by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM INCOME DETERMINATION FOR 
              PENSION PURPOSES.

    Section 1503 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
            (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (10) 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(11) amounts equal to amounts paid to a veteran by the 
        State of New York under a program of that State to make monthly 
        payments to qualifying veterans who are blind and totally 
        disabled, but only to the extent that such amounts are 
        attributable to any increase in the monthly amount of such 
        payments that is provided after the date of the enactment of 
        this paragraph.''.

                                 <all>
```
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
13 - 20 - 00460 - CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M. W. M., AN ADULT

On Appeal from the 54th District Court of McLennan County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019
- 1135 - C2

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion

. Appellee, THE STATE OF TEXAS, is exempt from all costs

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 25, 2021
Order filed January 6, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00654-CR

____________

CHAD SMALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1383973

ORDER

Appellant is not represented by counsel on appeal. This court is unaware 

whether appellant is entitled to appointment of counsel and to proceed without the 

payment of costs. 

In addition, the certification of the defendant’s right of appeal appears to be 

incorrect. The certification states this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has 

no right of appeal.” The judgment reflects that this is not a plea bargain case. 
2

Accordingly, we enter the following order. 

We ORDER the judge of the 263rd District Court to immediately conduct a 

hearing at which appellant and counsel for the State shall be present to determine 

whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is 

indigent and, thus entitled to appointed counsel. The judge shall appoint appellate 

counsel for appellant, if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing 

is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the 

trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk=s record 

containing the findings and conclusions. Those records shall be filed with the clerk 

of this court within 30 days of the date of this order.

In addition, we ask that the trial court review the record, and, if necessary, 

correct the certification of the defendant’s right of appeal, request the trial court 

clerk to prepare and certify a supplemental clerk’s record containing the corrected 

certification, and file the supplemental clerk’s record with this court within 30 days 

of the date of this notice.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or 

the Court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any 

party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to 

schedule a hearing in compliance with this Court’s order. If the parties do not 

request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date 

and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1773199
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      33195
<COMMON>                                       1288094
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3086488)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 31347
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (31347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (31347)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906



I, Russel H. McMeekin, Chief Executive Officer of Mikohn Gaming Corporation (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:



1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



Date: March
15, 2005



By:

/s/ RUSSEL H. MCMEEKINRussel H. McMeekinChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1997
10-Q
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            2820
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       9268
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            8318
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              8165
<LOANS>                                          57542
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   80448
<DEPOSITS>                                       65294
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1314
<LONG-TERM>                                       3824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1488
<OTHER-SE>                                        8528
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   80448
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3620
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  924
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4544
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1759
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1913
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2631
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (13)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1737
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1271
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1271
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.13
<LOANS-NON>                                         20
<LOANS-PAST>                                        90
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    52
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1020
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        9
<RECOVERIES>                                        33
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1044
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                60
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            984
        

</TABLE>
State $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 

Alabama 73,356,788 

Alaska 3,235,159 Arizona 4,393,952,115 

Arkansas 89,589,486 1,565,230 California 39,046,167,619 5,266,235 Colorado 2,944,807,201 11,396,418 13,138,531 18,049,761 

Connecticut 318,610,678 1,424,035 3,445,705 

Delaware 91,778,359 

Florida 1,784,211,896 

Georgia 1,205,790,351 11,049,348 

Hawaii 19,486,239 

Idaho 13,617,299,913 22,070,857 12,611,251 

Illinois 1,522,825,771 5,712,788 15,943,472 4,562,837 44,736,536 67,485,961 4,807,070 8,901,0

Indiana 3,542,685,332 1,594,956 1,243,589 9,244,598 39,392,487 37,580,464 1,650,6

Iowa 4,240,896,050 9,347,389 10,267,183 2,144,106 81,142,010 71,630,340 4,719,784 4,434,9

Kansas 3,122,905,969 663,948,988 1,785,074 9,119,476 19,970,449 1,570,2

Kentucky 654,180,454 7,586,720 9,750,289 402,329 1,274,1

Louisiana 134,995,704 8,086,099 

Maine 466,001,121 1,252,788 3,987,639 

Maryland 594,029,212 2,054,365 5,027,021 3,787,454 Massachusetts 206,727,174 6,445,201 733,764 454,808 1,450,2

Michigan 7,750,384,386 5,116,861 1,690,726 11,624,719 19,538,584 32,942,727 

Minnesota 8,045,882,878 1,999,407 14,297,967 25,980,212 176,071,011 330,068,085 5,052,597 11,528,1

Mississippi 131,277,432 435,392 706,969 1,550,724 Missouri 727,540,940 4,684,879 916,936 1,336,187 25,171,872 80,770,104 3,906,510 15,219,6Montana 339,080,533 4,032,825 2,141,262 

Nebraska 1,315,970,529 6,910,233 1,532,350 32,603,720 8,772,813 380,282 

Nevada 732,345,916 New Hampshire 181,379,527 651,972 861,637 6,952,444 

New Jersey 77,404,610 1,494,905 616,890 1,027,576 

New Mexico 8,439,015,471 

New York 9,399,455,325 4,777,741 9,055,880 6,408,030 31,197,729 47,793,751 3,225,414 

North Carolina 884,947,281 1,103,666 894,506 2,091,648 North Dakota 280,316,998 3,124,823 3,350,461 5,315,480 2,972,099 Ohio 4,231,287,907 1,753,633 11,187,948 2,653,656 43,689,784 41,233,228 3,851,5

Oklahoma 516,627,411 2,923,890 

Oregon 2,278,539,618 

Pennsylvania 4,953,834,244 2,153,603 9,873,801 7,087,194 56,392,767 128,077,866 1,181,001 3,318,5

Puerto Rico 73,860,570 2,232,518 2,205,925 

Rhode Island 10,456,632 South Carolina 99,555,917 6,152,8

South Dakota 2,179,494,645 9,206,658 200,804,883 1,213,118 25,459,507 41,408,878 9,206,0

Tennessee 625,665,500 724,275 Texas 9,635,760,304 313,015,940 77,325,639 10,647,710 Utah 1,762,035,231 3,267,774 2,088,468 

Vermont 1,972,636,536 762,610 5,368,660 4,096,170 

Virginia 1,366,444,956 6,317,566 26,561,619 1,304,116 847,471 

Washington 5,974,825,815 20,262,979 10,206,075 

West Virginia 65,160,202 9,324,519 Wisconsin 23,554,555,424 17,363,621 59,382,632 45,944,291 327,989,182 426,920,180 11,374,193 8,425,3Wyoming 111,112,421 Total 175,790,387,750 75,107,954 1,348,317,630 126,795,954 1,132,470,651 1,438,937,812 39,323,558 76,983,5

Table 3: Production History for Dairy Operations Enrolled in 2017 Margin Protection Program (MPP)

January 12, 2023

EstablishedProduction History (pounds)

Prepared by USDA/Farm Service Agency
================================================================================

                              CONFIRMATION OF TRUST
                              ---------------------



July 17, 2006

Sunergy, Inc.
2415 Panorama Drive, Suite 100
North Vancouver, B.C.
Canada V7G 1V4

Dear Sirs:

Re:      Hummingbird Property

I hereby  confirm that I hold title to a 100% interest in the following  mineral
claims, located in the Vancouver Mining Division, British Columbia, in trust for
you:

                  Claim Name                                  Tenure Number
                  ----------                                  -------------

                  Hummingbird                                       510493

Yours truly,

/s/ David Heyman

DAVID HEYMAN
[No. 58041-8-I.

Division One.

September 10, 2007.]

#### Donald Lee Hiltbruner, *Respondent,*v. Crowley Marine Services, Inc., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-2-16250-5, Richard D. Eadie, J., entered March 8,2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Appelwick, C.J., and Grosse, J.
- 931 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S heets 

### 303 N ebraska 

### R eports STATE v . M c GINN Cite as 303 Neb. 931



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### .

D a nn y 

### J. M c 

### G i nn 

### , appella n t



### . ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed August 23, 2019. No. S

- 18

- 744.

suppleme n tal opi n io n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Holt County, M ark 

### D

. K ozisek 

### , Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for Holt County, K ale 

### B

. B urdi c k 

### , Judge. Former opinion modi

fied. Motion for rehearing overruled. Forrest F. Peetz, of Peetz Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss, for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller 

### ‐ L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , F u n ke 

### , P

apik 

### , and F reude n ber g 

### , JJ.

P er 

### C uriam



### . This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. McGinn

. 1 

### We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, we withdraw the last paragraph 2 

### and substitute the following:

1 State v. McGinn, ante p. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019).
2 Id. at 234, 928 N.W.2d at 398. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 09/20/2019 08:06 AM CDT- 932 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S heets 

### 303 N ebraska 

### R eports STATE v . M c GINN Cite as 303 Neb. 931 

### In this matter, because we consider all evidence admit

ted by the trial court, erroneously or not, we consider the breath test in our double jeopardy analysis. Considering the breath test, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict for a violation of § 60

- 6,196(1)(c) as charged. As such, double jeopardy does not forbid a remand for a new trial. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county court’s conviction and remand the cause to the district court with directions to remand the matter to the county court for a new trial. In the sole paragraph of the conclusion section, we withdraw the last sentence 3 

### and substitute the following: “Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county court’s conviction, but determine double jeopardy does not require dismissal of this action.” The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modified



### . M otio n for reheari ng overruled



### .

3 Id.
#### DONNETTE GRANT *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*Mary H. Trainer,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*James A. Killen,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided July 1, 2010

The petitioner Donnette Grant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 121 Conn. App. 295 (AC 30112), is denied.
Exhibit 32


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Safe Technologies International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Randi Swatt, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:


          (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/ Randi Swatt
--------------------------------------------
Randi Swatt, Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2006