alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bobby LANGFORD v. STATE.

8 Div. 39.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 23, 1988.

Bobby Langford, pro se.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

Langford appeals the trial court’s denial of his A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 20 petition for relief from conviction or sentence wherein he contested the validity of his 1981 conviction for first degree robbery, for which he received a 10-year sentence, and his 1987 convictions for second degree robbery (two counts), for which he received two concurrent 20-year sentences. All convictions rested upon pleas of guilty, and none were appealed.

As one of his grounds, Langford alleged that he was not advised, by his trial counsel or the trial court, of his right to appeal. Upon this allegation, he based his claim of ineffective counsel. This same issue was addressed in *Allison v. State,*495 So.2d 739, 741 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), wherein the court observed the following:

> “It has been held that failure to notify an individual of his right to appeal following a guilty plea does not in itself constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. *Davis v. Wainwright,*462 F.2d 1354 (5th Cir.1972); *Williams v. United States,*443 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir. 1971); *Younger v. Cox,*323 F.Supp. 412 (W.D. Va.1971); *Carey v. Leverette,*605 F.2d 745 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*444 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 488, 62 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979). There is no constitutional requirement that defendants must always be informed of their right to appeal following a guilty plea. *Barber v. United States,*427 F.2d 70 (10th Cir.), *cert. denied,*400 U.S. 867, 91 S.Ct. 108, 27 L.Ed.2d 106 (1970); *Younger v. Cox,*supra;*Davis v. Wainwright,*supra. However, it has been held that extraordinary circumstances might establish that the omission of advice actually denied a defendant due *945process of law. *Carey v. Leverette,*supra.”

In the instant case, Langford failed to allege, in his petition, any extraordinary circumstances which would have indicated that the omission of advice denied him any constitutional right. Moreover, upon Lang-ford’s other allegations, we can find no basis of error in the trial proceedings. *See Allison.*

The opinion in *Burns v. State,*[Ms. 6 Div. 272, June 9,1987] (Ala.Cr.App.1987), at first glance appears to stand for the proposition that the mere allegation by the petitioner that he was never advised of his right to appeal, after a plea of guilty, warrants an evidentiary hearing when that allegation is not denied or rebutted. However, we do not read *Bums*so broadly, in light of *Alli*son; rather, we assume that in *Bums*the petitioner alleged extraordinary circumstances.

We have reviewed Langford’s other allegations and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, this cause is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS
WORLD AIRWAYS, INC.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No.333-13575, No. 333-14461 and No. 333-14457) on Form S-8 and registration
statement (No. 333-14455) on Form S-3 of World Airways, Inc. of our report dated
February 6, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of World Airways, Inc. as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related statements of operations, changes in
common stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, and the related financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report
on Form 10-K of World Airways, Inc.



                                                           KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARCH 31, 1997
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2457 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on sorbic acid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on sorbic acid. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SORBIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.25 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 sorbic acid) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and in7 serting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                         10,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        8,263
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,000
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        0
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00280-CV

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, DAVE 

PARROTT, AND BG JOE RAMIREZ,

Appellants

v.

GUSTAVO CARAPIA,

Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-002220-CV-272

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to substitute counsel was filed on November 13, 2014. The 

motion does not indicate that a copy was provided to the client in a manner of delivery 

authorized by the rule. TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d). The Court simply reminds counsel of 

that obligation; but because the rule does not require counsel to certify compliance with 

that aspect of the rule to the Court, the Court will not deny the motion on that basis. 
Texas A&M University v. Carapia Page 2

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to substitute Susan M. Watson in place 

of Angela V. Colmenero. 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Order issued and filed November 20, 2014
#### Marjorie R. MARTIN, individually, and Henry Spiegel, Anne Spiegel and the Diane Birmand Irrevocable Trust, as General Partners of Nottingham Associates, a Florida General Partnership, individually, and as representatives of all similarly situated shareholders of City National Bank Corporation, Appellants, v. Robert M. MARLIN and Jack D. Burstein, Appellees.

No. 87-2563.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 12, 1988.

Kenny, Nachwalter & Seymour and Kevin J. Murray and Scott E. Perwin, Miami, for appellants.

Daniels & Hicks and Joseph C. Brock; Anderson, Moss, Russo & Cohen; Po-dhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order awarding costs against them in the amount of $5,981.19 subsequent to the entry of an adverse final summary judgment. We agree entirely with the plaintiffs that the trial court abused its discretion in taxing as costs (1) $2,500 for photocopying expenses, and (2) $600 for transcripts of pretrial hearings, because it is plain on this record that neither of these items served a useful purpose for the defendants in securing the summary judgment in their favor. We further agree with the plaintiffs that the trial court abused its discretion in taxing as costs the nearly $3,000 for deposition transcripts because these items also served no useful purpose for the defendants in securing the summary judgment in their favor, save for the costs of the three depositions taken by the defendants which were, in part, relied on by the defendants in their motion for summary judgment. *See Caceres v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund,*489 So.2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *Vogel v. Allen,**944443 So.2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); *Crane v. Stulz,*136 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).

The order taxing costs under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to tax as costs only the above-stated three depositions which were relied on by the defendants in their motion for summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Ana HERNANDEZ v. F.W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company.

