alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Compilation of records of surface waters of the United States, October 1950 to September 1960, part 6–A. Missouri River basin above Sioux City, Iowa

By: E. L. Hendricks

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1729

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Alvin BROWN, Appellant.

No. 60279.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

Elizabeth W. Cole, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

TATE, Justice.

The defendant Brown was convicted of simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:62, and sentenced, as a multiple offender, La.R.S. 15:529.1, to three years imprisonment at hard labor. For reasons to be stated, we *517find no merit to the four assignments of error argued on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

According to the state’s evidence, Brown and his brother (Otha Simmons) were arrested after they had removed a cabinet from a house through its front door and loaded it into their automobile.

Otha Simmons testified at the trial that he had picked up an abandoned cabinet from the front yard of the residence to bring it home, and that he had asked his brother to help him. The defense tendered by his testimony was that there had been no unauthorized entry of the dwelling — and thus no burglary had been committed, only a trespass or a theft of property outside an un-entered building. (Simmons testified that, as part of a plea bargain, he had pleaded guilty to the burglary only in order to receive probation instead of imprisonment.)

Assignment 6 presents the most arguable issue. It concerns the cross-examination of Simmons, when he was asked why he had not informed the police of this exculpatory version of the incident at the time of the arrest of himself and the accused.

Arguably, this cross-examination constituted an impermissible prosecutorial reference to the witness’ post-arrest silence, in derogation of his right to remain silent after police accusation. *State v. Montoya,*340 So.2d 557 (La.1976); *State v. Smith,*336 So.2d 867 (La.1976). The cited decisions held that an *accused,*at least, may not be so questioned.

However, the objection to this questioning was not made until the prosecutor concluded two pages of cross-examination concerning it. (Following the objection, the witness was not cross-examined further as to his failure to give the arresting police his present exculpatory version of the incident.) The objection was therefore not timely; the defendant cannot complain on appeal of the alleged error, to which he did not object until after the witness had already fully answered all of the prosecutor’s queries on the subject. La.C.Cr.P. art. 841.

The remaining assignments present only insubstantial issues: The arresting officer’s testimony as to the fact of a radio communication, to explain his presence on the scene, is not hearsay evidence inadmissibly introduced to prove the communication’s content. *State v. Monk,*315 So.2d 727 (La.1975) (Assignment 5). The prosecutor’s comments, giving reasons to question the credibility of Simmons (the accused’s brother) and his exculpatory version, were not improper or reversible (Assignments 7, 8).

*Decree*

Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

SUMMERS, J., concurs.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            -------------------------
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, R. Scott Cramer,  certify  that:

     1.   I  have  reviewed  this  annual report on Form 10-QSB of The Cyber
Group Network Corporation;

     2.   Based  on  my  knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue  statement  of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to  make  the  statements  made,  in light of the circumstances under which such
statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly  report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information  included  in  this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects  the  financial  condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant  as  of,  and  for,  the  periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for  the  registrant  and  we  have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information  relating  to  the  registrant, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being  prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures  as  of  a  date  within  90  days  prior  to the filing date of
this quarterly  report  (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and

     c)   presented  in  this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as  of  the  Evaluation  Date;

     5.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have disclosed,
based  on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee  of  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent  function):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in  the design or operation of
internal controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability
to record, process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
identified for the registrant's  auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in
internal  controls;  and

     b)   any  fraud,  whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

     6.   The  registrant's  other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this  quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls  or  in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent  to  the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions  with  regard  to  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses.


By: /s/  R. Scott Cramer
    --------------------

    R. Scott Cramer
    Chief  Executive  Officer


Dated: December 18, 2003


<PAGE>
254 La. 812

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. William HOLLIDAY.

No. 50166.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: City of New Orleans applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.

SANDERS, J.,

is of the opinion a writ should be granted to review this case, since the traffic ordinance of the City of New Orleans has been declared unconstitutional.
#### FEDERAL FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Norman MORGENSTERN, et al., Appellees.

No. 69-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 16, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
----

|   | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Oconee Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (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 result of operations of the Corporation. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: November 15, 2010 | /s/ B. Amrey HardenB. Amrey HardenChief Executive Officer   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |                                                        |
| Dated: November 15, 2010 | /s/ Steven A. RogersSteven A. RogersChief Financial Officer |
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMeasurements of a single lateral jet injected into swirling crossflowExperiments have been conducted to document the time-mean and turbulent flowfield of a deflected turbulent jet in a confined swirling crossflow. The jet-to-crossflow velocity ratio of 4 was investigated with swirler vane angles of 45 and 70 degrees. A six-orientation single hot-wire technique was used to measure the velocities and turbulence properties of the flow. In addition, a five-hole pitot probe technique was used to measure the time-mean velocities or verification purposes. The results are presented in the form of r-x plots to aid visualization of the fully three-dimensional flowfield. The swirl in the crossflow intensified the local velocity at the location of the injected jet, which effectively reduced the jet-to-crossflow velocity ratio. This caused the trajectory of the injected jet to follow the path of the local flow direction of the crossflow, and reduce its penetration into the crossflow. The time-mean velocity measurements using the hot-wire corresponded to pitot-probe data obtained in identical flow conditions. Turbulence stress data show the same trends as previous swirl flow data without lateral injection. The lateral jet was found to deflect the axis of the precessing vortex core.Document ID19860010921Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeThesis/DissertationAuthorsOng, L. H.*(Oklahoma State Univ. Stillwater, OK, United States)*Lilley, D. G.*(Oklahoma State Univ. Stillwater, OK, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1986Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:175040NASA-CR-175040Accession Number86N20392Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-549PROJECT: RTOP 533-04-1ADistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860010921.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
256 La. 67

#### CONVENTIONAL LOANS, INC. v. David L. GOLDSTEIN.

No. 50489.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: Conventional Loans, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 231 So.2d 578.

Writ refused. No error of law in the Court of Appeal judgment.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 August 13, 2021

p0810

Order 

Clerk

August 13, 2021

163331 & (11)

DANIEL EDWARD CALLAHAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 163331

COA: 357289

Ottawa CC: 18-005555-NZ

VERONICA ANN MAROTA and 

VINCENT FRED MAROTA,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2021 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
E*LPftf^s- MOTION DENIED Xw iHtL cjOukt oF" DATE' tH0~IS' drtisvvwm./W&4-LS sew^cK, ioiuwsoo ' -rjj ih/KttAJsT&cfe-M 

### Cozies joaOjSewcXUSlte^ ^ ^ ^fete*^ ^r tN3/e>r^ ami Mud -Widl pur3Jasr\4--VoTEX. 4. ftpp P. ^oie\"Xn suppcrV of suoK ~h ^ ru\V/vc^Ocs.\\\Wli«^ic^CiwV^ dEfiftevrtlfl CLonfifw •tfw&r*W fifes. VUn/eoip,jqo prdrfaj foeaiotoq, ^o (Ws\cuu oo \>Mfl,no vr\\je$Hc| cAipn < * 

### mfcr/mSrtot), aq sworn a.we.6^ a-Pwduofc wAwo £\cs\ pr&wtftofry m<Vialv 

### h/ 7aa£> Uvo. See Article 15.V7 a^e (W. #od, -rfie, rec&rA &t*w\ CAxJse rttob. #oo\/83 &fk*oiiW u^<wd is intor^eje \^W Applicant's (WAV.aM JViak sixain rw^eWss re<pre^miw<d «i\k Afl^Uuii unto Te^Afp, P. ^eV\A t& to-lU,^ee ^bne&V. ^^e^H*-
Bi^eft G*t^W° Rvuj^qjHy fcfoeA Huse indxdmems. from kpwkm 

### S6k (SJevtseS'wtax^ *ta*& Szkez io^&/}^er onoje pfes^gi teft*© t^>e*e*^aivd[ rtGxjj^KUjS gran-ted because 4ve t^UaS.CociWw Asfr/d* 

### TmA ^er W am/ \ymsmicn o^er c^e mc& f^oi/83 h fwm? 

## •^l/a^M'l: ^ ^ ^^ Vo£\^

# z^ft($^

-now k*o. i€83tfk

fe^cx^OVl/Teto 77383



# k P<»£\e 2.0U
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Empyrean Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert L. Lee, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Robert L. Lee Robert L. Lee, President and CEO   Dated:  March 6, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LINDSAY M. WHOLAVER,

Respondent

v.

FRANKLIN T. WHOLAVER, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 247 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

and Application for Relief to Stay Trial Judge’s Orders are DENIED.
### Reconnaissance of Headwater Springs in the Gila River Drainage Basin, Arizona

By: John Henry Frederick FethJohn David Hem

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1619H

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 32.1

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM

                              A Nevada corporation

                            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 AlphaTrade.com. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Muir, Chief 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 21, 2010                      /s/ Gordon J. Muir

                                                   Its: Chief Executive Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or

         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the

         signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of

         this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be

         retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange

         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are

         accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of

         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section

         1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being

         filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

                                Exhibit 32.1 – 1
EXHIBIT32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer of Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the"Company"), hereby certify that thisamendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for theyear ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report")fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:May 25, 2004

|  | /s/ Alan KessmanAlan Kessman Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------|

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald HATCHER.

No. 60857.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 10, 1978.

Louis A. Heyd, Jr., W. Miriam G. Waltzer, John M. Standridge, New Orleans, for defendant-relator.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Mark S. McTernan, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for plaintiff-respondent.

SUMMERS, Justice.

Certiorari was granted on December 2, 1977 to review a ruling of the trial judge granting a jury trial on one count of a four-count indictment and a judge trial on the remaining three counts, and his refusal to conduct the judge trial out of the presence of the jury.

On December 19, 1977 before the case was heard in this Court the State elected to sever the offenses against the defendant pursuant to Article 495.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relevant principles announced in *State v. Carter,*352 So.2d 607 (La.1977), and *State v. Holstead,*354 So.2d 493 (La.1977). The issues presented by the defense application for writs is therefore moot. If the defendant still so desires, he may, in each case, be tried by the judge or jury.

For the reasons assigned, the writ is recalled and the matter is declared moot.
#### Raymond Leo AIRED v. STATE.

No. 38998.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.