alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-10-0057-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL D 

AUGUST 16, 2010 

RUSSELL WADE HANEY, 

 Appellant 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 

 Appellee 

____________________________ 

FROM THE 46TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILBARGER COUNTY; 

NO. 11,333; HONORABLE DAN MIKE BIRD, PRESIDING 

Memorandum Opinion 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

 Russell Wade Haney appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled 

substance (cocaine) in an amount of less than one gram. In doing so, he claims the 

evidence is factually insufficient to sustain the conviction. We overrule the issue and 

affirm the judgment. 

 We review appellant’s challenge under the standard espoused in Watson v. 

State, 204 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) and its progeny. And, in doing so, we 

note that appellant does not attempt to dispute the evidence that he rode his bicycle into 
2 

an alley known for its drug sales, met with someone therein, hurriedly rode out of the 

alley, extended his left hand from the bike and opened it when told to stop by the police, 

and informed various of the officers that he had bought “two rocks” and dropped “two 

rocks.” Also undisputed by appellant is the evidence illustrating that the officers found 

two “rocks” of cocaine at the locale whereat appellant was seen opening his hand. This 

data is not too weak to enable a rational jury to deduce, beyond reasonable doubt, that 

appellant possessed the cocaine found by the police. Nor would such a deduction be 

manifestly unjust. 

 As for appellant’s insinuation that the State failed to prove that he knew the 

“rocks” were cocaine, we do recall a time when it was rather fashionable to buy and 

possess items of geologic creation. But, owning or possessing igneous, sedimentary, 

or like creations was not unlawful, as far as we know. So, one can only wonder why 

appellant would buy “rocks” in an alley and abandon them when confronted by the 

police if he did not know them to be contraband. Indeed, the act of abandonment itself 

could be characterized as an instance of consciousness of guilt. See Davis v. State, 

862 S.W.2d 817, 819 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1993, no pet.) (describing the concept). 

And, we find nothing wrong with a jury so interpreting the circumstances. 

 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 

 Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice 

Do not publish.
1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3708

___________ Rheshie Doobay, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern Iowa State University of Science and * District of Iowa. Technology; Iowa State Board of * Regents; James Judy, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 23, 1999 Filed: May 10, 1999

___________ Before BEAM and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Rheshie Doobay, a plant services supervisor for Iowa State University(ISU), appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of ISU Science and Technology, ISU Board of Regents, and James Judy. Doobay alleges unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation because of his national origin, race, and/or color in2 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 2– violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Title VII), Iowa Code Chapter 216 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The charges arise out of a decision by ISU to demote Doobay following an internal investigation. At the conclusion of the internal investigation, Doobay was found to have violated ISU's sexual harassment policy. Having reviewed the record in connection with the parties' briefs, we conclude as did the district court, 2 that there is no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is appropriate. Extensive analysis would serve no useful precedential purpose. We therefore affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,970
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,501
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,815
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     27,461
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,012
<LOANS>                                        550,925
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 624,296
<DEPOSITS>                                     446,137
<SHORT-TERM>                                    69,755
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,717
<LONG-TERM>                                     44,016
<COMMON>                                            50
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 624,296
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 34,035
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,094
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   174
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,303
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,768
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,535
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      264
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,029
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,575
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,260
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.15
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,403
<LOANS-PAST>                                       107
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    521
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,786
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                        32
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,902
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,975
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            927
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Lincoln Rochester Trust Company, as Executor of Walter H. Wood, Deceased, Respondent. County of Monroe, Appellant.

■ Order affirmed, with costs. All concur. (The order settles the accounts of an executor.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [187 Mise. 972.]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 227

**Question 227:**
> 
(a) Must gauge licensees perform a survey of each gauge package (if the package is labeled with a DOT label) for contamination and radiation levels upon receipt of the package?

(b) What surveys must a licensee perform during routine operation where portable gauges are transported daily from site to site, then returned to a storage location?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) As a result of amendments to Part 20 published on 8/31/92 [57 FR 39353], the licensee is not required to survey the gauge package for contamination if the source is in special form as defined in 10 CFR 71.4 and is not required to monitor radiation levels unless the package contains quantities of radioactive material that are in excess of the Type A quantity, as defined in 10 CFR 71.4 and Appendix A to Part 71, provided there is not evidence of degradation of package integrity.

(b) If there is no evidence of degradation of package integrity, no surveys are required if the package contains less than or equal to a Type A quantity and the source is in special form. If the source is not in special form, a contamination survey is required; if the source is greater than a Type A quantity, the external surface of the package must be monitored for radiation levels.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1906, 71.4)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 4314 (c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454, requires that appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Peterson, Atlanta Human Resources Center, Department of Health and Human Services, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop K-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770-488-1872. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The following persons will serve on the Performance Review Board which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of Senior Executive Service members of the Department of Health and Human Services in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: William H. Gimson, Chairperson; Stephen B. Blount, M.D., M.P.H.; Janet L. Collins, Ph.D.; Robert Delaney; Henry Falk, M.D.; Donna F. Stroup, Ph.D.; Stephen B. Thacker, M.D.

                    The Associate Director for Program Services, CDC, has been delegated the authority to sign general                     **Federal Register**                     notices for both the CDC and ATSDR.                 

Dated: October 7, 2004. 

James D. Seligman, Associate Director for Program Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

[FR Doc. 04-23146 Filed 10-14-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### In the Matter of Frank J. Fitzgerald et al., Appellants, against J. Edward Conway et al., Constituting the Civil Service Commission of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Foster,

P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Annual Report of Interlink-US-Network, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the twelve months ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard M. Greenberg, President.  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the results of operations of the Company.





Dated: April 15, 2010



/s/ Richard M. Greenberg

---------------------

Richard M. Greenberg

President, Secretary and Treasurer

(Chief financial officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 22

Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:20-cv-21254-BB Document 47-23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2021 Page 5 of 5
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Disposal Requirements for Specific and Exempt Licensed Smoke Detectors

## HPPOS-150 PDR-9111220094

See the letter from J. W. N. Hickey to D. L. Tremblay (Simplex Time Recorder Company) dated October 5, 1981.

Imported smoke detectors possessed under a specific license must be returned to the manufacturer. A licensee who possesses detectors distributed as exempt items is exempt from regulatory requirements regarding the smoke detectors, and they may be disposed of as ordinary trash.

Your letter to General Counsel dated September 8, 1981 has been referred to the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety. In our telephone conversion, you explained that your company possesses two types of smoke detectors: those imported, possessed, and distributed in accordance with NRC License Nos. 20-17584-01 and 20-17584-02E, and those obtained from an American manufacturer as exempt units.

We agreed that the imported detectors must be returned to the manufacturer in accordance with your licenses, and that your letter concerns the domestic units. To the extent that you possess domestic smoke detectors distributed as exempt units, you are exempt from any regulatory requirements. Therefore, you may dispose of these units as ordinary trash.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 30.20, 10 CFR 32.26

**Subject codes:** 3.3, 9.0

**Applicability:** Byproduct material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### Frank Castall, Respondent, v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
EXHIBIT 32





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 Annual Report of Track
Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2018 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), Derek Cassell, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer), and Peter K. Poli, Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer), of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.








By:
/s/
Derek CassellDerek
CassellChief
Executive Officer
(Principal
Executive Officer)By:
/s/
Peter K. PoliPeter
K. Poli,
Chief
Financial Officer
(Principal
Accounting Officer)








Dated:
January 28, 2019





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (486)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          69,133
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,711)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         23,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,860
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,307
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,642
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 126
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 126.610 May SBA appeal a contracting officer's decision not to make a procurement available for award as a HUBZone contract? ( a ) The Administrator may appeal a CO's decision not to make a particular requirement available for award as a HUBZone contract to the Secretary of the department or head of the agency.
( b ) An appeal is initiated by SBA's Procurement Center Representative to the CO, and may be in response to information supplied by the D/HUB, his or her designee, or other interested parties.
[69 FR 29425, May 24, 2004]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Insightful Corporation for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, I, Richard P. Barber, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Insightful Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | such Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Insightful Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ RICHARD P. BARBERRichard P. BarberChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)


May 15, 2008
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30447 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DEBORAH RICHARDSON BOUNDS, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________ No. 97-30450 Conference Calendar

______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANNY ROYCE BRAZIEL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC Nos. CR-88-50038-01, CR-88-50038-03

- - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Nos. 97-30447 & 97-30450 - 2 - Deborah Richardson Bounds, federal prisoner number 18364- 077, and Danny Royce Braziel, federal prisoner number 18365-077, appeal from the district court’s denial of their motions for modification of the imposed term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Bounds moves this court to recognize that a certificate of appealability is not required and to allow her to adopt her coappellant's brief. These motions are GRANTED. Appellants argue that the district court should have applied retroactively Amendment 484 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, clarifying what materials must be excluded from controlled substances in calculating the weight at sentencing. Because Bounds and Braziel were sentenced on the size and capability of the clandestine methamphetamine laboratory, Amendment 484 does not apply to their situation. United States v. Allison , 63 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motions. These appeals are without arguable merit and thus frivolous; they are DISMISSED without further briefing. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Clark v. Williams , 693 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1982). MOTIONS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.