alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francis R. VICKERS, Appellant, v. Lloyd E. HAYNES, Warden of Huttonsville Correctional Center, Appellee.

No. 76-1568.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 25, 1976.

Decided June 2, 1976.

Francis R. .Vickers, pro se.

Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Charleston, W. Va., for appellee.

Before CRAVEN, BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Vickers was convicted of first-degree murder by the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, and is now serving a life sentence in the West Virginia State Penitentiary. The jury verdict carried a recommendation of mercy, and thus Vickers is eligible for parole during the term of his sentence. Having exhausted all post-conviction state remedies, Vickers petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief. In an opinion dated April 11,1975, the district court denied Vickers-relief, and on April 16, 1975, denied Vickers’ application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal.

In the district court, Vickers raised a number of challenges to his conviction, most of which, as the district court correctly observed, are without merit. Vickers is correct, however, when he charges that he was wrongfully denied credit for preconviction and presentence jail time spent in the Kanawha County Jail.

The district court correctly concluded that Vickers was entitled to have all time served in the Kanawha County Jail subsequent to his conviction credited against his sentence. The documentary record of this appeal now indicates that West Virginia authorities have credited Vickers with 354 days spent in jail following conviction and pending appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

Regarding preconviction jail time, the trial court concluded that “petitioner is not entitled to credit for the time spent in custody prior to trial, since he was being held for a nonbailable offense.” In support of this proposition, the district court cited *Meadows v. Coiner,*352 F.Supp. 383 (N.D. W.Va.1973). The opinion of the district *1006court in *Meadows,*however, was vacated and remanded in *Meadows v. Coiner,*No. 73-1106 (4th Cir. May 2, 1973) (unpublished opinion). In a memorandum decision, we vacated the order of the district court and remanded it for entry of an order directing the state to give full credit for the period spent in pretrial custody. Vickers is, likewise, entitled to full credit for preconviction confinement. *Ham v. North Carolina,*471 F.2d 406 (4th Cir. 1973). *See Durkin v. Davis,*538 F.2d 1037 (4th Cir. 1976).

Although Vickers was given a life sentence, the jury’s recommendation of mercy makes him eligible for parole. Credit for preconviction jail time will advance the date upon which he will first be eligible for parole. Accordingly, a certificate of probable cause to appeal is granted, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions that an order issue directing the state to give Vickers full credit for the period spent in pretrial custody.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*
# EUR-Lex - 32006M4140 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32006M4140

**Commission Decision of 09/03/2006 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.4140 - TCCC / CCHBC / FRESH) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 09/03/2006

SG-Greffe(2006) D/201059

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No COMP/M.4140 – The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company S.A./Limited Liability Company Fresh and CO. Fabrika za peradu voća d.o.o. Notification of 06/02/2006 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 38 , 06/02/2006 , page 4.

1. On 06.02.2006 , the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 by which the undertakings The Coca-Cola Company (“TCCC”, USA) and Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company S.A. (“CCHBC”, Greece) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Limited Liability Company Fresh & Co. Fabrika Za Peradu Voća d.o.o. (“Fresh & Co.” Serbia) by purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for TCCC : brand owner and supplier of soft drink concentrates;

- for CCHBC : licensed bottler that produces and sells TCCC-branded beverages;

- for Fresh & Co.: producing and selling of fruit juices in Serbia and Montenegro.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5(a) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

(signed) Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
Canon City 2006 PM-10 Inventory (Tons Per Year)

Area and Mobile Sources PM-10 (T/Y)

Agriculture 3.68

Highway Vehicle Exhaust 4.16

Railroads 0.06

Road Dust 225.83

Commercial Cooking 5.00

Construction 107.78

Fuel Combustion 0.15

Non-Road 6.16

Structure Fires 0.23

Woodburning 26.12

TOTAL 379.16

Point Sources

site_id facility_n Actual PE Factor

0004 COLO DEPT OF CORRECTIONS - CTCF,CTA 1.42 1

0050 COLORADO QUARRIES INC CANON CITY YARD 3.48 2

0068 PORTEC INC - SOUTH PLANT 0.06 1.142857

0074 HUMANE SOCIETY OF FREMONT CNTY 0.56 1

0141 CANON INDUSTRIAL CERAMICS, LLC 3.17 4.38

0142 THERMAL CERAMICS 4.26 4.38

TOTAL 12.95

Grand TOTAL 392.11
Potential

1.41786

6.959872

0.063485

0.5626

13.89774

18.65442

41.55598

420.72
Canon City 2020 PM-10 Inventory (Tons Per Year)

Area and Mobile Sources PM-10 (T/Y)

Agriculture 3.68

Highway Vehicle Exhaust 5.55

Railroads 0.05

Road Dust 288.84

Commercial Cooking 6.40

Construction 137.86

Fuel Combustion 0.19

Non-Road 4.56

Structure Fires 0.29

Woodburning 33.41

TOTAL 480.83

Point Sources

site_id facility_n PE Factor

0004 COLO DEPT OF CORRECTIONS - CTCF,CTA 1.65 1

0050 COLORADO QUARRIES INC CANON CITY YARD 5.04 2

0068 PORTEC INC - SOUTH PLANT 0.13 1.14286

0074 HUMANE SOCIETY OF FREMONT CNTY 1.03 1

0141 CANON INDUSTRIAL CERAMICS, LLC 4.59 4.38

0142 THERMAL CERAMICS 6.17 4.38

TOTAL 18.60

Grand TOTAL 499.42
Potential

1.646872

10.07653

0.144451

1.027062

20.1212

27.00793

60.02404

540.85
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryan Desterdick, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert C. Hinkson, J.), rendered March 10, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent, indeterminate terms of seven and one-half to fifteen years, unanimously affirmed.

*313The People’s reference to defendant’s post-arrest silence on their redirect case did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent or his right against self-incrimination *(People v Basora,*75 NY2d 992; *People v Conyers,*49 NY2d 174). Here, defense counsel opened the door to this issue by cross-examining the police officer with regard to conversations with defendant after his arrest *(People v Melendez,*55 NY2d 445). Further exploration of these post-arrest conversations on redirect examination of the police officer was accordingly not improper.

The court charged the jury that they were not to consider People’s Exhibit 2, an ounce of cocaine, which was found in an apartment concededly not owned by defendant, and as to which the possession charge had been dismissed. Counsel’s failure to lodge a further objection, or to request a mistrial, indicates that defendant was satisfied with the court’s instruction, which we, in any event, find adequate *(People v Williams,*46 NY2d 1070). In reading the charge as a whole, we are also satisfied that the court properly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt *(see, People v Canty,*60 NY2d 830). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in the imposition of sentence. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1876 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1876

      To suspend temporarily the duty on 11-Aminoundecanoic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on 11-Aminoundecanoic acid.

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

SECTION 1. 11-AMINOUNDECANOIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.49 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 11-Aminoundecanoic acid) is 
amended--
            (1) in the general rate of duty column, by striking 
        ``2.3%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2012''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
~compass Airlines 

September 9, 2014 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL/ 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management Facility 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 

·...-

, . 

. '~ 

~·· i ' .... .'I :_ • · 

Re: Request for Extension ofOE Exemption No. 10196 

Docket Number: FAA-2010-1165 

To Whom It May Concern: 

James M. White 

Director, Operations 

Compass Airline, LLC. 

7500 Airline Dr., Suite 130 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

Mike. White@compassairline.com 

612.713.6891 -0 

314.497.9836- c 

·"This letter is to request an extension of Exemption No. 10196A dated January 23,2013 which 

is set to expire on January 31~·2015. In Exemption No.l0196A, Compass Airlines was granted an 

exemptjon from 14 CFR § 121.652(a) to the extent necessary to substitute crosswind component and 

braking action restriction, along with a requirement to utilize automatic landing and approach coupler 

(ALAC) equipment, at the destination and alternate airports in place of the existing restrictions to 

decision _height (DH) ~d vi~ibility minimums of Category I precision approaches for pilots in 

command (PIC) who have not yet accu~vlated ,100 hours (50, if reducible) in their aircraft type. 

Since the time of the exemption, Coinpa.Ss has abided by the conditions and limitations described 

therein and the exemption has not. previou~!Y been superseded or rescinded. An .extension of the 

e'Semptjon is necessary to Compass' operation. Ariy lapse of the extension will result in significant 

de~~ys in Compass; pilot'trait}ing pi'o!p'am which will result in staffing issues that will, in turn, affect 

Cciinpass' entire 'operation. · · 

Further, Compass does not seek to change the conditions and limitations of the current 

exemption which was originally granted in January 2011 and extended in January 2013. This 

exemption has been in use for nearly four ( 4) years with no known compromise of safety. The 

renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. Rather, the existence of the exemption is well 

known and 'widely accepte9. Good cause exists for not publishing a summary ofthe request for 

extl!psi9n in the Fe4eral.Regi~ter.becal,lse the requested extension of exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any d~lay 'in action ori thi~ re.quest would be detrimen!al to Compass' operations. " I • •• o ,,. ' • '• o·,,' 

. . J:h~nk you .for you~ co~sideration of our request for extensi~n of this exe~ption. If you 

requi~e further information, pleased() not hesitate to contact me at (612) 713-6891. • I_ • ,/J' •.", ,' • '• 

. 'J. 

Respectfully, ... ;_,,· 

~//~ ' . • ·,t 

James M. White 

'":
---

Exhibit 32.1

|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     
|---------------------------------------------
|AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO      
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350                       
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Chris Craddock, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Keewatin Windpower Corp. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2007, and to which this
      certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                             

Date: January 14, 2008

/s/Chris Craddock
  Chris Craddock
  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL EVANS MCNEAL, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL No. 84660 

# FILED MAY 1 3 2022 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERKpF SUPREME COURT BY DEPUTY This is a pro se appeal from an order denying a "motion for assistance of counsel," a "motion to resolve," and a "motion to transport." Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge.

Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from this order, we lack jurisdiction. Castillo u. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.



### J.

Hardesty 

# .,414Caug Stiglich J
. Herndon

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Michael Evans McNeal Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY 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 TAL International Group, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Brian M. Sondey, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                      
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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: November 7, 2007

/s/ Brian M. SondeyBrian M. Sondey
President and Chief Executive Officer


---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 14262-000, Project No. 14276-000, and Project No. 14280-000]

On February 28, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine priority between three competing preliminary permit applications with identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the other to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as follows:

1. FFP Project 92, LLC: Project No. 14276-000.

2. Riverbank Hydro No. 24, LLC: Project No. 14280-000.

3. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund VIII: Project No. 14262-000.

Dated: February 29, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-5345 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
(May 9, 1991)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry J. Smith, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (Humphreys, J.), rendered November 30, 1987, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree.

Although defendant argues to the contrary, the record supports County Court’s determination that defendant was not an incapacitated person and that he understood the nature of the proceedings against him and was able to assist in his own defense *(see, People v Allen,*135 AD2d 823). Furthermore, we find no evidence in the record to support defendant’s contention that the inculpatory statements he gave to the police were the result of improper police conduct or undue influence. Instead, the evidence establishes that the statements were not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights but were voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made *(see, People v Schultz,*161 AD2d 970, *lv denied*76 NY2d 944). We also agree with the court’s denial of suppression of statements made by defendant upon his arrival at the police station, as they were clearly spontaneous and were not in response to any custodial *960interrogation *(see, People v Theohary,*142 AD2d 620, *lv denied*72 NY2d 925).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Crew III, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 21, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 21, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0150. BREMEN BOWDEN INVESTMENT COMPANY et al. v. VELMA CROWDER. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 19CV760
DISMISS; a nd Opinion Filed May 12, 2014.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 01357
- CR No. 05
- 13
- 01358
- CR
JOSHUA DAVID RANKINS , Appellant
V.
THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F09
- 21072
- Q , F 12
- 57382
- Q


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justice s Bridges, F rancis, and Lang

- Miers Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal s . Appellant’s counsel has approved
the motion. Th e Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal s be D ISMISSED
and this decision be certified below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47
131357F.U05
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Vital Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended January 31, 2009, (the "Form 10-QSB")
of the Company 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
Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



/s/  Michael Levine
----------------------------------------
By:  Michael Levine
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Henry Goldberg
----------------------------------------
By: Henry Goldberg
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer

March 20, 2009
<PAGE>