alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Daniel L. WELLS, Defendant-Relator.

No. 53395.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 24, 1973.

Murphy W. Bell, Director, Baton Rouge, Warren J. Hebert, New Orleans, for defendant-relator.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., M. Stephen Roberts, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondent.

CALOGERO, Justice.

Relator, Daniel L. Wells, was charged in a bill of information with unlawfully violating “L.R.S. 14:59(7) in that he intentionally committed an act in such a manner as to annoy and be offensive to others.” He was convicted and sentenced to 3 days in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. After sentencing relator filed a motion in arrest of judgment challenging the constitutionality of the statute. The motion was denied by the trial court. Execution of the sentence was deferred pending application for writs, which were applied for on the ground that R.S. 14:59(7) was unconstitutional. On April 19, 1973 the application was granted, 275 So.2d 865 (La.1973) over the objection that the motion in arrest of judgment was not timely filed.

We find it unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the statute because we note, *ex proprio motu,*a defect in the bill of information which requires that the conviction and sentence be annulled and set aside.1

The Bill of Information sets forth only conclusions of law and contains no basic facts constituting the offense. The crime of criminal mischief is not one enumerated in Article 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lists those crimes which may be charged by the short form. Hence a long form bill must be employed.

The bill of information fails to set out a plain, concise and definite statement of the *246essential facts constituting criminal mischief. Simply charging violation of the statute fails to comply with the requirements for the long form bill of information. See La.C.Cr.P. Art. 464.

For the reasons assigned the conviction and sentence are annulled and set aside, and- the defendant is ordered discharged.

DIXON, J., concurs with reasons.

1

. *See*State v. Raby, 259 La. 909, 253 So.2d 370 (1971) where this Court ruled that it may notice error patent on the face of the record even though no objection has been raised below. A defective bill of information is such an error.

DIXON, Justice

(concurring).

I concur, but am of the opinion that R.S. 14:59(7) is constitutionally defective, infringing upon First Amendment rights, which should be of primary concern to this court.
EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO 

Ex parte:

Alberto G. Burgos Rodríguez

2024 TSPR 100

214 DPR ___

Número del Caso: TS-14,095

Fecha: 12 de septiembre de 2024

Materia: Readmisión al ejercicio de la abogacía.

Este documento está sujeto a los cambios y correcciones del 

proceso de compilación y publicación oficial de las decisiones del 

Tribunal Supremo. Su distribución electrónica se hace como un 

servicio público a la comunidad.
EN EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO DE PUERTO RICO

Ex Parte:

 Alberto G. Burgos Rodríguez TS-14,095 

Sala de Verano integrada por la Jueza Presidenta Oronoz Rodríguez, 

el Juez Asociado señor Kolthoff Caraballo, el Juez Asociado señor 

Estrella Martínez y el Juez Asociado señor Colón Pérez

RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 12 de septiembre de 2024.

 

Examinada la Moción en cumplimiento de orden

presentada el 5 de septiembre de 2024, se provee ha 

lugar. Se ordena la readmisión del Sr. Alberto G. 

Burgos Rodríguez al ejercicio de la abogacía.

Se ordena a la Secretaría hacer el cambio del

señor Burgos Rodríguez a abogado activo en el 

Registro Único de Abogados y Abogadas.

Publíquese.

Lo acordó el Tribunal y certifica el Secretario

del Tribunal Supremo.

 Javier O. Sepúlveda Rodríguez

Secretario del Tribunal Supremo
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>                             1
       
<S>                                      <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                        4,663,864                 134,378
<SECURITIES>                                          0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                10,726,299               4,762,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                  3,735,742               1,580,820
<INVENTORY>                                           0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             12,073,149               3,410,253
<PP&E>                                        2,347,857                 671,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                  507,241                 173,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               31,919,504              11,832,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,970,411               1,963,006
<BONDS>                                       2,300,888                 582,847
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                       2,250                   3,000
<COMMON>                                      9,589,090               5,989,939
<OTHER-SE>                                    9,657,133               1,339,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 31,919,504              11,832,562
<SALES>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             10,378,508               6,400,236
<CGS>                                                 0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 9,501,945               5,753,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              8,160,341               2,346,765
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              251,561                 291,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,674,126)             (1,482,587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0                  50,655
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,674,126)             (1,533,242)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,674,126)             (1,533,242)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.43)                  (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0                       0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATE
OF CROFF ENTERPRISES, INC.


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350


OF
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE





I, Gregory R. Woodhill, the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Croff Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 that, to my
knowledge:





(1)      the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 29, 2009
              /s/  GREGORY R. WOODHILLGregory
      R. Woodhill, President andChief
      Financial
Officer
#### James Walter SANDERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-1054.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1970.

*431Philip Carlton, Jr., Rex Ryland, Jr., and William A. Daniel, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was duly charged with a felony-murder during a robbery. He was found guilty of first degree murder after a jury trial and received a recommendation of mercy from the jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and this appeal followed.

The first point presented by the appellant urges that he was entitled to a trial before two separate juries; first upon the issue of his guilt and then upon the issue of the penalty. He argues that such a procedure would allow the elimination of questions about capital punishment upon the voir dire examination of the jury to try the issue of guilt or innocence. The authority presented is the discussion of Mr. Chief Justice Ervin in his special concurring opinion in Perkins v. State, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 382, 393. As we read the opinion cited it contains suggestions for further development of the law and does not establish a procedure for the courts of this state. Inasmuch as the trial judge in the instant case followed the established procedure, no error has been demonstrated under this point.

