alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert D. DUNLAP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-53.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Sept. 8, 1971.

*293Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Frank H. White, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant, Robert D. Dunlap, defendant in the trial court, was charged by way of information with the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. Following a trial by jury, he was found guilty and sentenced to serve fifteen years in the state prison.

Appellant was charged with breaking and entering the apartment of Benny McDaniel and abducting a child seven years of age by way of removing her from the apartment and taking her to the woods where he allegedly committed a lewd and lascivious act against the child.

Appellant urges that the testimony and evidence were insufficient to convict him of the crime and that the Judge’s charge regarding intent was contrary to the Standard Jury Instructions as approved by the Supreme Court in criminal cases, also known as Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 1.985, Standard Jury Instructions, 33 F.S.A.

We have studied the record and the witnesses’ testimony given at the trial, and while we may not have decided as the jury did, we have concluded that there was sufficient evidence if believed by the jury to support a finding of guilty. We, therefore, will not disturb the jury’s finding of guilty.

Regarding the second point, while the Judge did not follow the exact language contained in the Standard Jury Instructions and refused to give the instruction requested by the appellant, he did nevertheless give a very clear and lucid instruction as set forth below:

> “It is a crime for any person to break and enter the dwelling house of another with intent to commit a felony. The essential elements of the crime charged, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a conviction in this case, are that the defendant broke and entered a building, the building was occupied as a dwelling house by Mr. and Mrs. McDaniel, that at the time of so breaking and entering, the defendant had a fully formed conscious intent to commit the felony alleged in the information, that is to say, a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a female child under the age of fourteen years; fourth, the breaking and entering is related to the intended felony.”

*294We believe that the Judge followed the Standard Jury Instructions sufficiently close to avoid error. For these reasons the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
256 La. 784

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tommy Harold MYERS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 50837.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1970.

In re: Tommy Harold Myers applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Granted. The trial court is ordered to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether relator was denied the right to appeal or the right to counsel on appeal.

ORDER

On considering the petition of relator in the above numbered and entitled cause:

It is ordered that the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita, without undue delay, grant an evidentiary hearing to determine whether relator was denied the right to appeal or the right to counsel on appeal.
#### CITY OF MIAMI, et al., Appellants, v. Robert K. TEACHOUT, Appellee.

No. 73-302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Keith THOMAS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 00-15312.

D.C. No. CV-00-00142-TEH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*278Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Keith Thomas, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without leave to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that officials at Pelican Bay State Prison violated his constitutional rights by reading his outgoing non-legal mail. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Thomas’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### James CHATHAM v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50614.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 13, 1978.

George S. Monroe, II, Newton, James B. Everett, Decatur, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Henry T. Wingate, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Newton County; Marcus D. Gordon, Judge.

*633Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG and COFER, JJ.

REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


                              NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY
                              --------------------



Subsidiaries of the Registrant
------------------------------


       NAME                                             State of Incorporation
       ----                                             ----------------------

       Rubicon Venture, Inc.                            Delaware

       Nuevo Congo Company                              Delaware

       The Congo Holding Company                        Texas

       Nuevo Financing I                                Delaware

       Nuevo Ghana, Inc.                                Delaware

       Nuevo International Inc.                         Delaware

       Nuevo Congo Ltd.                                 Cayman Islands

       Nuevo International Holdings Ltd.                Cayman Islands

       Nuevo Tunisia Ltd.                               Cayman Islands

       Pacific Interstate Offshore Company              California
Exhibit 12





AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(Unaudited)







|Three Months Ended March 31,                       |           |         
|-------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------
|(dollars in thousands)                             | 2007      | 2006    
|Earnings:
Income before provision for income taxes | $  10,354 | $189,738
|Interest expense                                   | 310,437   | 263,213 
|Implicit interest in rents                         | 5,492     | 5,101   
|Total earnings                                     | $326,283  | $458,052
|Fixed charges:
Interest expense                    | $310,437  | $263,213
|Implicit interest in rents                         | 5,492     | 5,101   
|Total fixed charges                                | $315,929  | $268,314
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 | 1.03      | 1.71    







33
CALL BY: 

CALL TO: 

Organization: 

Date: 

Time: 

PMN: 15-0607 

Organization: 

Phone: 

Concerning what? 

CBI: No 

MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION (Contains No TSCA CBI)
Exhibit 32

March 23,
2020
Via EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Annual Report of ECA Marcellus Trust I (the "Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.



The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Trustee for ECA Marcellus Trust IBy:

/s/ SARAH NEWELL Sarah Newell Vice President and Trust Officer


---



QuickLinks
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2445 

To prohibit assistance to the West Bank and Gaza that directly benefits 

the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2021 

Mrs. GREENE of Georgia (for herself, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. STEUBE, and Ms. 

HERRELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit assistance to the West Bank and Gaza that 

directly benefits the Palestinian Authority, 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 ‘‘No Funding for Ter5 rorists Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2445 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE WEST BANK 

2 AND GAZA THAT DIRECTLY BENEFITS THE 

3 PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds authorized to 

5 be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 

6 2021 and available for obligation as of the date of the 

7 enactment of this Act, or authorized to be appropriated 

8 or otherwise made available for 2022 or any fiscal year 

9 thereafter, for assistance under chapter 4 of part II of 

10 the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et 

11 seq.; relating to Economic Support Fund) may be obli12 gated or expended for assistance for the West Bank and 

13 Gaza that directly benefits the Palestinian Authority. 

14 (b) REPEAL.—Section 1004 of the Taylor Force Act 

15 (22 U.S.C. 2378c–1; Public Law 115–141) is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Aizell Tyrone KITTLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-264.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 21, 1978.

Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender, and Stuart M. Lerner, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review this court is of the opinion that the appellant was entitled to the disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant involved herein on the authority of *Woods v. State,*Case No. 76-836, 355 So.2d 437, Opinion issued February 7, 1978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, this cause is hereby reversed for a new trial and other proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

STETTIN, HERBERT, Associate Judge, concurs specially.

STETTIN, HERBERT, Associate Judge,

concurring specially:

While I agree with the decision of the Court, I believe some.further discussion is required concerning a reversal of the conviction on Count II. The defendant was charged by information in two counts with two separate sales of narcotics to the same undercover policeman. From the testimony at trial, it appears the first sale took place *873as a result of an introduction by a confidential informant. The second sale took place four days later but without the presence of the confidential informant. *Woods v. State,*supra, does clearly require reversal as to Count I, and, it seems to me, would also carry over so as to require reversal of the conviction under Count II because 1) the offenses were tried together, and 2) the State’s case rested entirely on the credibility of the undercover police-buyer in both transactions.

I therefore concur in the reversal of both convictions.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K
of Molycorp, Inc.;
 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.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,
and other financial information included in this 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 report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ James S. AllenJames S. AllenChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL

OFFICER 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 Flagship Global Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the  year ended December
31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary
Richard Brown, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By: /s/ Gary Richard Brown

Gary Richard Brown,

Chief
Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer

Dated: April 17, 2017
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 11067
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
DAVID SAULSBERRY,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus BRITNEY ELDER, a.k.a. FTN Bae,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:21

- cv

- 62362

- RS USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 23

- 11067

____________________ Before J ORDAN , R OSENBAUM , and N EWSOM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM : After reviewing the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. David Saulsberry appeals from the district court’s March 6, 2023 order vacating the final judgment and granting a new trial. However, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal becau se the order is non

- final and not subject to immediate revie w

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner , 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “[a] final order is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment” (quotation marks omitted)); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City , 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (same)

. The district court’s order granting a new trial makes clear that the litigation has not ended on the merits and is therefore not final. Geithner , 568 F.3d at 1348

. Additionally, an order granting a new trial is an interlocutory order and generally appealable onlyafter the verdict in the new trial, unless coupled with entry of judgment as a matter o f law. See Deas v. PACCAR, Inc. , 775 F.2d 1498, 1503 (11th Cir. 1985) (providing that the grant of a new trial is an interlocutory order subject to appellate review only if coupled with a grant of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict) ; see al so Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon , Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980) (explaining that the grant of a new trial is generally only appealable after USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 2 of 323

- 11067 Opinion of the Court 3
the verdict in the new trial)

. Finally , the order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine , as it is c apable of review after an appeal from a subsequent final judgment

. See Plaintiff A v. Schair
, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252

- 53 (11th Cir. 2014) (setting out the requirements for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine) ; see also Richardson

- Merrell, Inc . v. Koller , 472 U.S. 424, 430

- 31 (1985) (stating that the possibility of additional litigation expense is not alone sufficient to warrant review)

. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal

. USCA11 Case: 23-11067 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023 Page: 3 of 3
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.

F ebruary 10 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk Febr uary 1 0 , 2021

153828 ( 91 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 1 53828

v COA: 324018

Wayne CC: 14

- 000152

- FC

THEODORE PAUL WAFER

, Defendant

- Appellant

.

______________________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of Aaron Cyars to file a brief amicus curiae

is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted February 5 , 2021 , is accepted for filing

.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66068-66069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32846]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-421-000]


Cinergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

December 11, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 9, 1997, Cinergy Services, Inc. 
(``Services'') made

[[Page 66069]]

an amendment to its October 31, 1997 filing in the above-captioned 
docket. Services' October 31 filing petitioned the Commission for 
acceptance of Rate Schedules Nos. 1-5; the granting of certain blanket 
approvals, including the authority to sell electricity at market-based 
rates, and the waiver of certain commission regulations. Services has 
amended its filing to request only the approvals needed for Rate 
Schedule No. 1 for CinCap IV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 
which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinergy Capital and Trading, Inc. 
Services has requested a January 1, 1998 effective date for Rate 
Schedule No. 1.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before December 22, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32846 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**
 Certification of CEO 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 Crested Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John L. Larsen Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company. 
 
 
 /s/ John L. LarsenJohn L. Larsen,Chief Executive OfficerMay 14, 2005 
 
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Crested Corp. and will be retained by Crested Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.