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

17 USCMA 291, 38 CMR 89

No. 20,451

November 17, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain John Kagel,*and *Captain Stephen Arinson*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain Gregory U. Evans*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FeRGuson, Judge:

In this case, as in United States v Wheeler, 17 USCMA 274, 38 CMR 72, this day decided, the law officer limited his instructions to the maximum pún-ishment imposable and the mechanics of voting. Though evidence in extenuation and mitigation was introduced and counsel made brief arguments on the sentence, no guideposts for deliberation thereon were furnished the court-martial. The accused received the maximum sentence.

Under our decision in *Wheeler,*supra, the law officer’s failure to instruct the court-martial was erroneous and, in light of the circumstances including imposition of the maximum penalty, prej-udicially so. Curative measures are, therefore, necessitated.

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. The board may reassess the sentence or order a rehearing thereon.

■Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-DAY concur.
Exhibit 32






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of the smaller reporting company of DAM Holdings, Inc. (fka Hybrid Dynamics Corporation) (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Klein, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my 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.








By: /s/ MARK KLEIN


Mark Klein


Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer


DAM Holdings, Inc.





Date: November 18, 2009
No. 40229.

#### Protest 917085-G of Mogi, Momonoi & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of figures in chief value of plaster of paris similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Okuda*(23 C. C. P. A. 46, T. D. 47713). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 205 was therefore sustained. .
#### Mary Schweitzer, *as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v.*Ernst Sander and Conrad Weiss, *Appellants.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Hardin, J.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

I, Seifi Ghasemi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. forthe fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.

 

 
| Date: May 17, 2004                   |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ SEIFI GHASEMi                    |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                        |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of eAcceleration Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for thequarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Clinton L. Ballard, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and E. Edward Ahrens, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, thatto our knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Clinton L. Ballard                |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Clinton L. Ballard                    |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |   |
|   |                                  |   |
|   | /s/ E. Edward Ahrens                  |   |
|   | E. Edward Ahrens                      |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer               |   |
|   |                                  |   |
|   | Dated: March 31, 2005                 |   |

 

----
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, Christian Brule, President, Chief Executive Officer of Sunergy, Inc., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sunergy, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report;



3.

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



4.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

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



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal controls..



Date:  May 14, 2008

By:



Christian Brule, President, Chief Executive Officer

and principal executive officer
No. 45052.

#### Protests 991987-G, etc., of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) Wooden jumping sticks similar to those the subject of Abstract 44028 at 33)4 percent under paragraph 412; (2) magic daggers of metal at 45 percent under paragraph 397, Abstract 37637 followed; and (3) three-tube horns composed of metal similar to those the subject of Abstract 40185 at 45 percent under paragraph 397.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8307 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8307

 To provide that the memorial to commemorate the sacrifice and service 
of the women who worked on the home front to support the efforts of the 
   United States military during World War II may be located on the 
                 National Mall, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2024

  Ms. Granger (for herself and Mrs. Dingell) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that the memorial to commemorate the sacrifice and service 
of the women who worked on the home front to support the efforts of the 
   United States military during World War II may be located on the 
                 National Mall, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Women Who Worked on the Home Front 
Memorial Location Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds as follows:
            (1) During World War II, more than 18 million women 
        answered the call during a global crisis to hold down the home 
        front by working as pilots, engineers, mechanics, code 
        breakers, and more. These women built planes, tanks, munitions, 
        and various other pieces of equipment needed to aid in the war 
        effort.
            (2) Section 702 of division DD of the Consolidated 
        Appropriations Act, 2023 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 117-
        328) authorized the Women Who Worked on the Home Front 
        Foundation to establish a memorial on Federal land in the 
        District of Columbia and its environs to commemorate the 
        service and sacrifice to the United States of the women who 
        worked on the home front during World War II.
            (3) Locating the commemorative work on the National Mall 
        would be a respectful extension of the enduring legacy of the 
        women who worked on the home front during World War II.

SEC. 3. LOCATION OF MEMORIAL.

    Notwithstanding section 8908 of title 40, United States Code, the 
commemorative work to commemorate the commitment and service of the 
women who worked on the home front during World War II authorized by 
section 702 of division DD of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 
(40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 117-328), may be located within--
            (1) Area I, as depicted on the map entitled ``Commemorative 
        Areas Washington, DC and Environs'', numbered 869/86501 B, and 
        dated June 24, 2003; or
            (2) the Reserve (as defined in section 8902(a) of title 40, 
        United States Code).
                                 <all>
```
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY JO WEIDRICK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 22-1531 (UNA)

)

 )

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. )

President of the United States, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, Dkt. 1, and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), Dkt. 2. In IFP proceedings, the Court is 

required to dismiss a case “at any time” it determines, as here, that the action is frivolous. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

The plaintiff has again filed a Complaint “primarily ‘to allow’ her ‘to immediately confer 

with her attorney of [now 5] years, Mark J. Geragos.’” Weidrick v. Biden, No. 21-cv-416 (UNA), 

2021 WL 1099934, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2021), aff'd, 848 Fed. App’x 436 (D.C. Cir. 2021); see 

Compl. ¶ 1. She seeks to stop “named and unnamed Defendants daily forge pro-terrorism material 

making it appear it is Plaintiff’s, then threaten to arrest Mr. Geragos.” Id. Plaintiff admits that she 

has filed at least one “previous lawsuit in 2021/22,” which was “denied by SCOTUS.” Id. ¶ 2. 

Allegedly, her “sources have indicated seven out of nine SCOTUS Justices are participants in this 

terrorism,” so she has named them as defendants in this action, id., along with President Biden, 
2

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, the United States Military, and the United States 

Congress, id. at 2. 

The instant Complaint, like those dismissed previously, is replete with rehashed allegations

of terrorism, sexual assault, slander, and torture. For example, Plaintiff claims “there are many 

planks of this 24/7 terrorism of 32 1/2+ years including but not limited to raping of Plaintiff’s brain 

with mind reading equipment[.]” Id. ¶ 7; cf. Weidrick, supra at *1 (concluding that complaint 

alleging same “satisfies [the frivolous] standard.”) (surveying cases)); Weidrick v. Biden, No. 21-

cv-2224 (UNA), 2021 WL 6621164, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-5247, 2022 WL 

190758 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 18, 2022) (“Upon careful review of the [similarly pled] complaint, the 

Court concludes that its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible, rendering this case 

subject to dismissal as frivolous.”); Weidrick v. Obama, No. 12-cv-0944, 2012 WL 2308103, at *1 

(D.D.C. June 11, 2012) (“Plaintiff's outlandish accusations [of stalking and mind control] are the 

type of fantastic or delusional scenarios warranting dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous.”). 

Consequently, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 

1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (holding that dismissal with prejudice is warranted upon determining 

“that ‘the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure 

the deficiency’” (quoting Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 

1985))). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

 _________/s/_____________

DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH

Date: June 27, 2022 United States District Judge
#### Joseph *v.*Weinrott et ux., Appellants.

Argued November 19, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Beien and Robeets, JJ.

*Benjamin E. ZucJcerman,*with him *Charles A. Kerlavage,*and *Wright, Spencer, Mining d Sagendorph,*for appellants.

*Jerome H. Ellis,*with him *James F. McOort,*for appellees.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

Order affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bell dissents.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00804-CR

Kaitlyn Lucretia Ritcherson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-11-302663, HONORABLE DAVID CRAIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant filed her notice of appeal on November 22, 2013, and the clerk’s record

was filed on March 10, 2014. On April 8, we sent court reporter Raquel Kocher notice that the

reporter’s record was overdue, setting a new deadline of April 18, and telling her that if she was

unable to meet the new deadline, she was to provide a written explanation for the delay and an

estimate of when the record would be filed. On May 13, after having received no response, we

called and left a message inquiring about the status of the record. To date, Ms. Kocher has not

replied to our inquiries, nor has the record been filed. Ms. Kocher is therefore ordered to file the

reporter’s record no later than June 27, 2014. Failure to file the record by that date will result in

Ms. Kocher being called before the Court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for

violating our order.
It is ordered June 9, 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

2
U.S. National Arboretum Plant Introduction

Floral and Nursery Plants Research Unit

U.S. National Arboretum, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 3501 New York Ave., N.E., Washington, DC 20002

Lagerstroemia 'Pocomoke'

The U.S. National Arboretum presents Lagerstroemia 'Pocomoke', the second

in a new series of miniature hybrid crapemyrtles. Plant this rosy-flowered little

beauty in all of your summer fun areas. Great as a container plant on patio or deck,

'Pocomoke' will charm with its diminutive bushy habit and rose-pink flowers. Give your

garden a southern accent with the lovely 'Pocomoke'!
U.S. National Arboretum Plant Introduction

Floral and Nursery Plants Research Unit

U.S. National Arboretum: www.ars-grin.gov/na/

November 1999

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

'Pocomoke' Hybrid Crapemyrtle

Botanical Name:

Family:

Hardiness:

Development:

Significance:

Description:

Culture:

Propagation:

Landscape Use:

Availability:

Lagerstroemia (indica x fauriei) 'Pocomoke'

(NA 62918; PI 603813)

Lythraceae

Reliably top hardy to USDA Zone 7b; root hardy to USDA Zone 6.

'Pocomoke' was produced and selected by Dr. Donald Egolf from a

complex pedigree involving five original plants and their progeny

intercrossed for five generations. Approximately one-third of its

genotype was contributed by L. fauriei. The first cross in this

pedigree was made in 1967, and the final cross that resulted in

'Pocomoke' was made in 1989. The name 'Pocomoke' was registered

with the International Registration Authority for Cultivated

Lagerstroemia, and it was released in July, 1998.

'Pocomoke' is the second in a series of true miniature Lagerstroemia

indica x L. fauriei hybrids, reaching a height of 19 inches and a

width of 35 inches after eight years of container culture. It is highly

tolerant to powdery mildew.

Height and Width: 19 inches tall and 35 inches wide after 8 years

in container culture.

Habit: Deciduous, densely branched, compact mound.

Foliage: Small, glossy, dark green foliage emerges maroon; bronzered fall color. Highly tolerant to powdery mildew.

Flowers: Deep rose-pink flowers in mid to late summer, approximately two weeks after flowers appear on standard hybrid varieties

of crapemyrtle; persist until frost.

Fruit: A capsule. Persists through winter.

'Pocomoke' is adaptable to the same cultural conditions as other

crapemyrtle hybrid cultivars. Flowers and grows best in full sun in

a heavy loam soil with a pH of 5.0–6.5.

Roots easily from softwood or semi-hardwood cuttings taken before

flowering. Rooting occurs in 4 weeks under mist, 1000 ppm IBA.

Small foundation or border plant, mass planting in beds, specimen

in rock gardens or terraces, container plant, bonsai.

Stock plants and rooted cuttings were distributed to wholesale

nurseries in 1997 and 1999. Available in retail nurseries in 2000–

2001.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130122 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DENNIS P. FRITZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130122 

 COA: 264378 

WCAC: 04-000107 

YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0320 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 27, 2006 

Clerk
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **2 -**  **6007**

JAMES MUHAMMAD , P etitioner

- Appellant ,

v. GEO CARE JUSTCARE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH , Respondent

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Cameron McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 3 :11

- cv - 0 2396

- CMC )

Submitted : April 26 , 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE , and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam op inion

.

James Muhammad , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Muhammad appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition

. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the deni al of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitu tional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Muhammad has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional proces s.

DISMISS ED
No. 41853.

#### Protest 882171-G of Federated Distributors (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of incense burners in chief value of metal plated with silver. The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445) and *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816) cited.
May 10, 1954

No. 58101.

Suits 4755/6.

#### United States *v.*N. M. Albert Co. and Max Steinmetz; N. M. Albert Co. and Max Steinmetz *v.*United States.

C. D. 1455 reversed February 3, 1954. C. A. D. 549.
#### Lisa M. Moretti, Respondent, v 860 West Tower, Inc., Defendant. 860 West Tower, Inc., Appellant, v Lisa M. Moretti, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 163]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered April 20, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion for removal of a summary nonpayment proceeding from Civil Court and consolidated it with the Supreme Court action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court was within its discretion in granting removal and consolidation, in the interest of judicial economy, as both cases involved common questions of law and fact and plaintiff would otherwise be unable to obtain full redress of her rights. Neither plaintiff’s negligence claims nor her request for injunc*192tive relief could be adjudicated in the nonpayment proceeding *(see, Atherton v 21 E. 92nd St. Corp.,*149 AD2d 354). The delay in determination of the nonpayment proceeding will not cause prejudice sufficient to justify denial of the motion *(see, Amtorg Trading Corp. v Broadway & 56th St. Assocs.,*191 AD2d 212), as the parties’ real controversy concerns money, not possession of the premises, and as interest may be awarded if defendant prevails (CPLR 5001). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.