Appellant’s second point urges that he was denied a fair trial because “the jury was made aware that the co-defendant Gibson confessed.” Our review of the record fails to sustain the factual basis for appellant’s assertion on this point. Appellant was granted a trial separate from that of his co-defendant. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the state to prove the guilt of Gibson because he was a co-perpetrator of the felony and the one who actually shot the victim. Gibson’s confession was not introduced into evidence and no error was committed by the trial judge in allowing proof of Gibson’s conviction. McClendon v. State, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 905.

Appellant’s third point is directed to several comments by the prosecuting attorney on voir dire examination and during argument. The inquiry under such circumstances must be as to whether the conduct complained of is so prejudicial as to deprive the accused of a fair trial. Each case must stand upon its own facts. In the instant case the proof of appellant’s guilt was clear, and the evidence was overwhelming. Our review of the record convinces us that the remarks complained of were in some cases improper but were not sufficient to deprive the appellant of a fair trial. Collins v. State, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 340; Paramore v. State, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 855; DeLaine v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 168.

We have in the review of appellant’s points on appeal examined the entire record and find no prejudicial error.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


                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 on Form 10-Q of Datascope Corp.
(the "Company") for the Quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     |_|  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     |_|  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


February 9, 2005



                                           /s/ Lawrence Saper
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Lawrence Saper
                                          Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                          Executive Officer




                                          /s/ Murray Pitkowsky
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Murray Pitkowsky
                                          Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
                                          Officer and Treasurer
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of World Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stewart Jackson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company. Date: June 14, 2010 /s/ Stewart JacksonName: Stewart JacksonTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer


---
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT** **TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350)**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-K for the period ended April 24, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Bernard
      Goldstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350),
      that:




(1)  The
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)  The
      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.









/s/
      Bernard Goldstein


Bernard
      Goldstein


Chief Executive Officer




July
      6,
      2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51314

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESSIE LOZANO-RIVAS, also known as

Leobardo Gallardo-Armendariz, also

known as Ramon Rivas-Lozano,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-570-ALL-DB

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Jessie Lozano-Rivas appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Lozano-Rivas complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 

Lozano-Rivas thus contends that his sentence should not exceed

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-51314

-2-

the maximum terms of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Lozano-Rivas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The
undersigned, Gary W. Douglass, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of CPI Corp. (the Company), has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 8, 2003
(the Report).

The
undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 18th day of
December, 2003.

| | /s/ Gary W. Douglass                                                          
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Gary W. Douglass
Executive Vice President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CPI
Corp. and will be retained by CPI Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 24,2005 to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| * February 1, 2006* | * * | By:                                              | *  s/James F. Conway  III* | * * |
|-------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------|
| Date                          |     | James F. Conway III                              |
|                          |     | Chairman, President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed”for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference intoany filing, under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of1934.

 

----
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors Reinhold Industries, Inc.

We  consent  to   incorporation  by  reference  on  Form  10-KSB/A  of  Reinhold
Industries,  Inc. of our report dated  February  16,  2000,  except for Note 12,
which is as of March 9,  2000,  and  Note  13,  which is as of March  16,  2001,
relating to the  consolidated  balance sheets of Reinhold  Industries,  Inc. and
Subsidiary  as of  December  31,  1999  and 1998  and the  related  consolidated
statements of earnings,  stockholders'  equity and comprehensive income and cash
flows for the years ended  December 31, 1999 and 1998 which  reports  appears in
the December 31, 1999 Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB/40 of Reinhold  Industries,
Inc.

/S/ KPMG  LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 12, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2470 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2470

To designate certain future interstates and high priority corridors in 
                   Kentucky, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2021

   Mr. Guthrie (for himself, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, and Mr. Comer) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate certain future interstates and high priority corridors in 
                   Kentucky, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LOUIE B. NUNN CUMBERLAND EXPRESSWAY.

    (a) Designation as High Priority Corridor.--Section 1105(c) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(92) The Louie B. Nunn Cumberland Expressway from the 
        interchange with Interstate 65 in Barren County, Kentucky, east 
        to the interchange with U.S. Highway 27 in Somerset, 
        Kentucky.''.
    (b) Designation as Future Interstate.--Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by 
striking ``and subsection (c)(91)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(91), 
and subsection (c)(92)''.
    (c) Numbering of Parkway.--Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``The route referred to in subsection 
(c)(92) is designated as Interstate Route I-365.''.
    (d) Operation of Vehicles.--Section 127(l)(3)(A) of title 23, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking 
        ``clauses (i) through (iv)'' and inserting ``clauses (i) 
        through (v)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(v) The Louie B. Nunn Cumberland 
                        Expressway (to be designated as a spur of 
                        Interstate Route 65) from the interchange with 
                        Interstate 65 in Barren County, Kentucky, east 
                        to the interchange with U.S. Highway 27 in 
                        Somerset, Kentucky.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willman E. GUILLORY, Jr.

No. 61944.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Willman E. Guillory, Jr. applying for Remedial Writs. Calcasieu Parish.

Writ Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Arthur J. Planchard, Judge of the 14th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Calca-sieu, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, record is in our possession, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this Court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.