alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Winston Hewett, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 374]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered June 8, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Assuming, *arguendo,*that the trial court’s admission of testimony concerning the defendant’s possession and threatening use of a gun on two occasions prior to the shooting of which he was convicted was improper *(see, People v Ventimiglia, 52*NY2d 350; *see also, People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233; *People v Ely,*68 NY2d 520), any error would have been harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. At trial, a firearms specialist connected the gun recovered from the defendant about eight days after the incident with the fatal shooting, and two witnesses to the shooting separately identified the defendant at a lineup. As there is no significant probability in this case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the alleged error, reversal on this ground is not warranted *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Henry R.
Nothhaft, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/    Henry R. Nothhaft             
|Henry R. Nothhaft                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 5, 2009                          

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael Anthofer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/    Michael Anthofer                             
|Michael Anthofer                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 5, 2009                                         

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Bernard H. Cherry, principal 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, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 12, 2008



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Bernard H. Cherry          
|Bernard H. Cherry              
|Interim chief executive officer
STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                FILED 09:00 AM 06/23/1994
                                                944115350 -2192400

                         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                   OF

                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

            Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation
                        Law of the State of Delaware

     The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of the General
corporation Law of the State of Delaware, do hereby certify and set forth
as follows:

     FIRST:  The name of the corporation is Pacific Pharmaceutical 1,
Inc.

     SECOND:  The amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation to be
effected hereby is as follows:

                     SUNMARK INDUSTRIES 1, INC.

     Paragraphs First and Fourth of the Certificate of Incorporation,
relating to the names and shares of the corporation are amended to read
as follows:

FIRST:   The name of the corporation is SUNMARK INDUSTRIES 1, INC.

FOURTH:  The Corporation shall be authorized to issue Fifty Million
(50,000,000) at $.001 Par Value.

     THIRD:  The Amendment effected herein was authorized by the
affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares
entitled to vote thereon at a meeting of shareholders pursuant to Section
242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     FOURTH:  The capital of the corporation will not be reduced under or
by reason of this amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 23rd
day June, 1994.


By: /s/ Brian St. Clair
------------------------
Brian St. Clair, Secretary
(LOGO) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1700
Ft. Lauderdale FL 33301
Telephone (954) 764 7111
Facsimile (954) 525 4453

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors of
Ocwen Federal Bank FSB

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about Ocwen Federal Bank FSB's ("the
Bank")  compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the
Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  (MBA's) Uniform Single  Attestation
Program for Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December 31,
1999,  included  in  the  accompanying   management  assertion.   Management  is
responsible for the Bank's  compliance with those minimum  servicing  standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's  assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test  basis,  evidence  about the  Bank's  compliance  with the
minimum servicing  standards and performing such other procedures as we consider
necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination  provides a
reasonable  basis for our  opinion.  Our  examination  does not  provide a legal
determination on the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In  our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  the  Bank  complied  with  the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 24, 2000
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v THEODORE S. DYER, GS-7, Department of the Air Force, Civilian, Appellant

9 USCMA 64, 25 CMR 326

No. 10,061

Decided March 28, 1958

*Major George M. Wilson*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb.*

*Major Fred C. Vowell*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels.*

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

This appeal concerns the constitutionality of Article 2(11), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 802, insofar as it relates to civilian employees beyond the continental limits of the United States and other territories specified in the Article. We reviewed the question in United States v Wilson, 9 USCMA 60, 25 CMR 322, decided this date, and sustained the constitutionality of the Article as applied to circumstances substantially similar. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board of review.

Judges LATIMER and FERGUSON concur.
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General *v.*The Continental Life Insurance Company. (Matter of Elizabeth E. Hoyt.)

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. ‘ Opinion by Bockes, J.; Westbrook, J., not acting.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Periodic Financial Reports**     I, Robert J. Messey, Vice President of Arch Western Resources, LLC, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the“Periodic Report”) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and     (2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Arch Western Resources, LLC.                                                               /s/ Robert J. Messey   Robert J. Messey   Vice President   Date:August 14, 2007
Exhibit
10.4


 


March
17, 2015


  


Dear Dr.
Gronemeyer


 


This
letter is a follow up to our previous discussion about the Scientific Advisory Board for Regen BioPharma, Inc. The
function of the Scientific Advisory Board is to review research directions that Regen BioPharma, Inc.  may undertake, determining
those projects which may lead to future developments/advancements in the field of stem cell therapy. Other areas may be pursued
as well, with advice from this advisory board.


 


You
will receive 100,000 shares of Regen Biopharma, Series A Preferred Stock.Regen’s common stock currently trades on the OTC
Bulletin Board. The Company anticipates obtaining a stock symbol for the Series A preferred in the near future. The 100,000 shares
of Biopharma, Series A Preferred shares are consideration for participating in telephonic calls/conference calls and serving on
Regen BioPharma, Inc.’s Scientific Advisory Board. Under this SAB agreement ,the frequency and timing of such calls will
be approximately one call every month


 


Additionally,
this agreement may be renewed by mutual consent each year on its anniversary date for a maximum of 2 additional years. The compensation
on renewal will be another payment of 100,000 Series A preferred stock in Regen on each anniversary that this contract is renewed
by the Company.


 


It
is anticipated that members of the Scientific Advisory Board will potentially serve as primary research consultants to the Company
as such projects are undertaken. Compensation for such projects will be negotiated separately on a case-by-case basis between
the Company and the consultant.


 


Thank You
for your consideration.


