alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-02-0202-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D OCTOBER 1, 2003

______________________________ QUINTON L. JOHNSON, Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 137 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2002-439,305; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPB ELL, JJ. Quinton L. Johnson (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, with in tent to deliver. Thro ugh two issues, he contends that the tr ial court er red by allowi ng in t wo hearsay s tatements. We overrule the issues and affirm t he judgment. Issues One and Two – Admission of Purported Hearsay Testimony As previous ly mentioned, appellant contends tha t the trial court erred in overrul ing his objections topurported hear say. The firs t instance inv olved an officer testifying about2

what a third party told him regard ing appellant’s g ang affiliation. The second concer ned reference to what a w itness’ bro ther had said abo ut appellant residing in the witness’ house. As to the former ins tance, the same ev idence ( i.e. what a thi rd party told the officer aboutappellant’s g ang affiliation) had been solicited and admitted wi thout objection earlier in the trial. Because the purported hearsay was previouslyadmitted wi thout objection, any error arising f rom its re-i ntroduction l ater in the tr ial was cured. Hudson v. State , 675 S.W.2d 507, 511 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (holding that error in the adm ission of evidence is cured w hen the same evi dence comes in el sewhere w ithout objecti on). As to the second instance of purported hearsay, the latter consisted of the State asking a witness (Ms. Mitchell) whether it would surprise her to know that Charles Mitchell told the police that

appellant and thr

ee others “stayed in the s outheast bedr oom” of her house. H owev er, that was not the first time refe rence was made to Charles Mitchell informing the police of that ma tter. Appellant had pr eviously asked the same witnes s “[i]f Charles Mitchell said in his report thatthey w ere all four l iving there [includ ing appellan t], Charles is not corr

ect probably , right?”Having first present ed the alleged hearsay to the jury, appellant

cannot com plain of its i nadmissibili ty when the State rev isited it. Hudson v. State , supra . Accordingl y, we affirm the judgment of the trial cour t.

Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish

.
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Scott B. Parliament, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of InferX Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 12, 2007 /s/ Scott B. Parliament   Scott B. Parliament   Chief Financial Officer
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Euro Currency Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Carl G. Verboncoeur, Chief Executive Officer of Rydex Specialized
Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 Trust.

Date: September 14, 2006

/s/ CARL G. VERBONCOEURCarl G.
Verboncoeur*Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)

*The Registrant is a trust
and Carl G. Verboncoeur is signing in his capacity as the principal executive officer of
Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10056

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME ARTURO ARGUETA-LOPEZ, also known as Jaime Arturo ArguetaRodas,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-147-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jaime Arturo Argueta-Lopez (Argueta) appeals from the 96-month

sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction for illegal reentry;

the sentence was the result of an upward variance from the applicable guidelines

range of 46-57 months of imprisonment.

In reviewing the sentence imposed for reasonableness, this court mustfirst

determine whether the district court committed any procedural errors,including,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 13, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-10056 Document: 00511630751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2011
No. 11-10056

inter alia, “failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an

explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If the district court’s decision is procedurally sound, this

court will “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed

under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. 

Even if Argueta sufficiently preserved his objection to the district court’s

explanation for imposing the sentence at issue, we find that the district court,

by citing Argueta’s extensive criminal history and recidivist tendencies,

adequately explained its bases for the variance. See Id. at 50. Although Argueta

argues that the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable because the

district court over-emphasized his criminal history and failed to recognize his

cultural ties to the United States, the district court explained that it had fully

considered the § 3553(a) factors, including the need to promote respect for the

law and to deter Argueta from future criminal conduct, and this court “must give

due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a

whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 51. That this court “might

reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is

insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Id.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-10056 Document: 00511630751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2011
#### Fleming et al., Appellants, *v.*Kravitz.

*Negligence*— Child *playing with toy air gun*— Discharge *of match from gun*— Injury *to playmate*— Liability *of parent*— Nonsuit.

In an action against the father of a six-year-old boy to recover for injuries to plaintiff’s son resulting from defendant’s son discharging from a toy air gun an ordinary match, which for some undisclosed reason was in the barrel of the gun, a compulsory non-*429suit was properly entered where the only negligence alleged was in permitting the boy, immature and inexperienced as he was, to be in possession of such a plaything after defendant had received warning from several persons who knew no more than he himself did, that danger of accident attended such indulgence on his part.

Argued Jan. 9, 1918.

Appeal, No. 139, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1916, No. 4090, refusing to take off com-, pulsory nonsuit in case of John Fleming, a minor, by his next friend and father, Thomas E. H. Fleming, and the said Thomas E. H. Fleming, in his own right, v. Israel Kravitz.

Before Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before Rogers, J. •

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The lower court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Plaintiffs appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in refusing to take off the compulsory nonsuit.

*Mawwell Pestcoe,*for appellants,

cited: Loughlin v. Penna. R. R. Co., 240 Pa. 174; Swanson v. Crandall, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 85; Strohl v. Levan, 39 Pa. 177; Neumiller v. The Acme Motor Car Co., 49 Pa. Superior Ct. 183; Ramsey v. Martin, 45 Pa. Superior Ct. 645; Welliver v. Irondale Electric Light, Etc., Co., 38 Pa. Superior Ct. 26.

*David Phillips,*for appellee.

February 25, 1918 :

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Stewart,

This case was properly decided in the court below. A child of six years in playing with a toy air gu.n in the barrel of which, for some undisclosed reason,- there was the stem'of an ordinary match, discharged it, with the *430result that the match struck the corner of the eye of the plaintiff’s boy, who was standing within a few feet. The boy struck was but a year or two older than the boy who discharged the gun. The injury he sustained was but slight. Action was brought by the father of the injured boy against the father of the boy who- discharged the gun, to recover damages. The negligence alleged on the latter’s part was his permitting his boy, immature and inexperienced as he was, to be in possession of such a plaything after warning he had received from several persons who knew no more than he himself did, that danger of accident attended such indulgence on his part. The testimony in the case involved the parent in the misfortune to no greater extent than we have just indicated. The-case presents nothing that calls for discussion. The non-suit was properly directed.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 of Wolf Resources, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to 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 Company.

Date: March 5, 2009


/s/ Graeme McNeill
------------------------------------
Graeme McNeill, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
**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 Quarterly Report of Frezer, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating,
      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.





/s/
                Kevin R. Keating
              Kevin
                R. Keating
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              November
                7, 2008
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30118

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Leon Williams, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:18-CR-143-1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Leon Williams appeals his 40-month sentence for possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon. He challenges the district court’s application 

of the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3) base offense level, asserting that he did not 

know the firearm he possessed was capable of accepting a large capacity 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30118 Document: 00515618002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2020
No. 20-30118

2

magazine. We review challenges to the district court’s interpretation or 

application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

In United States v. Fry, 51 F.3d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1995), we held that, 

because § 2K2.1(a)(3) made “no reference to the defendant’s mental state[,] 

[t]he section [wa]s plain on its face and should not, in light of the apparent 

intent of the drafters, be read to imply a scienter requirement.” Although 

§ 2K2.1(a)(3) has been amended since Fry, nothing in the text or 

commentary of § 2K2.1(a)(3) imposes a mens rea requirement. See 

§ 2K2.1(a)(3) and comment. (n.2).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-30118 Document: 00515618002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2020
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Redpoint BioCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, F. Raymond Salemme, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  November 13, 2009 | /s/ Scott M. Horvitz                                 |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Scott M Horvitz                                      |
|                      | Chief Financial and  Operating Officer and Treasurer |
|                      | (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer)        |

 

----

*         A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toRedpoint Bio Corporation and will be retained by Redpoint Bio Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# United Stat es Court of Appeals For the First C ircuit

Nos. 02-1139, 02-1340, 02-1465 LUIS A. ACEVEDO-GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v. ROBERTO VERA MONROIG, Individually and as Mayor of Adjuntas; MUNICIPALITY OF ADJUNTAS; IRMA M. GONZALEZ DELGADO, Individually

and as Personnel Director of Adjuntas, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued August 21, 2003, should be amended as follows:

On page 12, line 5, replace "reg ulato ry" with "regularity".

On page 51, line 4, replace "plaintiff s" wi th "defendants".
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ACTION LOSS MITIGATION, LLC , Appellant,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS SUCCESSOR TO JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2004

- FF10

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1679

[ April 19, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Dina A. Keever

- Agrama , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CA13314XXXXMB

.

Evan B. Plotka of Eva n B. Plotka, P.L., Hollywood, for appellant.

Shawn Taylor of DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ERBER , C

. J., D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
| 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. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    | China YouTV    Corp. |                                         |
|-------------------------|----------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                    |                 |                                         |   |
| Date:      May 15, 2008 | By:                  | /s/ Jie      Wang                       |   |
|                    |                 | Name:      Jie Wang                          |   |
|                    |                 | Title: Principal      Financial Officer |   |
|                    |                 |                                         |   |
Exhibit 10.11


    
      

      

    

    
Exhibit
      10.11

     

    LOCK
      UP AGREEMENT

     

    The
      undersigned hereby agrees that for a period commencing on December 20, 2006
      and
      expiring on the date thirty (30) days after the date that all amounts owed
      to
      Cornell Capital Partners, LP (the “Buyer”),
      under
      the Secured Convertible Debentures issued to the Buyer pursuant to the
      Securities Purchase Agreement between Cobalis Corporation (the “Company”)
      and
      the Buyer dated December 20, 2006 have been paid (the “Lock-up
      Period”),
      he,
      she or it will not, directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent
      of
      the Buyer, issue, offer, agree or offer to sell, sell, grant an option for
      the
      purchase or sale of, transfer, pledge, assign, hypothecate, distribute or
      otherwise encumber or dispose of any securities of the Company, including common
      stock or options, rights, warrants or other securities underlying, convertible
      into, exchangeable or exercisable for or evidencing any right to purchase or
      subscribe for any common stock (whether or not beneficially owned by the
      undersigned), or any beneficial interest therein (collectively, the
“Securities”)
      except
      in accordance with the volume limitations set forth in Rule 144(e) of the
      General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Act of 1933, as
      amended.

     

    In
      order
      to enable the aforesaid covenants to be enforced, the undersigned hereby
      consents to the placing of legends and/or stop-transfer orders with the transfer
      agent of the Company’s securities with respect to any of the Securities
      registered in the name of the undersigned or beneficially owned by the
      undersigned, and the undersigned hereby confirms the undersigned’s investment in
      the Company.

     

    Dated:
      _______________, 2006

    


    Signature

    


    


     

    Name:
      ____________________________________

    Address:__________________________________      

    City,
      State, Zip Code:_________________________     

    


    _________________________________________

    Print
      Social Security Number 

    or
      Taxpayer I.D. Number