No. 87-C-2616.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1987.

In re F.W. Woolworth Co.; Travelers Insurance Co.; applying for writ of certio-rari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA 7080; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 83-11932.

Prior report: La.App., 516 So.2d 139.

Denied.
**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 SRKP 6, Inc. (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, Richard A. Rappaport,
      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/ Richard
              A. RappaportRichard
                A. RappaportPrincipal
              Executive OfficerNovember
                7, 2006
Order entered June 16, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00791-CR

No. 05-20-00792-CR

No. 05-20-00793-CR

SHAWN PATRICK THURMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F19-25733-W, F19-25734-W & F19-25735-W

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s June 14, 2021 motion for an extension of time 

to file its brief in the above appeals. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the 

brief received along with the motion filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
16590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 21, 2012 / Notices 

tax return information are confidential, 

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. 

Request for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and/or included in the 

request for OMB approval. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology; and (e) estimates of capital 

or start-up costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide information. 

Approved: March 10, 2012. 

Yvette B. Lawrence, 

IRS Reports Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6753 Filed 3–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND 

SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Notice of Open Public Hearing; 

Correction 

AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and 

Security Review Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of open public hearing— 

March 26, 2012, Manassas, VA; 

Correction. 

SUMMARY: The U.S.-China Commission 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register of March 13, 2012, concerning 

a public hearing on March 26, 2012. The 

document listed an incorrect CoChairman for the hearing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Lipka (202) 624–1407. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of March 13, 

2012, in FR Doc. 2012–5959, on page 

14860, in the first column, line 9 should 

read: 

‘‘Wortzel and Jeffery Fiedler. Any’’ 

Dated: March 15, 2012. 

Michael Danis, 

Executive Director, U.S.-China Economic and 

Security Review Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6740 Filed 3–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1137–00–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Exhibit 99(a)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-K of Indian River Banking Company for
the year ended December 31, 2002, I, Paul A. Beindorf, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Indian River Banking Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, 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 Form 10-K for the quarter ended December
31, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Indian River Banking Company.

 /s/ Paul A. Beindorf
----------------------------------------------
Paul A. Beindorf
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Murphy LAMB v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 86-KH-2447.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Lamb, Murphy; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”.

Denied.
<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 Annual report of Omni U.S.A., Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I (We), Jeffrey K.
Daniel 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 result of operations of the
Company.

<TABLE>
<S>                                 <C>                         <C>


/s/ JEFFREY K. DANIEL               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &   OCTOBER 12, 2005
---------------------------------   PRESIDENT
JEFFREY K. DANIEL
</TABLE>


                                       48
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 China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date 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.

|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gui Hua
 Lan                                         
|                                                         
|Name: Gui
 Hua Lan                                       
|Title: Chief
 Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
|                                                         
|/s/ Wendy Fu                                             
|                                                         
|Name: Wendy
 Fu                                          
|Title: Chief
 Financial Officer                          

May 15, 2009

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by China
Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



JPS INDUSTRIES, INC.



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 JPS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending November 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers
of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael L. Fulbright                                                         
|Michael L. Fulbright Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Charles R. Tutterow                                                            
|Charles R. Tutterow Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



January 29, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentation
authenticating, 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Vivian Marie CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sharon L. SHEAR, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 19679.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Aug. 10, 1984.

Anthony M. Thurber, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Scott W. Christensen, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a jury verdict to the effect that plaintiffs claimed injuries were not proximately caused by the defendant’s negligent running into the rear end of her ear at a traffic stop.

The accident occurred on the morning of March 12, 1981. Some five or six years before, the plaintiff was rather seriously injured in a snowmobile accident for which she received medical treatment. Evidence at trial conflicted whether she was suffering residual effects from the snowmobile injury at the time she was involved in the accident at issue here. After the March, 1981 accident, (but before this action was filed), plaintiff was injured when she fell from a horse and again when she was forced into a borrow pit after a side-swipe incident.

In her deposition, plaintiff testified she was not in any accident other than the snowmobile and the March 12, 1981 incidents. At the trial, on cross-examination, she reversed herself and admitted the last two incidents of which she had not advised her doctors. From medical reports in evidence, the jury reasonably could have believed that plaintiff’s trouble stemmed from the original accident, accentuated by the last two, but not by that of March 12, 1981.

Under principles applicable in the appellate review process, we are impelled to affirm the jury verdict. Defendant appropriately cites the ease of *Watters v. Querry,*Utah, 626 P.2d 455 (1981). In that case, as here, the jury, was properly instructed *468on the issue of proximate cause. This Court held as follows:

> Ordinarily, the issue of proximate cause is a matter to be submitted to the jury for its determination....

> Once the jury has looked at the facts, weighed them, and made its decision based upon substantial, competent evidence, we are precluded from disturbing its findings. The issue of proximate cause was properly submitted to the jury. [Citations omitted.]

The rule was recently reaffirmed in *E.A. Strout Western Realty v. W.C. Foy & Sons,*Utah, 665 P.2d 1320 (1983).

The judgment and verdict are affirmed, without any award of costs on appeal.

ZIMMERMAN, J., does not participate herein.