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

[634 NYS2d 412]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered May 12, 1994, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

While serving a term of probation imposed as a result of his conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, defendant was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of l1⁄2 to 3 years. Because this conviction constituted a violation of defendant’s probation, defendant’s probation was revoked and he was resentenced on the grand larceny conviction to a consecutive prison term of 2 to 6 years. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we do not find the sentence to be harsh or excessive. In view of defendant’s commission of the current crime while he was on probation and his prior probation violation, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### Ralph L. Evans, Jr. *v.*United States

No. 7313.

Pro forma invoice dated London, England, May 23, 1946.

Entered at Boston, Mass., May 23, 1946.

Entry No. 6939.

(Decided June 26, 1947)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
|   | (i) | a review of the activities of the Servicer during the period January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under our supervision, and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | to the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period. |
|--------|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March 25, 2011 |   | /s/ Marc Kilbride            |
|----------------|--------|------------------------------|
| Date           |   | Marc Kilbride                |
|           |   | Vice President and Treasurer |
|           |   |                         |
|           |   |                         |

| March 25, 2011 |   | /s/ Linda Geiger         |
|----------------|--------|--------------------------|
| Date           |   | Linda Geiger             |
|           |   | Assistant Treasurer |
|           |   |                     |
|           |   |                     |

----
No. 51777.

#### Protests 129367-K, etc., of J. Berbecker & Sons, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 26, 2012

h1217

Order 

December 26, 2012

145920

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145920

COA: 303989

Calhoun CC: 2010-002810-FH

SAM DANIEL SANDERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2012 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 52690. —

protest 929645-G (New York).

#### The J. L. Hudson Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
iionorable Saa 5. Ea.11 

County Attorney, Harrison County 

Xarsball, Terse 

Dear Sir i Attent ion: 

ing a copy thereof to each witness tbcreln na2x:d. 

wrticle 443CCY as ainanqed in 1931, requirsa the 

Clerk of D&B District ‘0iu.t in a felony case, to 

is s!:e a 3ubpoena after sworn appl.icathn for s:;ch 

witness is arde. 1 find no provision uh!oh a2- 

plies to t:k* issuance of coplss of a subgoexta. 
Honorable San B. Hail, 

“1 find front talkin& with several. old-tim 

Shrtriff*s Deputies and %strict Clerks, thtlt 

it &IS aaver been tke ousfoia for the Clerk to 

issarJ a co>y of an out-of-county subpoem, alId 

it &,s alwaga bean the csstoro for the jhei’iff 

or hia deputy to presre this Copy to Serve Ou 

th% wYYitn393, 80 t hst he alay ba gaid for witnesfi 

fat323 upon p?sc:iteti,on to the proper cleric. I 

do not fin’% WhaS’Q this QUaStS.GZl k&S 6V8f be%a 

passed upon by the courta, or your dewrt!%ent. 

Tile old C8Sc1 or EallE+L3 P. Ce?lpbell, 57 Pex:.e, 

t-14, seem to ?x agplieable to this sitmtion, 

h0:ever, In that caas the queution Pa3 whf,ther 

or not Distritt Clerks were sxtitled to a res of 

754 for a oopy of i oltatlon required to be served 

on tile dafend23t. *be stat&t unde^l” consideration 

in that ease prov?ded the Clerk sha.i.1 isam a cttatfoo, and th3t the 32eriilf s:20~ld scfve a co>y thereof oli the d&en&at; but it did not preooribe by 

wbora tt;la true co?y should be prt?Fred, 

“In discussing tho case, Jujtlce Bonnsr 

ssfd : 

“‘It ha3 long be2n the general practice, usdex- a statilCe not subst:antiallp 

differcat il*o:fi tk OBO under oocsideratioa (Pasch, Dig. arte, 1430, 1433), for 

the clerk to pre,?r^re tke copy of t;% altation to be som-‘d by tkxz ~hariff on the 

defer,daA . This practice, we think,ts 

ElG3’6 conducive to the rlececsary accuracy 

an8 d!a>atch of buaioaea thim it’ pregased 

by t hc sh?rilf; it bal?~ consi&nt with the 

genor%l d!ltles of the clerk t~h,h-t he ppeeplre 

al1 proger prGC8SS, an3 xit h those of tie 

sheriff t,hat he execute then as thlls prep-ared and delivered to hl,.( 

“It would see:a fros th1a decidfon that the se:.* 

rule would asply, and that it would be the District Clerk’s 

duty to prepare efficient oopiea of each subpoena for the 

nii:lh~eS of witncases subpoensad out of his county.” 
niirt. 475. Whesa a wittaos resides out of 

the coufrty in which the prosecution is pending, the 

State or the defenda??t s&lab be entitled, either in 

term t imcl or in vaoatfoa, to e subpoana to Compel 

the attendanoe of auoh witnesseo on application to 

the proger clerk or mgi5tsate. Such applioatton 

shall, be in the manner and fora as provided by 

ATtic1e 463." 
Article 4BS, Vrrnon*r Annotate4 Code of Crirnlml Proa86ure‘ nhlch is referred to in ,\rtlola 475, sups, reads as 

POllOWS : 
. 

.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8428 

To amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 to reauthorize 

the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 

to reauthorize the Deschutes River Conservancy Working 

Group, 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 ‘‘Deschutes River Con5 servancy Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DESCHUTES RIVER CONSER7 VANCY ACT OF 2024. 

8 (a) DEFINITION OF WORKING GROUP.—Section 

9 301(a) of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 

10 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–534; 122 Stat. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8428 IH

1 836) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) WORKING GROUP.—The term ‘Working 

4 Group’ means the Deschutes River Conservancy 

5 Working Group composed of a board of directors of 

6 not fewer than 10, but not more than 15, members 

7 nominated by the group represented by the member, 

8 of whom— 

9 ‘‘(A) 2 members shall be of the environ10 mental community in the Deschutes River 

11 Basin; 

12 ‘‘(B) 2 members shall be representatives of 

13 the irrigated agriculture community in the 

14 Deschutes River Basin; 

15 ‘‘(C) 2 members shall be representatives of 

16 the Confederated tribes of the Warm Springs 

17 Reservation of Oregon; 

18 ‘‘(D) 1 member shall be a representative of 

19 the hydroelectric production community in the 

20 Deschutes River Basin; 

21 ‘‘(E) 1 member shall be a representative of 

22 1 of the Federal agencies with authority and re23 sponsibility in the Deschutes River Basin; 

24 ‘‘(F) 1 member shall be a representative of 

25 an agency of the State of Oregon with authority 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8428 IH

1 and responsibility in the Deschutes River Basin, 

2 such as— 

3 ‘‘(i) the Oregon Department of Fish 

4 and Wildlife; or 

5 ‘‘(ii) the Oregon Water Resources De6 partment; and 

7 ‘‘(G) 1 member shall be a representative of 

8 a unit of local government in the Deschutes 

9 River Basin.’’. 

10 (b) REAUTHORIZATION; ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.— 

11 Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 

12 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–534; 122 

13 Stat. 836) is amended— 

14 (1) in subsection (b)— 

15 (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘2016’’ 

16 and inserting ‘‘2034’’; and 

17 (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘5 per18 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘10 percent’’; and 

19 (2) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘2016’’ and 

20 inserting ‘‘2034’’. 

Æ 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
No. 46808.

#### Protest 41618-K of Lloyd Scarf & Novelty Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found from the record that the hemmed woven silk mufflers in question were imported subsequent to the effective daté of the said trade agreement. In accordance therewith certain of the item numbers in question were held properly dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1209 and (T. D. 49753) as claimed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 9, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00464

- CR

Glenn Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON AND R OSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s

judgment: IT IS ORDERED , ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment

of the district court is in all things affirmed; that the appellant pay all costs relating to this appeal;

and that this decision be certified below for observance.
Before the First Division,

May 19, 1955

No. 59078.

protests 231690-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Prismatic, Inc., and James G. Wiley et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
EXHIBIT 32.1

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, John A. Scarlett, M.D., certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.

Date: August 2, 2007



By:

/s/ John A. Scarlett, M.D.John A. Scarlett, M.D.Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CHARLES BAKER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued March 7, 1967

Decided March 27, 1967.

*104
      *Mr. Martin G. Molieran,*Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).

*Mr. Sidney J. Bernstein*argued the cause for respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam;.

Two indictments were returned charging defendant with the sale of heroin. Each indictment charged a single sale, one being to a federal agent on January 10, 1963 and the other to a Newark officer on March 4, 1963. The State moved the indictments for trial together and defendant did not object. He was convicted upon both charges. The Appellate Division reversed on the ground that a joint trial of the offenses constituted “plain error.” *State v. Baker,*90 *N. J. Super.*488 *(App. Div.*1960). We granted the State’s petition for certification. 47 *N. J.*565 (1966).

*R. R.*3:5-6 authorizes a joint trial of two or more indictments if the offenses could have been joined in a single indictment. *R. R.*3:4-7 in turn provides:

> “Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or accusation in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether high misdemeanors or misdemeanors or both, are of the same *105or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.”

The two offenses here involved are “of the same or similar character,” within the meaning of the quoted rule. The rule, which was borrowed from Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a), contemplates that such separate offenses may be tried together. The factual situations were uncomplicated, and the evidence as to each offense was simple and distinct. *Drew v. United*States, 118 *U. S. App D. C.*11, 331 *F. 2d*85, 91 (1964).

There was no objection and hence the question is whether there was “plain error.” Such a finding in this ease would be tantamount to a condemnation of the rule itself. We are not indifferent to the possibility of harm, and we do not suggest that a motion for severance or an objection to a joinder of unrelated offenses should be regarded lightly. But after a trial of several charges without objection, it takes a strong showing of probable prejudice in fact to warrant a finding of “plain error.” *Cf. Terry v. United*States, 310 *F. 2d*715 (5 *Cir.*1963). We do not think this record supports such a finding.

We see no merit in the remaining points defendant urged before the Appellate Division.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

*For*reversal—Chief Justice Weintratjb and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman—-7.

*For*affirmance—None.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Timothy P. Lynch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.



Date: August 16, 2004



By:

/s/ Timothy P. LynchTimothy P. LynchChief Financial Officer




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



This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Charles Herold, Resp’t, v. The Manhattan Railway Co., App’lt.

*Chas. Sleekier,*for resp’t; *Henry P. Sedgwick,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur.
Exhibit 32.5

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
the Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 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 the Long Only Commodity Series.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                                       
|Robert J. Enck President
and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Long Only 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 the Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund                 

Date: May 12, 2011
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Written Statement of Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying withSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not deemed to be filed pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q accompanying this statement.

 

The undersigned, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and thePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Falcon Financial Investment Trust(“Falcon”), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a)                                  the Form 10-Q ofFalcon for the period ended March 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(b)                                 information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Falcon.

 

 
|   | /s/ Vernon B. Schwartz                |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Vernon B. Schwartz                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  |
|   | May 17, 2004                          |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ David A. Karp                     |   |
|   | David A. Karp                         |
|   | President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 17, 2004                          |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Falcon and will be retained by Falcon andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Exhibit 1.2

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 Annual Report of Platina Energy Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Blair Merriam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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, 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/  Blair Merriam
	Blair Merriam
	Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer

	June 29, 2005