alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-1674 – State of West Virginia v. Christopher Wayne Bowling 

### FILED October 8, 2013 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA Justice Ketchum, dissenting: The majority opinion holds that the prosecutor erroneously introduced into evidence five different inadmissible statements, three of which were constitutional errors. Again and again, the majority opinion demonstrates that this mess of a trial was dominated by inadmissible evidence. Yet the majority opinion somehow concludes that the parade of inadmissible evidence was harmless, and that the defendant got a fair trial.

It all reminds me of the trial in Alice in Wonderland , with the Queen demanding that the accused be “Sentence[d] first – verdict afterwards.” By the majority’s measure, I guess the Sanhedrin gave Jesus Christ a fair trial. 1 Conveniently, the majority opinion does not discuss the cumulative effect

of the stream of inadmissible evidence as it eroded the fairness of the accused’s trial. We have repeatedly held that:

Where the record of a criminal trial shows that the cumulative effect of numerous errors committed during the trial prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial, his conviction should be set aside, even though any one of such errors standing alone would be harmless error. Syllabus Point 5, State v. Smith , 156 W. Va. 385, 193 S.E.2d 550 (1972).

1 I suggest, though, that if this prosecutor had been around 2000 years ago, she might have had difficulty finding prior bad acts to admit before the Sanhedrin under Rule 404(b). 1In addition, the trial court held a pre-trial hearing to consider Rule 404(b) bad character evidence in open court, with the press present. I believe in freedom of the press and in open courts, but this type of evidence is supposed to be reviewed in camera

. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an in camera hearing as one “in the judge’s private chambers.” When the prosecutor uses the press to spill details of an accused’s prior bad acts into the public forum, it tends to prejudice the accused’s ability to get a fair trial on the present accusation. And the majority opinion bypassed our “book rules” and a century of case law to say that was okay. A fair trial is one in which the rules of evidence are honored, so that every factual assertion can be fairly challenged. Under the majority opinion’s philosophy, we might as well start future criminal trials with the prosecutor stating, in front of the jury, “bring the guilty S.O.B. in

here!”

I dissent. This case is terrible.

2
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 Quarterly Report of NSTAR (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James J. Judge, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(i)the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  October 29, 2009By:/s/ JAMES J. JUDGEJames J. JudgeSenior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          $1,848
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                11,584
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    440,268
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,033,318
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,538,532
<DEPOSITS>                                     808,433
<SHORT-TERM>                                   397,989
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             18,758
<LONG-TERM>                                     64,760
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     248,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,538,532
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,056
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,726
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   164
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                26,946
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,014
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,118
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,828
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       96
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (620)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        (410)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,620
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,210
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     8.1
<LOANS-NON>                                        830
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,788
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      662
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,164
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,164
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION
I, David Wodar, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Industrial Minerals,
Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and
have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

     b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2008

/s/ David Wodar
-----------------------
David Wodar
President and CEO

<PAGE>
From: rraubry@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:23:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ray and Rosie Aubry

Ottawa, IL 61350
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           51900
<SECURITIES>                                    128000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   531900
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (13500)
<INVENTORY>                                     338600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1164500
<PP&E>                                         1831700
<DEPRECIATION>                                (953400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2607200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           564400
<BONDS>                                         221200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        140100
<OTHER-SE>                                     1362800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2607200
<SALES>                                        1981300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2005400
<CGS>                                          1352500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1719200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 10200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               21600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 254400
<INCOME-TAX>                                     91600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             162800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    162800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
        


</TABLE>
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 report of CommScope, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to SS.
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/ FRANK M. DRENDELFrank M. Drendel
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                       |  | 
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: |  | May 10, 2004                                                                                    |  | 
|By:   |  | /s/ JEARLD L. LEONHARDTJearld L. Leonhardt
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|Date: |  | May 10, 2004                                                                                    |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### David Stevens and others, Respondents, v. Riley E. Horton, Appellant.

Judgment 'and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J.
From: tlivorsi@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:16:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Thomas Livorsi

Elmhurst, IL 60126
From: rebrahl@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:54:41 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kevin Rahl

Dumfries, VA 22025
From: mbucc7@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:15:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Bucciarelli

Philadelphia, PA 19154
From: dlt1@pacbell.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:28 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to urge you to rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and

sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. If you do not

reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations that provide individual

and group insurance and have moral or religious objections to providing these kinds of "health" services.

I strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans, especially for drugs

and devices that can be used to cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization or business that has moral or religious objections to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience protection laws

that prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance. I believe many of them will choose the latter.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me. No Americans should be

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Darren Terry

Fremont, CA 94536