alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 76, 478
EX PA R TE M A R K ED W A R D BE R R Y , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. F - 0 5 3 5 2 4 5 - LQ I N T HE 2 0 4 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM DALLAS CO UNTY
P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u an t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applica nt was convic ted of ag g ravated sexual assault of a

child and sente nced to life imprisonment. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th at his c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e becau se he fa ile d to timely file a notice of appe al. The trial c ourt has dete rmined that trial co u n s el wa s ineffe ctive for failingto timely

file a
no tic e of a

pp e a l. We a g re e . We fi nd , th e re fo re , th a t App lic ant i s e nti tle d to the op po rt un ity to f ile2

an out-of- time appea l of the judg ment of convic tion in C ause N o. F- 0535245-L Q from the 204 th J udicial District Court of Dallas County . Applicant is order ed re turned to that time at which he may g ive a wr i t t en notice of a ppeal so that he may

then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a mea ningf ul appea l. All tim e limits shall be calculate d as if the se ntence had bee n imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prose cute a n appea l, he must take aff

irmative steps to file a written notice of appea l in the t rial cour t within 30 day s after

the
mand ate of

thi s Co ur t is su e s.

Deliver ed: J anuar

y 12, 2011 Do No t Pu

bli sh
112

63

Austin

Paterson

Rufus

Plymouth

Biggs

Touchet

Irrigon

Umatilla

Garrett

Boardman

Walla Walla College Place

Arlington

Umapine

Hermiston

Wasco

Milton-Freewater

Stanfield

Helix

Moro

Cecil

Echo

AthenaWeston

Olex

Adams

Grass

Valley

Ione

Rieth PendletonMission Cayuse

Gibbon

Lexington

Kent

Pilot Rock

Heppner

Condon

Meacham

Kamela

Shaniko

Mayville

Hardman

Antelope

Fossil

La Grande

Ukiah

Dale

Spray Monument

Kimberly Hamilton

Mitchell

Long Creek

Fox

Prineville

Sumpter

Dayville

Bates

Mount

Vernon

Post

Prairie City

John

Day

Canyon City

Unity

Paulina

Izee

Seneca

Brothers

Silvies

Holdman

Heppner

Junction

Clarno

Service

Creek

Richmond

Beech Creek

Logdell

Suplee

Millican

Morgan

Vinson Nye

Lena

Ruggs

McNary

Kooskooskie

Lowden

Maryhill

SHERMAN COUNTY

GILLIAM COUNTY

 WASCO COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

WHEELER COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

MORROW COUNTY

GRANT COUNTY

UMITILLA COUNION CO

GRANT CO

BAKER CO

GRANT COUNTY

HARNEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON

OREGON

84

395

395

395

26

26

26

26

20

97

97

207

244

402

380

207

218

218

293

206

206

19

19

27

19

74

7

10 0 10 20 Kilometers

10 0 10 20 Miles

W

N

E

S

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

PRINEVILLE DISTRICT

John Day Basin

Resource Management Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2008

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, 

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other 

data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated without notification.

M07-09-01:3-4-08

LEGEND

Elk Range

 Critical Winter Range

 Winter Range

 Summer Range

Mule Deer Range

 Critical Winter Range

 Year-round Range

 Summer Range

Big Horn Sheep Habitat

 Current

 Potential

Antelope Year-round Range

Washinton Ground Squirrel Habitat 

Raptor Roosting and Foraging Area

Greater Sage Grouse Habitat

Planning Area Boundary

Bureau of Land Management

 Administered Land

OREGON

84

84 5

5

101

101

395

395

395

199

26

26

26

20

97 197

97

20

95

26

30

Coos Bay

Florence

Newport

Portland The

Dalles

Albany

Bend

Salem

Tillamook

Eugene

Madras

Roseburg

Medford

Lakeview

Burns

Vale

Pendleton

Baker

City

Klamath

Falls

Grants Pass

Astoria

PA

C I F I C

O

C

E

A

N

Prineville 

District

John Day Basin

Planning

Area

John Day Basin

Planning

Prineville

John

Day

Map 20: Wildlife Habitats
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Sanderson, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 987]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), rendered July 27, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Considering all of the factors *(see, People v Gilliard,*177 AD2d 707), the evidence supports the finding that the defendant was a seller of drugs and not merely a procuring agent for an undercover police officer.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                              Multiband Corporation
                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 this Annual Report Form 10-K,  Multiband  Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004, I, Steven M. Bell, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

1.    This Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and

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


Date: April 15, 2005                    By: /s/ Steven M. Bell
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Chief Financial Officer
[No. 3534.]

