alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Overton Argued at Richmond, Virginia

JOHN PATRICK HANLEY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0188-96-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JUNE 24, 1997 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY Dennis L. Hupp, Judge Thomas D. Logie for appellant. Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

John Patrick Hanley appeals his convictions of driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license. He contends that the trial judge erred by refusing to strike a juror from the panel. We disagree and affirm his convictions. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. Hanley claims that venireman David Bratton should have been removed from the jury because he wrote on his jury questionnaire that he presumed defendants to be guilty and that they had to prove their innocence. Although Bratton did respond in that

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - manner on his questionnaire, he did not persist in this belief at

voir dire . In fact, Bratton told the judge that he had only put that on his questionnaire to avoid jury duty. On appeal, we give great deference to the trial judge’s decision to exclude or retain a juror because the trial judge observes and evaluates the juror. See Griffin v. Commonwealth , 19 Va. App. 619, 625, 454 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1995). The trial judge’s decision will not be overturned unless the error is

manifest. See id. at 622, 454 S.E.2d at 365. The trial judge

heard Bratton’s answers and tone of voice and observed his demeanor. The judge found Bratton to be impartial and competent to serve on the jury. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or that there has been a showing of manifest error

in this determination. Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### § 518.70 Purpose.

Sections 518.71 through 518.73 contain closeout procedures and other procedures for subsequent disallowances and adjustments.
### §400. Advances as item of cost of construction and maintenance of project

All money placed to the credit of the reclamation fund in pursuance of sections 397 and 398 to 400, of this title shall be devoted exclusively to the completion of work on reclamation projects begun prior to June 25, 1910, as hereinbefore provided, and the same shall be included with all other expenses in future estimates of construction, operation, or maintenance.

(June 25, 1910, ch. 407, §4, 36 Stat. 836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 399 of this title, included within reference in text to sections 398 to 400, was omitted from the Code. See section 391a–1 of this title.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of first clause of section 4 of act June 25, 1910. Second clause of such section 4 is classified to section 413 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3023 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3023

  To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-amino-4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-
                               triazine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2005

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-amino-4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-
                               triazine.

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

SECTION 1. 2-AMINO-4-METHOXY-6-METHYL-1,3,5-TRIAZINE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.08.01       2-amino-4-methoxy- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         6-methyl-1,3,5-                                                    31/2009
                         triazine (CAS No.
                         1668-54-8)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.69.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350
  In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blackhawk Capital Group BDC,
Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig A.
Zabala, as acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereto certifies,
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 his knowledge:
  1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities 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.
  
 Date:
March24, 2009
 
 /s/ Craig A.
Zabala
 Craig A.
Zabala
 Acting
Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
 
 A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Blackhawk Capital Group BDC and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 3280.3 Manufactured home procedural and enforcement regulations, and consumer manual requirements. ( a ) A manufacturer must comply with the requirements of this part, part 3282 of this chapter, and 42 U.S.C. 5416.
( b ) Consumer manuals must be in accordance with § 3282.207 of this chapter.
[86 FR 2516, Jan. 12, 2021]
Exhibit 13

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Hutchison
Telecommunications International Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2006 (the Report), we, Dennis Pok Man Lui and Tim L. Pennington, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, promulgated under 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, 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 26, 2007



|                           |  |                         |  |  |  | 
|-------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Dennis Pok Man Lui     |  |                         |  | 
|Name:                      |  | Dennis Pok Man Lui      |  |  |  | 
|Title:                     |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | 
|                           |  |                        
|/s/ Tim Lincoln Pennington |  |                         |  | 
|Name:                      |  | Tim Lincoln Pennington  |  |  |  | 
|Title:                     |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |
July 12, 2010.

UNITED STATES

D

I

STRICT COURT

NORTHERN

DIST

RI

CT

OF CALIFORNIA

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED

Judge

William

Alsup
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Norman Marable, Respondent, v. W. E. Callahan et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal adjourned to March 13, 1961.
#### § 25.13 Notifying GNMA of withdrawal actions.