 


David R.
Koos


Chairman
and CEO


 





P.S.:
Please sign this letter in your acceptance and fax back to me at 619-330-2328. Any usage of your name in any press releases will
be submitted to you for review and comment before being released to the public.


 


	 	 
	/s/ Dr. Hinreich Gronemeyer	 
	Dr. Hinreich Gronemeyer	 
	Date: 3/19/2015
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7224

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUFUS HOUSER, a/k/a Pookie, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-95-12, CA-98-55-3) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 26, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rufus Houser, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Rufus Houser 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Houser , Nos. CR-95-12; CA-98-55-3 (N.D.W. Va. June 27, 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
#### Greathouse et al. *v.*Jameson.

1. The authority of the supreme court, under the Constitution, to issue writs of mandamus, carries with it the power to adjudicate such questions as may be brought before it in any proceeding for a mandamus, without further legislation.

2. The determination by a probate court of the issue involved in the matter of the probate of a codicil to a will is within the meaning of section 2 of the Laws of 1872 (p. 105), and an appeal will lie therefrom to the district ' court.

*Petition for mandamtos to County Court of Jefferson County.*

The petitioners, Greathouse *et at.,*were legatees in the last will and testament of W arren N. Hoyt; the testator executed a codicil revoking the will. The petitioners were cited by Jameson, judge of the county court of Jefferson county, to appear and show cause why the codicil should not be admitted to probate. Upon their appearance, and a hearing being had, the court admitted the codicil to probate. Prom this determination of the court the petitioners prayed an appeal to the .district court of Jefferson county, the appeal was denied, and thereupon-the petitioners apply to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the county court to grant an appeal, to fix the amount of the bond, etc. The respondent demurred.

Messrs. Patterson & Campbell, for petitioners.

*Per Curiam.*

As authority is conferred upon this court by the Constitution of tlie State to issue writs of mandamus, and to hear and determine the same, it necessarily carries with it the power to adjudicate such questions as may be brought before it in any proceeding for a mandamus, without additional legislation.

In our opinion, section 2 of an act “ concerning probate courts,” Session Laws, 1872, p. 105, gives the right of appeal from the probate (now county) court to the district court of Jefferson county. The special act applicable to Jefferson *398county alone (Session Laws, 1872, p. 107), does not assume to regulate the manner of taking appeals, or to determine the courts to which appeals shall lie from that court. It is only where a special and a general act are in conflict, that the special act governs. In the silence of the special act upon the subject of appeals, the general act authorizing appeals from the final judgment or decision of any probate court mast be held to control.

The determination by the probate court of the issue involved in the matter of the probate of the codicil is within the meaning of section 2 of the general act; a judgment or decision from which an appeal will lie. The demurrer to the relator’s petition must be overruled.

*Demurrer overruled.*
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Michael J. Ricketts, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, as amended, of Cano Petroleum, Inc.; and

 

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.               [Intentionally omitted.]

 

4.               [Intentionally omitted.]

 

5.               [Intentionally omitted.]

 
|   | Date:    March   9, 2011        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                |
|   | /s/   Michael J. Ricketts                           |
|   |                                                |
|   | Michael   J. Ricketts                               |
|   | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Frederick G. Gatewood, *Appellant.*

No. 48,316

Opinion filed January 7, 1977.

*Joseph D. Johnson,*of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.

*Donald P. Morrison,*assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and *Curt T. Schneider,*attorney general, and *Gene M. Olander,*district attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellee.

Foth, C.

Affirmed.

APPROVED BY THE COURT.
No. 54729.

#### John Kivo & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 159382-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400

the court dismissed the protests.
No. 50517.

#### Protests 85916-K, etc., of Alexander & Baldwin, Ltd., et al. (Honolulu) .

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith certain items of the merchandise were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1705 as kelp and other items were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 19, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00591-CR 

JOSE EDUARDO ANGUIANO, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F16-59903-P 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted Jose Eduardo Anguiano 

an out of time appeal, Bruce Anton filed a notice of appeal on appellant’s behalf. 

Shortly thereafter, Michael Casillas was appointed to represent appellant and 

likewise filed a notice of appeal. 

Because the notices were timely, we informed both attorneys of the 

duplicative filings and asked them to inform the Court which attorney will represent 

appellant in his direct appeal. Both agreed that Mr. Casillas will represent appellant 

and that the later-filed appeal (05-21-00685-CR) will proceed. 

 
 –2– 

In light of this, we dismiss this appeal. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

210591F.U05 

 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JOSE EDUARDO ANGUIANO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-00591-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F16-59903-P. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Molberg and 

Smith participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Judgment entered August 19, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tracy Strunkey, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 353]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered November 29, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence $484 recovered from his person by the police at the time he was arrested is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. "In cases involving possession of illegal drugs with the intent to sell, '[e]vidence of money found on the defendant’s person at the time of his arrest [is] probative of [his] intent’ ” and therefore, properly admissible into evidence *(People v Woodson,*198 AD2d 535, quoting *People v Rivera,*177 AD2d 662, 663).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
#### Shurygailo *v.*Guralnick, Appellant.

Argued January 14, 1969.

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

Trespass actions for personal injuries and property damages. Before Trembath, P. J., specially presiding.

*553April 23, 1969:

*Paul J. Senesky,*with him *Gerber, Galfand & Berger,*for appellant.

*Francis A. Ferrara,*with him *Kassab, Cherry, Cur-ran é Archbold,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgments affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.