alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIE J. STEVENSON, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 69, 41 CMR 69

No. 22,288

November 14, 1969

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Lee A. Rau,*and *Captain Frank B.. Stahl, Jr.,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant*was on the pleadings for Appellee, United! States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

The accused was convicted by general court-martial, convened in the Federal Republic of Germany, of the unpremeditated murder of a Canadian soldier. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for thirty years. Intermediate appellate; authorities affirmed the findings and' sentence without change. We granted review to determine the validity of the accused’s conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969).

*70Authority for trial by court-martial in the Federal Republic of Germany is contained in the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. In the case at bar, jurisdiction over the offense was released to the American military authorities by the German prosecutor at Arnsberg, Germany (Appellate Exhibit 12).

In United States v Keaton, 19 USCMA 64, 41 CMR 64, we held that all offenses coming within the purview of the Uniform Code of Military Justice committed in a foreign country were triable by court-martial in that country. See also United States v Easter, 19 USCMA 68, 41 CMR 68. For the reasons stated in those opinions, equally applicable here, the constitutional limitations on court-martial jurisdiction referred to in O’Callahan v Parker, supra, do not: deprive a court-martial of jurisdiction when trial is held in a foreign, country.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Judge Darden concurs in the result.
Exhibit 31




VISTA
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




CERTIFICATION




I, Barry
J. Kemble, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-K of Vista International Technologies, 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 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)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




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 annual 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 issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the 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.


VISTA
      INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: April
      15, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Barry J.
      KembleBarry
      J. KembleChief
      Executive
Officer
Exhibit (13) b.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Komatsu Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2007 as amended by this Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1) dated the
date hereof (the Report), I, Kenji Kinoshita, Director, Senior Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s) 1350, 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.

Date: July 19, 2007



By:

/s/ KENJI KINOSHITAKenji KinoshitaDirector, Senior Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer




4
Exhibit 32(1)

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Don R. Wellendorf                     
|Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer
|Date: August 7, 2006                      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 64144.

protest 59/24572 (New York).

#### Frederick H. Cone & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sythetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 51439.

#### Protests 612985-G, etc., of L. Foreman Fechtman & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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




In
      connection with this Quarterly Report of Anmore, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Giorgio Saumat, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
      the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Sec.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




1.
            Such
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
                30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
                the period ending September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of Anmore Inc.




Dated:
      November 13, 2007




By:
      */s/Giorgio
      Saumat* Giorgio
          Saumat
 President,
 Secretary
            and Director
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 966-967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-42]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Findings of Research Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity 
(ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in 
the following case:
    Jong Hyuk Park, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh: Based on 
accumulated evidence including the University of Pittsburgh (UP) 
investigation committee report and additional analysis and information 
obtained by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) during its oversight 
review, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Jong Hyuk Park, 
Ph.D., former postdoctoral fellow, Pittsburgh Development Center of the 
Magee-Womens Research Institute, UP, engaged in research misconduct in 
research funded by National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), 
National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R24 RR13632 and National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), NIH, grant P01 
HD047675.
    Specifically, Dr. Park:
    (1) Intentionally and knowingly falsified various versions of two 
figures in a manuscript entitled ``Rhesus Embryonic Stem Cells 
Established by Nuclear Transfer: Tetraploid ESCs Differ from Fertilized 
Ones'' that was being prepared for submission to Nature;

[[Page 967]]

    (2) Repeatedly misrepresented to the UP investigative panel the 
accuracy of one of the figures;
    (3) Presented the false figures as true to members of the 
laboratory; and
    (4) Falsified the record of revisions of the figures by deleting 
all prior versions from the laboratory server.
    ORI has implemented the following administrative actions for a 
period of three (3) years, beginning on November 29, 2006:
    (1) Dr. Park is debarred from any contracting or subcontracting 
with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or 
involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government 
as defined in the debarment regulations at 45 CFR Part 76; and
    (2) Dr. Park is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity to 
PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory 
committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Division of Investigative 
Oversight, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 
750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8800.

Chris B. Pascal,
Director, Office of Research Integrity.
 [FR Doc. E7-42 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-31-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAXIMILIANO MENDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2447 LKK DAD P

vs.

DR. CRAPOTTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss

filed by defendants on July 5, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 23, 2005 request for extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be filed and served

within thirty days from the date of this order; any reply shall be filed within fifteen days after

plaintiff’s opposition is served.

DATED: September 28, 2005.

DAD:13:bb

mend2447.36s

Case 2:04-cv-02447-LKK -DAD Document 23 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

             CORPORATE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 16 - GLOBAL INCORPORATED

                    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 Quarterly Report of Corporate Property Associates
16-Global Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, John J. Park, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 result of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ John J. Park
    ---------------------------
    John J. Park
    Chief Financial Officer
      11/5/2004
    ---------------------------
    Date

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 Corporate Property Associates
16-Global Incorporated and will be retained by Corporate Property Associates
16-Global Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 23, 2012

d0416 

# Order

April 23, 2012

143427(42)(44)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143427 COA: 296730 ROMANDO LEWIS, Wayne CC: 09-020831-FC Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ _________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to f ile a supplemental brief is GRANTED. The
motion for reconsideration of th is Court’s October 24, 2011 or der is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The following certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238. This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes
  of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the
  date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

In connection with the Annual Report of J. W. Mays, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Lloyd J.
  Shulman and Mark S. Greenblatt, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that to our knowledge:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)

October 9, 2008

|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ LLOYDS. SHULMANLloyd J. ShulmanChief Executive Officer    
|/s/ MARKS. GREENBLATTMark S. GreenblattChief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to J.W. Mays, Inc. and will be retained by J. W. Mays, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
  upon request.



---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2509 MCE KJM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On October 20, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why he should not

be ordered to pay the $150.00 filing fee for this action, given its filing date, before proceeding

further because plaintiff appears to have “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In his response

to the court’s order, plaintiff does not dispute that he has “struck out,” nor does he present any

other legal basis for not requiring plaintiff to pay the filing fee.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02509-MCE -KJM Document 11 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff pay the $150.00 filing fee

in effect at the time of the filing of his action within twenty days. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the

filing fee within twenty days will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: November 21, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

mill2509.1915(g)2

Case 2:04-cv-02509-MCE -KJM Document 11 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 1680

In re: JAMES K. BURKS, JR., a/k/a Howard Theodore Wright, a/k/a Nathan King, a/k/a Derrick Baxter, a/k/a Marcus Allen, a/k/a Martin Wilson, a/k/a Marcus Williams

,

Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:93

- cr

- 00460

- CMH

- 1 )

Submitted : October 17, 2019 Decided: October 21, 2019

Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

James K. Burks, Jr. , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

James K. B u rks, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court

has undu ly delayed in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion . He seeks an order from

this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal

undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in form a pauperis

and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Attachment 1

Brandon Shores FGD System Process Flow DiagramAttachment 2

Brandon Shores FGD Wastewater Treatme nt System Process Flow Diagram
#### Carlos BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-6975.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

Carlos Brown, pro se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

*109PER CURIAM.

Carlos Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Brown v. Angelone,*No. CA-99-837-AM (E.D.Va. filed June 12, 2000; entered June 13, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES P. DEFAZIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1358 DFL GGH

vs.

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

As the parties may recall, at the time the undersigned entered his stay of

discovery, the purpose of the stay was to permit the court to craft a discovery plan order without

having to deal with a constantly changing discovery landscape due to the propounding of

numerous discovery requests, depositions and the like along with adjudicating discovery

disputes. The undersigned understood the need for expeditious issuance of the discovery plan

order. However, the trial judge to whom this case had first been reassigned (Judge Levi) later

entered an omnibus stay pending ruling on potentially dispositive motions. At this time, the

undersigned had no authority to issue a discovery plan order. The case went through several

other reassignments, but the omnibus stay was never lifted. However, it may be that the pending

motions for which the omnibus stay were entered are no longer pending.

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 230 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

While many cases at the present time are competing for “the top of my pile,” it

may be beneficial to hold a discovery status hearing to determine whether discovery should

commence. Therefore, the parties are ordered to appear in the undersigned’s courtroom on

August 9, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., to discuss whether discovery should immediately commence after

issuance of a discovery plan order.

DATED: 7/30/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/gh

DeFazio1358.hg.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 230 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 2