When the Board issues a notice of violation that could lead to withdrawal of a mortgagee's approval, or is notified by GNMA of an action that could lead to withdrawal of GNMA approval, the Board shall proceed in accordance with 12 U.S.C. 1708(d).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 2502-0450)

[61 FR 685, Jan. 9, 1996]
AND ORDER THEREON

Case 3:09-cv-02195-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 2
28

Case 3:09-cv-02195-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Edwards *v.*Mayor and Aldermen of Milledgeville.

Lumpkin, J.

Suit was brought against a municipal corporation, seeking to recover the price of certain building stone, at the rate of $1.35 per cubic foot. The defendant pleaded, that the price agreed upon was 81 cents per cubic foot, instead of that for which suit was brought; that it tendered the correct amount to the plaintiff, who refused to receive it; that the tender was made by cheek, and a tender in actual cash was rendered unnecessary by the fact that the plaintiff notified the defendant that he would not receive such sum; that “defendant says that the amount so offered plaintiff was the true amount to which plaintiff was entitled, which this defendant has held subject to the plaintiff’s order at all times, and is still ready and willing to pay;” and that defendant should not be charged with costs. Upon the trial,' the evidence was directed to the point as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover at the rate of 81 cents per cubic foot or at a higher rate. The mayor testified that the amount due, at 81 cents per cubic foot, “has been tendered to” the plaintiff. At the close of the brief of evidence occurs this statement: “It was admitted in open court by the plaintiff that a tender of the amount claimed to be due at 81 cents per cubic foot was made and declined.” The jury found for the plaintiff the amount admitted to be due by the defendant. A motion for a new trial was made by the plaintiff, on the general grounds that the verdiet was contrary to law and evidence, without evidence to support it, and against the weight of the evidence. The motion was overruled, and .the plaintiff excepted. It does not appear that any poii^t was specially raised in the court below, either by request to charge or otherwise, as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover interest. In this court it was contended that the verdict was contrary to law and *147evidence, because the evidence of tender was not sufficient to stop the running of interest; and that the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial, because the verdict did not find interest in his favor. *Held,*that, in view of the admission made in open court in connection with the plea of tender, and the fact that it does not appear that any interest was claimed in the court below or any contention made on that subject, the admission will be construed as made for the purpose of obviating the necessity for introducing further evidence on the subject of tender, and as including the continuing tender pleaded. And the verdict, approved by the. presiding judge, will not be set aside and a new trial granted under the general grounds of the motion.

May 15, 1912.

Complaint. Before Judge'J. B. Park. Baldwin superior court. January 20, 1911.

*Allen & Pottle,*for plaintiff.

*Livingston Kenan,*for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 028

- C V


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

$3,363.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY , A ppellant ,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , A ppellee

.

On Appeal from the 414th District Court of McLennan County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the court on appellant’s motion to appoint counsel. Appellant
is currently proceeding pro se attempting to appeal an asset forfeiture judgment.

T he Texas Legislature has provided for the possibility of appointed counsel in civil

matte rs by conferring upon a district court judge the discretion to “appoint counsel to
attend to the cause of a party who makes an affidavit that he is too poor to employ c ounsel2

to attend to the cause.” T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §24.016 (West, Westlaw through 201 3
C.S.). U nder exceptional circumstances, “the public and private interests at stake [may
be] such that the administration of justice may best be served by appointing a lawyer to
represent an indigent civil litigant.” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mayfield
, 923 S.W.2d 590,
594 (Tex. 1996).
Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAN D the cause to the trial court
for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a
hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

1. Whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal;

2. Whether appellant is indigent;

3. Whether appellant is entitled to a free appellate record due to his or her indigency;

4. Whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel; and,

5. What orders, if any should be entered to assure the filing of appropriate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant's appeal if appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or if a ppellant desires to prosecute this appeal, to assure that the appeal will be diligently pursued.
If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal and
that appellant is indigent and entitled to court

- appointed counsel, the tria l court shall
appoint counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. I f counsel is appointed, the name,
address, telephone number, email address, and state bar number of said counsel shall
be included in an order appointing counsel.

The trial court shall c ause its finding s and recommendations, together with any
orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental3

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of
any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental
reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the
expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 19 th day of November, 2020.
(March 23, 1978)

#### In the Matter of Winthrop Drake Thies, an Attorney and Counselor at Law, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

On the court’s own motion, its decision dated March 13, 1978 is amended by striking from the first decretal paragraph everything following the words "Motion granted” and by substituting the following: "The respondent, admitted to practice before the Bar by this court on December 16, 1959, was convicted of a felony (violation of US Code, tit. 18, § 111), assault upon a federal officer, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on November 22, 1976.” That judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in December, 1977. This court’s order dated March 13, 1978, entered on the decision is amended accordingly. The judgment of conviction in the same court on February 28, 1977 (violation of US Code, tit 18, § 371) for conspiracy to sell stolen securities and the sale of stolen securities, as set forth in this court’s decision dated March 13, 1978, was subsequently vacated by order of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dated January 23, 1978, and thus was not the *1038ground upon which the respondent was disbarred. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**INTERLINEBRANDS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the AnnualReport of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof as amended, (the “Report”), I, Thomas J.Tossavainen, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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 ofthe Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 
| /s/  Thomas J. Tossavainen      |   |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Thomas  J. Tossavainen          |   |
| Acting  Chief Financial Officer |   |
| April  15, 2005                 |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNIFRAX
CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH
31, 1998, AND THEIR  CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                        425
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              14,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  992
<INVENTORY>                                                 9,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           25,988
<PP&E>                                                     71,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                             34,528
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             91,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      13,003
<BONDS>                                                   119,500
<COMMON>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                               (44,721)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               91,219
<SALES>                                                    21,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           21,734
<CGS>                                                      10,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              10,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              268
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          3,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             2,004
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  511
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         1,493
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                1,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0
        

</TABLE>
### §707. Criminal penalty for false statements

(a) Whoever—

(1) knowingly and willfully makes or causes to be made any false statement or representation of a material fact in connection with the furnishing of items or services for which payment may be made by a State from funds allotted to the State under this subchapter, or

(2) having knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting his initial or continued right to any such payment conceals or fails to disclose such event with an intent fraudulently to secure such payment either in a greater amount than is due or when no such payment is authorized,

shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(b) For civil monetary penalties for certain submissions of false claims, see section 1320a–7a of this title.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §507, as added Pub. L. 97–35, title XXI, §2192(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 824.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 707, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, §507, as added Jan. 2, 1968, Pub. L. 90–248, title III, §301, 81 Stat. 925, related to failure of State plan to comply with provisions of this subchapter, prior to the general revision of this subchapter by section 2192(a) of Pub. L. 97–35. See section 706 of this title. For effective date, savings, and transitional provisions, see section 2194 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 701 of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising former section 707 were contained in sections 505 and 515 of act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title V, 49 Stat. 631, 633, as amended (formerly classified to sections 705 and 715 of this title), prior to the general amendment and renumbering of title V of act Aug. 14, 1935, by Pub. L. 90–248, §301.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2015

a0831 

# Order

Clerk September 9, 2015

149567(70)

CHABAD

- LUBAVITCH OF MICHIGAN, and

CONGREGATION BETH CHABAD,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

Cross

- Appellants,

v SC: 149567

COA: 312037

Oakland CC: 2012

- 126333

- CH

DR. DOV SCHUCHMAN, KEN KOHN,

DORENE SOBCZAK, NEIL CRAFT, ANDREA

FEUEREISEN, DALE GOODMAN, LEAH

RUBY, ELIMELECH SILBERBERG, SARA

TUGMAN BAIS CHABAD TORAH, and

CONGREGATIO N BAIS CHABAD OF WEST

BLOOMFIELD,

Defendants

- Appellants,

Cross

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 20, 2015

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it do es not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.

B ERNSTEIN , J., not participating.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Nicholas Ehlers, Jr., Appellant.

Motion to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six typewritten copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the February 1961 Term. The appeal is ordered placed on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Edward J. Weber, Esq., 61-11 Catalpa Avenue, Ridgewood 27, New York., is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.