alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GREGORY M. SIMS, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 256, 43 CMR 96

*257No. 23,563

January 8, 1971

*Captain Paul A. Reichs,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGO, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam:

This special court-martial was convened under orders of the Commanding Officer, Student Company, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.

The convening authority in this case is the same as in United States v Greenwell, 19 USCMA 460, 42 CMR 62 (1970). Since in *Greenwell*we held that he was without authority to convene a court-martial (Article 23, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 823), the Government concedes that the proceedings in this case should be declared a nullity. We agree. United States v Riley, 20 USCMA 145, 42 CMR 337 (1970). Cf. United States v Ortiz, 15 USCMA 505, 36 CMR 3 (1965), rehearing denied, 16 USCMA 127, 36 CMR 283 (1966).

The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A new trial may be ordered before a properly appointed court-martial.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00399-CR

Stephan Andrew Cox

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1325641D)

May 12, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

Concurrence by Justice Dauphinot

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### Chas. H. Asche & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7294.

Invoices dated London, England, October 18, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 14, 1945, etc.

Entry No. 727318, etc.

(Decided June 18, 1947)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollis on, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
      23




CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTING FIRM
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
        Form
        S-8 (File number: 333-46712) of our report, dated April 1,2007, relating
        to the
        financial statements of SecureLogic Corp appearing in the Annual Report of
        Form
        10-KSB of SecureLogic Corp for the year ended December 31, 2006 (which report
        expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
        to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern).
 
 /s/
        Brightman Almagor & Co.
 
 Brightman
        Almagor & Co., Certified Public Accountants
 A
        member
        firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
 Tel-
        Aviv, Israel
 April
        12,
        2007.
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  annual  report of Pacific  Fuel Cell  Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the  "Report"),  we George Suzuki,
the Chief Executive Officer,  and Ken Inouye, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350), that to the best of our 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:  April 14, 2003                     s/George Suzuki
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          George Suzuki, Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  April 14, 2003                     s/Ken Inouye
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Ken Inouye, Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,305)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,305)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
No. 64970.

#### Verona Dyestuffs *v.*United States,

protest 59/20209 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise designated as “Fast Gabnet GBC Base” is a fast color base derived in whole or in part from a product provided for in paragraph 27 or 1651 of the act, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Mariam Campbell, *Respondent, v.*Dennis H. Hubbard and Pearl Lewis, *as Administrators, etc.,*Appellants.

Judgment reversed; new trial granted; referee discharged, costs to abide event. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40325 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
VICTOR MANUEL MENDOZA

- TOLEDO , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 1192

- 1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Victor Manuel Mendoza

- Toledo (Mendoza) appeals his 30

- month sentence for illegal reentry on the ground that the district court erred by imposing an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i)

. As Mendoza objected in the district court on this basis, we review the imposition of the enhancement de novo

. See United States v. Morales

- Martinez , 496 F.3d 356, 357 (5th Cir. 2007). We have rejected Mendoza’s reading of Moncrieffe v.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 22, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40325 Document: 00513125473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2015No. 14

- 40325

2 Holder , 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013), and his argument that a state drug conviction need involve financia l remuneration to constitute a drug trafficking offense for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). See United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d 198, 201

- 05 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-40325 Document: 00513125473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
Before the Third Division,

September 22, 1944

No. 49717.

#### Protests 975635-G, etc., of Dolliff & McGrath et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6948

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 18-7000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD DANE JEFFUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, 

at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:92-cr-00184-NCT-2; 

1:16-cv-00085-NCT-JEP; 1:16-cv-01276-NCT-JEP)

Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 26, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 

“Motion for Indicative Ruling” and “Motion for Modification and/or Clarification of 

Sentence” as unauthorized and successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. The orders 

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). 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 constitutional 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 motion states a debatable claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the records and conclude that Jeffus has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order filed November 26, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00167

- CV

____________ VONDA BARNHART , Appellant

V.
SYLVIA MORALES AND L UIS PEREZ , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 17655



### ORDER
This is an appeal of a judgment in favor of Sylvia Morales and Luis Perez. The appeal was abated pursuant to the Texas Insurance Code. See Tex. Ins. Code. § § 443.08 and 462.309. The period for a stay of as set out in Tex. Ins. Code § 462.309 has expired. Unless any party files a response within fifteen days of the
date of this order demonstrating that the stay has been extended, the appeal will be
reinstated.