#### Eastern Colorado Power Co. v. Gabel.

1. Bill of *Exceptions*— 'When *Necessary.*The contention upon appeal was limited to error alleged in the instructions. The only prejudicial result possible being to enhance the damages awarded, *held*that in the absence of a bill of exceptions preserving the evidence, the question could not be considered, especially where no complaint is made touching size of verdict.

*Appeal from Boulder District Court.*Hon. James E. Garrigues, Judge.

Mr. O. B. Wilcox, Mr. Andrew IT. Wood, Mr. William V. Hodges, Mr. Mason A. Lewis, for appellant.

Mr. Charles M. Campbell, for appellee.

Cunningham, Judge.

The appellant corporation, as plaintiff below, filed its petition seeking to condemn certain real property be*75longing to the appellee for a reservoir site, and for a right of way for a ditch in which a pipe line was to be laid for the purpose of feeding the reservoir. The only matter in dispute here pertains to the right of way for the ditch. The jury returned a verdict fixing appellee’s damages, or the value of the land for the reservoir and pipe line right of way, at $800.00. Defendant excepted to the verdict and was allowed time to file a motion for á new trial, and thereafter, the time for the filing of the motion for a new trial having expired without the same having been filed, judgment was'entered on the verdict and this appeal taken.

In the briefs and on oral argument, counsel for appellant limited their contention to the alleged errors committed by the trial court in giving and refusing certain instructions pertaining to the right of way for the pipe line. The contention of appellant in this behalf is that the trial court instructed the jury that by the condemnation proceedings the petitioner corporation would receive the fee simple title to the land involved, whereas, it contends that by its petition it did not seek to take the fee simple title to the land for pipe line purposes, but only an easement. On the oral argument it was ably contended that appellant had a right under the statutes pertaining to eminent domain to condemn a bare easement, and that this was all that was sought or contemplated by its petition filed in the cause. In view of the record before us, it does not become necessary for us to determine this interesting question.

If the instructions are erroneous in advising the jury that the petitioner would obtain a fee simple title to the land, the only effect of such error would be the tendency of the instruction to enhance the amount of the verdict, that is, make it excessive. But it is not claimed in the assignments of error, in the brief or on oral argument, that the verdict was in fact excessive. Nor was any of *76the testimony taken on the trial below preserved by bill of exceptions.

For these reasons it is manifestly impossible for us to determine whether the verdict was excessive or not. There remains, therefore, nothing for us to do but affirm the judgment of the trial court, which is accordingly done.

*Judgment Affirmed.*
From: cedar_23@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:53:40 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,

Martin Yeung

Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
Exhibit 8.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                                           |  |                       
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                         |  | Place of Incorporation
|1. 7 Days Inn Group (HK) Limited                           |  | Hong Kong             
|2. 7 Days Inn (HK) Investment Co., Limited                 |  | Hong Kong             
|3. 7 Days Inn (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.                         |  | PRC                   
|4. Guangzhou Seven Software Development Co., Ltd.          |  | PRC                   
|5. Guangzhou Sairu Software Development Co., Ltd.          |  | PRC                   
|6. Guangzhou 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.             |  | PRC                   
|7. Guangzhou 7 Days Inn Co., Ltd.                          |  | PRC                   
|8. Chengdu 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.               |  | PRC                   
|9. Fuzhou Gulou District 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd. |  | PRC                   
|10. Guiyang 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.              |  | PRC                   
|11. Wuhan 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.                |  | PRC                   
|12. Xian 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.                |  | PRC                   
|13. Tianjin 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.              |  | PRC                   
|14. Jinan 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.                |  | PRC                   
|15. Guiyang Nanming 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.      |  | PRC                   
|16. Foshan 7 Days Inn Co., Ltd.                            |  | PRC                   
|17. Shenyang 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.             |  | PRC                   
|18. Kunming 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.              |  | PRC                   
|19. Nanjing 7 Days Speedy Hotel Management Co., Ltd.       |  | PRC                   
|20. Hefei 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.                |  | PRC                   
|21. Nanjing 7 Days Sabo Hotel Management Co., Ltd.         |  | PRC                   
|22. Shanghai 7 Days Investment Management Co., Ltd.        |  | PRC                   
|23. Nanchang 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.             |  | PRC                   
|24. 7 Days Speedy Hotel Management (Beijing) Co., Ltd.     |  | PRC                   
|25. Shanghai 7 Days Hotel Management Co., Ltd.             |  | PRC                   
|26. Beijing 7 Days Four Seasons Hotel Management Co., Ltd. |  | PRC                   
|27. Beijing 7 Days Impression Hotel Management Co., Ltd.   |  | PRC                   
|28. Beijing 7 Days Sunshine Hotel Management Co., Ltd.     |  | PRC                   
|29. Shanghai Qijia Hotel Management Co., Ltd.              |  | PRC                   
|30. Shenzhen 7 Days Baoda Hotel Management Co., Ltd.       |  | PRC
No. 65129.

#### Howard H. Berg et al. *v.*United States,

protests 252305-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.*a/c *United China & Glass Company*(47 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: sthrnknyte@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:34:17 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,

Cory Mason

Madison Heights, VA 24572
**Footnotes**

Can be installed as Non-direct vent May be installed as Direct Vent Direct or Non-Direct Vent Can be installed as Non-direct vent (Venting Only)
No. 69831.

protests 64/25229 and 64/25230 (New York).

#### Rohde & Scharz Sales Co. (USA), Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Bao, C.J.

It appearing from the official papers that the protests were filed more than 60 days after liquidation, they were dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
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 Atlas Resources Public #18-2009 (B) L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean P. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ SEAN P. MCGRATH                            |
| Sean P. McGrath                                |
| Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |
| September 11, 2015                             |
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 357 

Supporting the goals and ideals of the Intermediate Space Challenge in 

Mojave, California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2007 

Mr. MCCARTHY of California submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of the Intermediate Space 

Challenge in Mojave, California. 

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge in Mojave, California, is a program designed to capture the imagination 

of youths regarding outer space; 

Whereas the aspiration of the Intermediate Space Challenge 

is to introduce, instill, and energize youths’ interest in 

the engineering, mathematics, and science career fields; 

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge focuses on 4th, 

5th, and 6th grade students during their formative years; 

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge provides students 

the opportunity to visit the Mojave Air and Space Port, 

a 3,300 acre flight research center; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 357 IH 

Whereas aviation legends such as Burt Rutan and Mike 

Melvill of SpaceShipOne fame have worked with and spoken to students participating in the program; 

Whereas the Intermediate Space Challenge enables students 

to work together in a team environment to choose a team 

name, create team banners, craft an essay, and develop 

and use their math and science skills to construct and 

launch a small rocket under appropriate supervision; and 

Whereas the program judges student rocket teams on banner 

designs, essays, and rocket construction and performance: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of the Inter3 mediate Space Challenge; 

4 (2) commends the volunteers who run the Inter5 mediate Space Challenge and the Mojave Air and 

6 Space Port for opening its facility to the young lead7 ers of the future in the science and engineering 

8 fields; and 

9 (3) encourages teachers and school administra10 tors across the country to implement similar pro11 grams to stimulate students and infuse them with a 

12 love of engineering, mathematics, and science. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
No. 63813.

protests 329922-K and 58/11902 (El Paso).

#### Joseph H. Brown & Son *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J. H. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 GMS Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10–K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:






1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and






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






/s/ George MetrakosGeorge Metrakos

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer






Dated: March 22, 2011
Exhibit 32

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECTIVE OFFICER AND 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 Annual Report of Massey Exploration Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Hawitt, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
23rd day of May, 2011.


/s/ Michael Hawitt
------------------------------
Michael Hawitt
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer