alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth *v.*Brown, Appellant.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*357April 23, 1969:

*Marvin I.*Block, for appellant.

*Samuel T. Swansen*and *James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorneys, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen*Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In June 1960, the appellant, William Brown, was convicted by a jury in Philadelphia County of assault with intent to rob and aggravated assault and battery. Prison sentences were imposed in each case to run consecutively. No appeal was entered from the judgments.

In 1968, Brown filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed by the trial court after a hearing. An appeal to the Superior Court resulted in an order of affirmance without opinion. We have before us a petition requesting allocatur which we now grant.

In his petition seeking post-conviction relief, Brown alleged, inter alia, that he was not informed by his trial counsel or by the court of his right to the assistance of counsel for the purposes of filing and prosecuting an appeal from the 1960 convictions and judgments; and that he personally was not aware of those rights at the pertinent time. He repeated those assertions at the hearing on his petition. The Commonwealth offered no testimony to refute this allegation and testimony, nor are there any facts in the record anywhere to establish anything to the contrary. Under the circumstances, the orders of the courts below must be reversed and the record remanded to the court of original jurisdiction to give the appellant the op*358portunity of filing post-trial motions nunc pro tunc and the opportunity to appeal if an adverse decision is entered. See *Commonwealth v. Wilson,*430 Pa. 1, 241 A. 2d 760 (1968), and *Commonwealth v. Mumford,*430 Pa. 451, 243 A. 2d 440 (1968).

It is so ordered.
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

The undersigned, Terence Yap, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.                                                       
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| |    | IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 28th day of October 2009.                                                                                                

/s/ Terence YapTerence Yap 
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
#### Caroline Parkinson, *Appellant, v.*Thomas Parkinson, *Respondent.*

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs to either party. *Held,*that the plaintiff having accepted the money which the order appealed from directed to be paid cannot maintain the appeal.
fsnn_ex1061.htm


Exhibit 10.6.1


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 



6
Date:

### /}V.JJ~Jbj; 

# . "Jl&j 1({1,

### ~/ 

# r-**~t-** 3

. -Ji-prYJ

Meeting: (Y1a._r..L0.-t 

# kas-fvlf] _s.

RuJe(s) Discussed : 0 

### d u.Nl**Go.~**
Written Materials? 

# Y es®

Name 

# p JW( 

# c**JV.VA 1'f;~**  Org an i z ation

## EPArYI 

## aMkt**\~** Cl

## ~h 'hw.s**(v\;1~(\MJv ~~**  I Phone Number

### d-Dd---3~3**-~f/S ~**  h

' crn**51~~** · 5DJ- 

### S l&dx
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 37 25

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,
v. Ja m es Ric ky Glasg ow, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rnDis tri ctof Ark an sa s - Ho t Sp rin gs

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: May 23, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Ju ne 5, 2 01 4 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Ja m es Glas go w di re c t l y ap pe al s th e se nt en ce th at th e di st ric t co urt im po se d 1 up on rev ok in g hi s pr ob at io n. Fo r rev ers al , he a r g u e s t h a t th e se nt en ce is
The Hon or ab le Ro be r t T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rnDis tri ctof Ark an sa s.subs ta nt iv el y u n r e a s o n ab le

. Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e se nt en ce--

whi ch is well wit hi n st atut ory li m it s, an d i s a ls o wit hi n th e Ch ap te r 7 ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge ap pl ic ab le to rev oc at ion se nte nc es --i s no t un reas on ab le

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ty so n, 41 3 F.3 d 82 4, 82 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m ) (rev oc at io n se nt en ces are rev ie wed fo r un reas on ab le ne ss in acco rd an ce wit h Uni te d St at es v. Bo ok er, 54 3 U.S. 22 0 (2 00 5) ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t. W e al so gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n fo r le av e to wit hd raw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 25, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-11491 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00396-SDM-AEP-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS QUILES,

llllllllllllllllllll l Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(May 25, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Kimberly Nolen Hopkins, appointed counsel for Luis Quiles in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire

record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is

correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no issues of

arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Quiles’s

conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DONALD A. WOOD, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 257, 38 CMR 55

*258No. 20,492

November 3, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Dennis R. Hunt,*and *Captain Kenneth J. Stuart*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rariek, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain Harvey L. Anderson*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

At the accused’s trial, his statement was admitted into evidence despite the fact the proof demonstrated he was not advised by his interrogator that he was entitled to appointed military counsel. This was prejudicial error. United States v Tempia, 16 USCMA 629, 37 CMR 249; United States v Pearson, 17 USCMA 204, 37 CMR 468. In addition to the foregoing, the Government concedes the law officer’s instructions regarding the effect of his ruling admitting the statement in evidence were erroneous in that they permitted the fact finders to infer volun-tariness from that ruling alone. Thus, the statement was not only inadmissible in itself but the instructions regarding the manner in which it was obtained were likewise prejudicial. Reversal, therefore, is required on both grounds. United States v Tempia, supra.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge QUINN and Judge Kil-DAY concur.
## ongrezi of tIji 

# Unitii tatri

The Honorable Lisa Jackson Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Administrator Jackson, We are writing you regarding two major regulations EPA will soon propose that could have significant impacts on the nation's fuel manufacturers and the economy as a whole: Tier 3 fuel regulations and the Refinery Sector Rulemaking. We believe that reforms of this scope require a thorough analysis of potential long term implications on all affected industries before moving forward. Tier 3 would place stringent requirements on fuel manufacturers to reduce sulfur and vapor pressure. Our understanding is that EPA intends to propose this rule early next year and issue a final rule in 2012. Especially during this time of economic uncertainty, we have concerns about the effects this rule might have on the fuel manufacturing and other industries, the price of gas at the pump, and domestic fuel supplies. We also understand that EPA is moving forward on the Refinery Sector Rulemaking in December of 2011. This rulemaking is perhaps the most comprehensive and complex mix of new mandates and standards ever developed for the refinery sector. In light of the potential impact of rules like these, we suggest that the issuance of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would allow affected industries a better opportunity to provide feedback and give EPA more time to analyze the data submitted by those industries in advance of rulemaking. With any rules, we expect a thorough analysis of the science, as well as costs and benefits to the general public and affected industries before proceeding. We believe both federal and state regulators should be held to that standard. We urge EPA to coordinate with states to pursue a rigorous science-based rulemaking process that minimizes the unnecessary, negative consequences for affected industries, Thank you for your time and attention to this matter, and we look forward to your timely response. Representative Ed Whitfield - Repres1ative JôftTBarkw PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

# 0.. M442-

1jsentative Robert Aderholt Representative Rodney nder Rpresentative Joe Barton Representative Dan Boren
yc4icháèl Bufesf Representative fan Burton Representative Lou Barletta
epreseiitative Charles Representative Leonard BoswellRepresentathk Mark Critz

Representative Bill Flores



# JAJ4W21 Representative aft Jones Representative Char! tative Andy Harris Rep'tèsetive Lynn Thhkins Representative Gene Green
tative Tim Holden

ntative Cynthia UimmisR&Iresentatve Jfri Matheson

entative David McKinley Representative Patrick Meehan Representative Nunne1ee Representativ Stevan Pearce
presentative James Sensenbrenner Representative Lamar Smith Representative Pete Olson Representative Tim Murphy

Rpreentative Mike Ross Representative David Schweikèrt Ree±ioShimk Rc:pFesen911wd^^S^ epresentative Tom McClintock Representative Cathy McMcfrris R1gers

Representative Joe PittsRepresentative Ste\'e Stiv

Represlntative Rob Woodall Rjresenitive Mike Poilipeo
#### Mary E. Remsen and others, Appellants, *v.*George H. Dennis, Respondent.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Dyeman, J.; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Taylor, Appellant.

*335Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Victor E. Taylor,*petitioner, in propria persona.

*James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorney, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

February 26, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed without hearing. On appeal, the Superior Court remanded the matter for the appointment of *336counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. Counsel was appointed, the hearing was held, and relief was denied. The Superior Court affirmed, and we are now faced with petitioner’s *pro se*petition for allocatur. In *Commonwealth v. Hickox,*438 Pa. 144, 249 A. 2d 777 (1969) in response to a *pro se*petition for allocatur, we directed that counsel appointed for petitioner proceed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 318(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. That Rule, which pre-dated the Post Conviction Hearing Act, A.ct of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §1180-1 et seq., is applicable only to direct appeals. We hold that §12 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. §1180-12, requiring the appointment of counsel under certain circumstances, places an obligation on counsel so appointed to represent a petitioner throughout the Post Conviction Hearing proceedings. We conclude that petitioner’s right to counsel in a Post Conviction Hearing matter is just as broad as a defendant’s right to counsel on direct appeal.

Petitioner’s counsel appointed in connection with his appeal to the Superior Court from the dismissal of his Post Conviction Hearing Act petition is directed to proceed in accordance with the views expressed herein.
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

DeWAYNE WASHINGTON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2510 FCD DAD P

vs.

BEAMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 4, 2005, the court filed findings and recommendations

recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to file an amended

complaint as ordered by the court on August 22, 2005. On October 17, 2005, plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations and explained that he is suffering from health

problems and has limited access to his legal property. The court will vacate the findings and

recommendations and provide plaintiff additional time to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff is 

cautioned, however, that he must diligently prosecute this action and that the court cannot

provide unlimited extensions of time for court deadlines.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02510-FCD-DAD Document 14 Filed 10/21/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations, filed on October 4, 2005, are vacated; and

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall file his

amended complaint as set forth in the court’s August 22, 2005 order.

DATED: October 21, 2005.

DAD:4

wash2510.vac

Case 2:04-cv-02510-FCD-DAD Document 14 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2
----

# Virtual CD-ROM/Floppy Disk Library

      -  Home
      -  About
      -  Search
      -  List All

Drinking water treatment plant advisor

 System Details :

System requirements: IBM AT or compatible computer; at least 550 KB available conventional memory; DOS version 3.0 or higher; hard disk with at least 5.0 MB free space; 3.5" floppy disk drive; EPSON compatible printer, which may be optionally configured as system device PRN.

 Notes :

Title from title screen."Final, version 1.3"--Disk label."Based on the source document Interim Handbook: Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correction Program Approach"--P. 1, User documentation.Distributed to depository libraries on floppy disk, shipping list no.: 97-0064-P."September 1996"--Cover, uer documentation."EPA/625/R-96/002"--Cover, user documentation."EPA/625/R-96/002"--Cover, User documentation.

 Subject Headings :

Drinking water -- Purification -- United States -- Data processing -- Software

 Record Info : 

tmp96305227(OCoLC)ocm36075225(InU)AHQ0969BB

      Indiana University Catalog Information

## EP 7.2: D 83/2/USER disk

Installation Notes :

        -  Download :     Browse   

Raw Mets Record

----

IU Bloomington Libraries

           Comments: libgpd@indiana.edu

  			Hosted by the IU Digital Library Program

----

        - Copyright  © 				    
2012
 				The Trustees of  Indiana University
        - Copyright Complaints
        - Libraries Privacy Policy
        - Accessibility Help
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Guoshen Tu, the Chief Executive Officer of
CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the "Report"), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
      the Company.                                                         

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 25th day of April 2011.

|/s/ Guoshen
      Tu                                  | 
|----------------------------------------------------- | 
|Guoshen Tu                                            | 
|Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) | 

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Before the Third Division,

November 19, 1951

No. 56004.

protest 173268-K (New York).

#### S. P. Skinner Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass silent butlers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1

                                CEO CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roger N. Smith, certify that:

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

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we
     have:

     a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 changes in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         controls over financial reporting.

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 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 are
         reasonably likely to 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
         control over financial reporting.


Dated:  May 13, 2005

By: /s/ ROGER NEAL SMITH
    --------------------------
    Roger Neal Smith
    Chief Executive Officer

                                    Page 26
# Map            Pakistan.