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Wells, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 462]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.) rendered July 21, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence *(People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that defendant’s verbal communication to the victim that he had a .38 caliber handgun pointed at her head and would "blow [her] head off” if she made any moves, while holding his hand in his vest pocket, satisfied the element of first-degree robbery—display of what appears to be a firearm *(see, People v Lopez,*73 NY2d 214; *People v Taylor,*203 AD2d 77, *lv denied*83 NY2d 915; *People v Butts,*181 AD2d 432, *lv denied 79*NY2d 1047).

Although the investigatory showup was conducted some two hours after the robbery, this time lapse, by itself, does not compel a conclusion that it was improper *(see, e.g., People v Maybell,*198 AD2d 108, *lv denied*82 NY2d 927; *People v Lewis,*123 AD2d 716; *People v Veal,*106 AD2d 418). The showup was conducted not only shortly after defendant’s detention and in close proximity to the crime scene, but unlike *People v Johnson*(81 NY2d 828), the police never indicated to the victim that there was a suspect in custody and made it appear to the victim that defendant was not in custody, and the victim, from a distance, was asked only generally to scan the block to see if she saw anyone whom she recognized.

We have considered defendant’s claim that the inquiry conducted by the court was too perfunctory to ensure that his waiver of counsel was knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and find it to be without merit. Moreover, counsel, who acted as a legal advisor, was present during the entire trial. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
446 A.2d 694

#### Commonwealth ex rel. Molnar v. Wallenstein, etc. Appeal of Joseph Molnar.

*617Submitted November 18,1981.

Martha Sperling, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Michael Kane, District Attorney, for appellees.

Before McEWEN, MONTEMURO and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Order affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. DONALD RAGSDALE, Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

6 USCMA 112, 19 CMR 238

No. 6354

Decided June 24, 1955

Lt Col Edward Duvall, U. S. Army, and 1st Lt Leslie D. Scharf, U. S. Army, for Appellant.

Lt Col Andrew D. Kane, U. S. Army, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused was convicted by general court-martial of sleeping on post while a sentinel, in violation of Article 113, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 707. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for one year. Following approval by the convening authority, a board of review in the office of The Judge Advocate General of the Army affirmed. Although the board was composed of three members, only two participated in the decision. We granted the petition for review only because other cases were pending which involved the same issue, namely, whether a board of review with two members sitting, possessed the power to act.

The principles set forth in United States v. Petroff-Tachomakoff, 5 USCMA 824, 19 CMR 120, dispose of the only issue in this case.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
Before the First Division,

April 27, 1949

No. 53072.

#### Kenneth Kittleson *v.*United States,

protest 118125-K (Tampa).

*295Opinion by

Cole, J.

On the record presented and following the principle set forth in *Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.*v. *United States*(19 C. C. P. A. 415, T. D. 45578), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7451
RICKEY J. SHEPARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR PATE; DOCTOR HARD; WILLIAM R. WARDEN; MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; DOCTOR RENTZ, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-2696-19-BD) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rickey J. Shepard, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Thomas, BARNES, ALFORD, STORK & JOHNSON, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shepard v. Pate , No. CA-95- 2696-19-BD (D.S.C. Aug. 28, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

THOMAS E. KIRALY



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350



I, Thomas E. Kiraly, of Concentra Operating
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



March 29, 2004



/s/ THOMAS E. KIRALYThomas E. KiralyExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert B. Nieszczezewski, principal financial 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:



| | (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: August 9, 2006



| |  |                                
| |  | -------------------------------
| |  | /S/    ROBERT B.
NIESZCZEZEWSKI
| |  | Robert B. Nieszczezewski       
| |  | Principal financial officer
Exhibit 31.2


Certification Pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended


I, Christine M. Klaskin, certify that:


|   |                                                                                           
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Agenus 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.




Date:June 3, 2015/s/ CHRISTINE M. KLASKINChristine M. KlaskinPrincipal Financial Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 1298 Directorate Identifier: 2011

- NE

- 39

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet



### Conduct record search 1 .0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 

### 5,000 $425,000.00 

### Disassemble /reasse mble reduction gearbox 10 .0 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 10 $8,500.00 

### Replace sun and planetary gears 16.0 $1,360.0 0 

### $ 14,500 $ 15,860.00 

### 40 $634,400.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,067,900 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :