alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth vs. Samoeun Nol.

No. 94-P-1448.

July 27, 1995.

*Practice, Criminal,*Conduct of prosecutor, Argument by prosecutor. *Evidence,*Demonstration.

There had been evidence of five masked men robbing at gunpoint hosts and guests at a gambling party at 63 Hargraves Street, Fall River. The defendant appeals from his convictions of armed robbery while masked and a related charge. Notwithstanding his mask, which covered his face from the nose down, several witnesses identified the defendant as one of the masked men by, among other things, voice, height, eyes, and facial contour. Earlier that night, the defendant had been a guest at the party. He was also known to his host and another guest by prior acquaintance. During his closing argument, defense counsel urged upon the jury the difficulty of making an identification of a masked person. In response, the prosecutor, when he closed, put a handkerchief in front of his face in the ways (there were variations) the witnesses had described. The prosecutor went on to say:

> “None of you, as far as I know, to me, have seen me prior to Monday morning of this week. But when I held up a handkerchief in front of my face a moment ago, did you have difficulty with the fact that it was still me behind the handkerchief? Why not? Because you recognized me. That’s not the kind of a mask, now that you’ve seen me and you know what I look like, that, if I put it on, it’s not going to fool you into not being able to tell who I am. I’m going to need to do better than that. I’m going to need to get one of those Halloween masks that' completely covers my whole face, my hair, and everything else, to have a chance at fooling you. Why? Because you know me.

At the end of the prosecutor’s closing, defense counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing that the prosecutor “has now put himself in as part of evidence.” The motion for a mistrial was denied, and that denial is the asserted error on appeal. There was no error. Demonstrating by gesture and with an everyday personal accessory to illustrate what had been testified to did not constitute introducing material from outside the record. Contrast *Commonwealth*v. *Hoppin,*13 Mass. App. Ct. 36, 38, S.C., 387 Mass. 25, 30-31 (1982), in which a piece of rawhide was displayed which the jury *902might have thought was the leather thong referred to in testimony and, if so considered, would have added much to the Commonwealth’s case. Here, by contrast, there was no hint that the handkerchief was anything other than the prosecutor’s. Unlike the leather thong in *Hoppin,*the demonstration was not of a kind likely to stir unfairly the emotions of the jury. Nor, contextually, did the handkerchief demonstration constitute the prohibited practice of displaying to the jury objects not admitted in evidence. *Commonwealth*v. *Hoppin,*387 Mass, at 30.

*Antone B. Cruz*for the defendant.

*Paul F. Walsh, Jr.,*District Attorney, *& Elspeth B. Cypher,*Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

*Judgments affirmed.*

The case was submitted on briefs.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(b)

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc. shown below of our report dated 
January 27, 1998 (March 3, 1998, as to Notes 2 and 16 to the MAPCO Inc.
consolidated financial statements) with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of MAPCO Inc., which report includes explanatory paragraphs relating
to certain litigation to which MAPCO Inc. is a defendant and the change in its
method of accounting for business process reengineering activities to conform to
the consensus reached by the Emerging Issues Task Force in Issue No. 97-13,
appearing in this Annual Report of Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc. on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998.

Form S-3:      Registration No. 333-20927
               Registration No. 333-24683
               Registration No. 333-35097


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 26, 1999
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44525

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

JASON MICHAEL McKAIN

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 414

Filed: March 22, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for enticing a child on the Internet, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jason Michael McKain was convicted of enticing a child on the Internet, Idaho Code

§ 18

- 1509A. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum

period of confinement of five years, suspended the sentence and placed McKain on probation for

fifteen years. McKain appealed the length of his probation, but this Court found no abuse of

discretion. State v. McKain , Docket No. 34506 (Ct. Ap p. June 2, 2008) (unpublished).

Subsequently, McKain admitted to violating several terms of his probation, and the district court

consequently revoked probation and or dered execution of the sentence , but reduced the2 determinate term to three years. McKain appeals, contending that the district court erred in

failing to retain jurisdiction

. The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the tria l court to

obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for

probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction.

State v. Chapel , 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565,

567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s

refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable cand idate for probation. State v. Beebe , 113 Idaho

977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill , 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based

upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the

district cou rt did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction in this case.

Therefore, McKain’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 November 25, 2020

p1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2020

161559

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161559

COA: 349080

Cass CC: 16-010347-FH

DAMEON MICHAEL OUERT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2020 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit
        32.7
 
 CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED
        PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly report of Frezer, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
        10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 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.
  Dated:
        September 5, 2006
  By:
        /s/
        David Koos
 David
        Koos
 Chief
        Executive Officer
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise
        adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
        of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Frezer,
        Inc. and will be retained by Frezer, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.2


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
         constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-
         12973) and Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-10317) of
         Patriot American Hospitality Inc., of our report dated February 13,
         1997, (except as to Note 4, which is as of March 18, 1997) appearing on
         Page F-31 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


         PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
         Miami, Florida
         March 20, 1997
BASF Corporation

26 Davis Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Tel: (800) 669-1770

www.basf.com/usa Helping Make Products Better TM February 11, 2011

Mr. James Parker Document Processing Desk Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD) Office of Pesticide Programs (7504P)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room S-4900, One Potomac Yard 2777 South Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-4501

Subject: Sethoxydim RED Extension Request for Safflower Residue Study

Dear Mr. Parker,

On behalf of BASF Corporation I am requesti ng an extension through December 31, 2011 for the submission of a residue study on safflower that was required by the sethoxydim RED. This study was conducted by IR-4 on behalf of BASF. Wh ile the actual study is completed, the analytical work, write-up, QA, and finalization of the study are not. It is ant icipated that IR-4 will provide BASF with a final study by the end of No vember 2011. Once received, I will submit this study to EPA.

If you have any questions concerning this request or need further information, please contact me directly at (919) 54 7-2282, or by e-mail at: amy.s.dugger-ronyak@basf.com.

Best regards,

BASF Corporation - Agricultural Solutions

Amy Dugger-Ronyak Product Registration Manager 

### Agricultural Solutions
#### FRANK FIASCHETTI *v.*NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY

*Andrew Houlding,*in support of the petition.

Decided March 5, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 443 (AC 16500), is denied.

CALLAHAN, C. J., and KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Restricted Performance Share Plan Amendment


    Exhibit
      10(c)

    


    AMENDMENT
      NUMBER SIX TO THE WALGREEN CO. RESTRICTED PERFORMANCE SHARE
      PLAN

    


    


    Effective
      October 11, 2006, Section 4.2 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read
      as
      follows:

    


    "4.2 Changes
      in Capitalization.
      In the
      event of any change (increase or decrease) in the outstanding shares of the
      Company by reason of a stock dividend, recapitalization, merger, consolidation,
      stock split, split up, spin off, combination or exchange of shares,
      reorganization, liquidation, or other change in corporate capitalization, the
      aggregate number and class of Shares available under this Plan and the aggregate
      number and class of Shares that may be issued pursuant to any provision of
      this
      Plan that is expressed in terms of a specified number of Shares or that may
      be
      issued pursuant to any grant hereunder shall be appropriately and
      proportionately adjusted by the Committee to prevent dilution or enlargement
      of
      rights and preserve the value of outstanding awards; provided that fractional
      Shares shall be rounded to the nearest whole Share. The Committee’s
      determination shall be final and conclusive."
EXHIBIT 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF
INTERNATIONAL WIRE GROUP, INC.
 JURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION ORSUBSIDIARY
    
    ORGANIZATIONOmega Wire, Inc.
    
    DelawareIWG Global Wire, Inc.
    
    DelawareIWG Montgomery Wire Corporation
    
    DelawareIWG Wyre Wynd Corporation
    
    DelawareWire Technologies, Inc.
    
    IndianaIWG High Performance Conductors, Inc.
    
    New YorkIWG Resources LLC
    
    NevadaItaltrecce-Societa Italiana Trecce & Affini, S.r.l
    
    ItalyInternational Wire, S.A.S.
    
    FranceInternational Wire Group, S.A.S.
    
    FranceTresse Metallique J. Forissier, S.A.
    
    FranceCablerie E. Charbonnet, S.A.
    
    France
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

In connection with this amended Quarterly Report of Hurley Exploration, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Chet Kurzawski, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hurley Exploration, Inc. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

   
| Dated: September 12, 2006 |
|---------------------------|

 

**HURLEY EXPLORATION, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ Chet Kurzawski*Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00207-CV

IN RE DPA'S ASSIST THE OFFICER FOUNDATION, INC.

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed on June 29, 2018. The Court 

requests a response from the parties to the proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Any 

response shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later than 21 days from the date of 

this order. 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Response requested

Order issued and filed August 1, 2018
### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

July 30, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Enhanced Protective Glass Automotive Assoc iation Meeting with EPA and NHTSA Regarding Proposal for 2017-2025 Light-Duty (LD) Gr eenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards

FROM: Arvon L. Mitcham, Program Manager/Engineer

TO: EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo documents meetings held on April 19, 2012 between representatives of Enhanced Protective Glass Automotive Association (EPGAA), EP A, and NHTSA to discuss EPGAA’s comments on the LD GHG proposed rule. The meeting a ttendees included the following:

EPGAA : Robert Hurley (The Accord Group), Robert Vandal ( Guardian), Aaron Singer (AGC), Mukesh Rustagi (PGW)

EPA : Ed Nam, Arvon Mitcham, Brian Nelson, Tad Wysor

NHTSA : Greg Powell, Coralie Cooper (Volpe Center)

The topics discussed included off-cycle credits, gl azing technology, and metallic glazing’s impact on radio frequency attenuation, and current status of metallic glazing in the automotive industry. Separate meeting materials were prepared and authorized for release by EPGAA. All materials are in the docket (one attachment here, t he others separately).Attachment

Vehicles Equipped with Laminated Glass as either st andard or optional equipment

January, 2009

Standard

Model Glass Position Bentley Continental GT Four doors Bentley Continental Flying Spur Four doors Buick Enclave Front doors Buick LaCrosse (2010 model) Front doors Buick LaCrosse (current) Front doors Buick Lucerne Four doors Cadillac STS Front doors Cadillac DTS Four doors Cadillac SRX (2010) Front doors Chevy Equinox (2010) Front doors Chevy Malibu (acoustic) Front doors Ferrari Superamerica Roof Ford Taurus (2010) (acoustic) Front doors Hyundai Genesis (acoustic) Front doors Jaguar XJ Lamborghini Murcielago Lexus LX 570 – (acoustic) Front doors Lexus RX 350 (2010) (acoustic) Front doors Lexus GS 450h Front doors Lexus LS 600h Front doors Lincoln MKS Front doors Mercedes CL 500 Front door Mercedes CL 550 Front door Mercedes S-Class (acoustic) All glass Mercedes R-Class Mercedes S 400h (acoustic) All glass Mercedes SL 650 AMG Black (acoustic) All glass Mercedes Maybach (57 &62) (acoustic) All glass Infiniti QX56 Front doors Porsche 911 Targa Roof Porsche GT Rolls Royce Phantom Four doors Saab 9-4X (2010) Front doors Saturn Aura (acoustic) Front doorsOptional Model Glass Position Audi A8L Four doors BMW 7 Series Four doors Ford Flex Limited Roof and front doors Ford Mustang Roof Land Rover LR3 Roof Land Rover Range Rover Sport Front doors Land Rover Range Rover Front doors Lexus LS 460 (acoustic) Front doors Maserati Quatroporte Mercedes E-Class Front doors Mercedes G-Class Front doors Mercedes M-Class Front doors Porsche Carrera Roof Porsche Cayenne Four doors, roof Subaru Forrester Roof Subaru Outback Roof Volkswagen Toureg Four doors Volvo S-80 Four doors, quarter window
SERVED: DECEMBER 30, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MESA AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0847 

.-.- p ,._ 

"! .. ;,~ f j 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011SW070031) was received by the 

Office of Hearings on December 20, 2013, and has been assigned to the undersigned. On 

December 20, 2013, Complainant's Counsel served a Withdrawal of Complaint, stating that the 

parties had reached a settlement and withdrawing its complaint. Accordingly, pursuant to 14 

C.F.R. § 13.215, this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the FAA Hearing Docket a copy of any compromise 

order or fmal order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment- Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Annjenet Chennault, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7E4, AC 

F ede~al Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5071 

FAX: 817-222-5092/5946 

Briatt S. Gillman, Respondent's Counsel 

Exec. VP & General Counsel, Mesa Air Group 

410 N. 44th Street, Suite 700 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

TEL: 602-685-4000 

FAX: 602-685-4350 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0847 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This
certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
(the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 of China Clean Energy
Inc. (the “Company”).  I, William Chen, the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of and for the periods covered in this
  report.





Date:
      November 15, 2010
            
            By:
            /s/
      William ChenName:
            William
      ChenTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and 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, accordingly,
is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
**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 Quarterly Report of Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. II (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Andrew Reckles, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/
                Andrew RecklesAndrew
                RecklesPrincipal
                Financial Officer
              November
                13, 2006