alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George W. Beach and others, *Respondents, v.*The New York Fabric Finishing Company, *Appellant,*Impleaded with others.

Order modified as directed in opinion. Opinion by Brady, J.
Case No. 13,857.

#### The THALIA.

[Cited in Bowers v. The European, 44 Fed. 491. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Exhibit 32.9

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Long/Short Commodity Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                     
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                       
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                        
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              
|                                                                                                                                                       
|Date: November 13, 2007
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 16, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 16, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0148. ALL AMERICAN QUALITY FOODS, INC. d/b/a FOOD DEPOT v. BARBARA HOOD.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 12SV315
No. 65568.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc., and Northern Screw Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 316302-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
NO. 07-01-0493-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	FEBRUARY19, 2002

	______________________________

	MIGUEL LUCANO LUCERO, AKA MICHAEL LUCERO, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 40,7609-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Pursuant to a guilty plea for the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, appellant Miguel Lucano Lucero, aka Michael Lucero was granted deferred adjudication and placed on community supervision for five years.  Upon the State’s motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt for violations of the conditions of community supervision, the trial court granted the motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at 25 years confinement.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in which he requested that new counsel be appointed.  After an extension of time was granted, the clerk’s record was due to be filed on February 12, 2002.  By letter dated February 13, 2002, the trial court clerk notified this Court that she had not received an order from the trial court to prepare a record nor had she received payment nor an affidavit of inability to pay from appellant.  Thus, we now abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(a)(2).

	Upon remand the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

	1.  whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; and

	2.  whether appellant is indigent and entitled to new appointed counsel.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed.  Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue this appeal and is indigent, then the trial court shall also take such measures as may be necessary to assure appellant effective assistance of counsel, which may include the appointment of new counsel.  If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the order appointing new counsel.  Finally, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and such orders as the court may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, and cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record.  A supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing shall also be included in the appellate record.  Finally, the trial court shall file the supplemental records with the Clerk of this Court by Friday, April 5, 2002.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Exhibit 99.1

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

I,
Gary R. Holland, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual
Report of Fargo Electronics, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Fargo
Electronics, Inc.

|March 21, 2003 |  |                                                      |                    
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
|               |  | By:                                                  | /s/ GARY R. HOLLAND
|               |  | Name: Gary R. Holland
Title: Chief Executive Officer

---

QuickLinks
#### Harvey Litchfield, *as Commissioner,*etc., *Appellant, v.*Thomas Fitzgerald, *Respondent.*

Motion for reargument denied.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

Nos. 02-19-00402-CR

02-19-00403-CR

On Appeal from the 371st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1567850D, 1567852D

ORDER

On the court’s own motion, it is ORDERED that the trial court clerk deliver 

the original of State's Exhibits No. 21 (Computer diskette containing body camera 

recording) to this court no later than Tuesday, April 13, 2021.

The exhibit will be returned to the trial court upon issuance of the mandate.

We direct the clerk of this court to send a notice of this order to the attorneys

of record, the trial court clerk, and the court reporter.

Dated April 6, 2021.

RUDY RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

Per Curiam
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 841 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow a surviving spouse of 

a Medal of Honor recipient to receive a special pension concurrently 

with dependency and indemnity compensation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2023 

Mr. MORELLE (for himself, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, and Mr. CARSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow a surviving 

spouse of a Medal of Honor recipient to receive a special 

pension concurrently with dependency and indemnity 

compensation, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sergeant Gary 

5 Beikirch Medal of Honor Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 841 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF MEDAL OF HONOR SPECIAL PEN2 SION PROVISIONS TO ALLOW CONCURRENT 

3 BENEFITS. 

4 Section 1562(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

5 is amended by striking subparagraph (C). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
No. 56027.

protests 163412-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### John Breuner Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*355Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
* Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S. Apfel is substituted for

John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Soc ial Security, as the defendant in this action.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 16 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
WANDA L. SUMTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-5146 (D.C. No. 96-CV-263-M) (D. N.D. Okla)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral-2-

argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Wanda Sumter alleges disability due to ba ck pain and depression dating from January 1992. The ALJ found her to be disabled from September 30, 1993, but not before that date. The Appeals Counci l and the district court affirmed that conclusion. On appeal, Ms. Sumter argues that the ALJ’s conclus ion that she retained the capacity to do medium work before September 30, 1993, despite her back pain is not supported by substantial evidence. She further argues that the ALJ should have developed the record further regarding her all egedly disabling depression during that same period. We review this decision to determine only whether the relevant findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the C ommissioner applied correct legal standards. See Hargis v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1991). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissione r. Seeid. Our review of the record in this case reveals that the ALJ’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the law was correctly applied.-3-

We therefore affirm the decision of the district co urt for substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his order of May 28, 1997.

Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted), I, Claudio
Gianascio, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

         1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, and Amendments # 1 and
#2 for the period ended December 31, 2005, and to which this Certification is
attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "PERIODIC 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: August 4, 2006


S/ Claudio Gianascio
----------------------------------------
Claudio Gianascio
CEO & CFO

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

THIS  CERTIFICATION   ACCOMPANIES  THIS  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO  SS.  906  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED  "FILED" BY THE  COMPANY FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas

conviction on September 1, 2010. Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. 

### See NRS 34.726(1). Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate good cause for the delay. Although the district court erred in failing to apply the procedural time bar, we affirm because the district court reached the correct result in denying the petition. 

### See Wyatt u. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970).

Moreover, as a separate and independent ground to deny relief, we conclude that the record supports the district court's determination that appellant was not entitled to credit in this case. Appellant committed the offense in this case while he was on bail in another case; a person on bail remains in the custody of the State while on bail, 

### see Woolsey u. State, 111 Nev. 1440, 1443, 906 P.2d 723, 726 (1995), and thus, NRS 176.055(2)(a) precludes credits in this case. Appellant received the credit in case C253850, and in entering a plea in this case, specifically agreed that he would not receive any credit for time served in this case because it had already been received in case C253850. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



### W. el-SC

- 7j: Parraguirre

lA CSZ

. Cherry cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Barry Craig Malone Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) I947A cle,49
#### ROYAL UNION MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. WYNN et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 28, 1911.)

No. 2,094.

Appeal from Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia. Henry R. Goetehius, for appellant. William A. Wimbish and Edgar Watkins, for appellees.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and TOULMIN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

As we find no reversible error in this record, the judgment of the Circuit Court (177 Fed. 289) is affirmed.
| (1)    |                           | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     |
|--------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
| (2)    |       | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

|  /s/      Emmanuel Tsoupanarias                                      |                     |  /s/      David A. Teich                             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Emmanuel      TsoupanariasChairman      and Chief Executive Officer  |                                                                                                               | David      A. TeichPrincipal      Financial Officer  |
| November      21, 2008                                                    |                                                                                                               | November      21, 2008                                    |
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WARREN D. THIEMAN, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

14 USCMA 326, 34 CMR 106

No. 17,181

December 20, 1963

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Captain Robert E. Shepherd, Jr.,*and *Captain Charles W. Sehiesser*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper*and *First Lieutenant Barrie G. Sullivan, II,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

On his plea of guilty, the accused was convicted of unauthorized absence and wrongful appropriation of a motor vehicle, in violation of Articles 86 and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886, 921, respectively. His sentence, which was reduced on review, includes a bad-conduct discharge. At the time of the offenses, the accused *327was seventeen years of age. We granted further review of his conviction to consider the applicability of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 USC § 5031, to courts-martial practice. For the reasons set out in United States v Baker, 14 USCMA 311, 34 CMR 91, we hold the Act does not apply to the military establishment. The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
#### Joyner *v.*Philadelphia Transportation Company, Appellant.

Argued November 19, 1968.

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

*546April 23, 1969:

*Ha/rry A. Tahiff,*with him *James Gonwell Welsh,*for appellant.

*Benjamin Kuby,*with him *Paul N. Minhoff, William D. Harris,*and *Klovshy, Kuby and Harris,*for appellee.

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Cohen would grant a new trial.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5150]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Proposed Revisions to NUREG/BR-0006 and NUREG/BR-0007

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing 
revisions to NUREG/BR-0006, ``Instructions for the Preparation and 
Distribution of Material Transaction Reports.'' http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0006/ and NUREG/BR-0007, 
``Instructions for the Preparation and Distribution of Material Status 
Reports.'' http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0007/ The purpose of these revisions are to incorporate (1) 
proposed rule changes for nuclear material reporting requirements, (2) 
upgrades to the Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System, and 
(3) editorial changes. The NRC is seeking comment from interested 
parties on the clarity of the proposed revisions and will consider the 
comments received in its final evaluation of the NUREGs. Comments 
should address the contents of the guidance presented in the NUREGs but 
not the regulations associated with it.

DATES: Comment period expires April 23, 2007. Comments submitted after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance 
of consideration cannot be given except for comments received on or 
before this date.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written comments to the Chief, Rules and Directives 
Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D59, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and cite the publication date and page number of this 
Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to NRC 
Headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike (Room T-6D59), Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Brian Horn at (301) 415-8128 or by e-
mail to [email protected] or Chris Graves at (301) 415-6525 or by e-mail to 
[email protected].

     Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March, 2007.
Jane Marshall,
Chief, Material Control and Accounting Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle 
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards.
 [FR Doc. E7-5150 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```