alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Avery Eugene McCLAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-79-687.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 6, 1981.

Ralph D. Huchteman, Norman, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., William Roy Holton, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, Avery Eugene McClain, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted in a non-jury trial in the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CRF-78-444, for the offense of Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, After Former Conviction of a Felony, pursuant to 63 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 2-401 (B)(1), and 21 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 51. On May 29, 1979, he was sentenced to four (4) years’ *381imprisonment, and a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) and court costs. From said judgment and sentence, the defendant filed this timely appeal.

Briefly stated, the evidence adduced at trial indicated that on July 22, 1978, the defendant and another individual identified as “Tom” were standing beside a station wagon in the parking lot of the Bunny Club when Officer Guyton drove upon the scene. The defendant was holding a “zip-lock” plastic bag in his hand. Upon noticing the police car, the defendant scrambled to hide away the bag, subsequently placing it underneath the rear wheels of a nearby car. He then went into the club. The officer proceeded to the vehicle and recovered a one-pound bag of marijuana valued between $300.00 and $500.00, and sufficient to produce approximately sixteen individual “baggies.” In his own defense, the defendant also testified that he was trying to obtain the marijuana for later use with his girlfriend.

On his sole assignment of error, the defendant asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove any intent to distribute marijuana. We disagree.

In *King v. State,*562 P.2d 902, (Okl.Cr.1977), we sustained a conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute upon evidence that the defendant was found to be in possession of approximately one-half pound of marijuana. Again, in *Goodner v. State,*546 P.2d 653, 657, (Okl.Cr.1976), we stated:

> It is abundantly clear from the ordinary and accepted meaning of the word “distribute” that a distributor is not merely one who deals or sells, but that the term is synonymous with “dividing” or sharing or “delivery” with or without compensation.

By his own statement, the defendant was “caught holding the bag” of about one-pound of marijuana, his stated purpose being to share the substance- with his girlfriend. His admission of possession, the quantity possessed, and the purpose of the possessor all bring this case within the definition articulated in *Goodner,*and the quantitative standard established in *King.*Consequently, the convergence of the peculiar facts of this case provide the indisputable evidence upon which the trier of fact properly predicated this conviction. For this reason we find this assignment of error to be completely without merit, and the judgment and sentence appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and CORNISH, J., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 25, 2010 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Grebe,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /S/ MICHAEL J. GREBE                                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael  J. Grebe                                             |   |
| Chairman  of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |   |
| August  2, 2010                                               |   |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1



                       DESCRIPTION OF EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN

The Company's Board of Directors adopted a bonus plan covering eight executives
of the Company including the CEO. The plan would award a cash bonus and an award
of options to each executive provided certain performance goals are met for the
Company's 2005, 2006, and 2007 fiscal years. The bonus plan is in lieu of all
other bonus awards for the three fiscal years. The maximum aggregate award under
the plan to any individual for the three-year period is one hundred per cent of
2005 base salary and one option for each dollar of 2005 base salary; all options
would be exercisable at fair market value on the date of grant. A certain
percentage of the maximum bonus award and option grant will be earned each year
if the performance goals are met in that year. The Board of Directors may make
changes to the Plan in its sole discretion.





Page 17 of 20
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Natalie Ausbie Reynolds, Appellant

No. 06-15-00194-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 354th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 29263). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Natalie Ausbie Reynolds, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 30, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6574]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XB083


Endangered Species; File No. 15672

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Molly Lutcavage, Ph.D., University 
of Massachusetts, Amherst, 108 Main Street, Gloucester MA 01930 has 
been issued a permit to take leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys 
coriacea) for purposes of scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:

Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 
(301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376; and
Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; 
phone (978) 281-9328; fax (978) 281-9394.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colette Cairns or Amy Hapeman, (301) 
427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 26, 2011, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (76 FR 23305) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take leatherback sea turtles had been submitted by 
the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under 
the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, 
importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 
parts 222-226).
    The five year permit authorizes Dr. Lutcavage to conduct research 
to characterize the distribution, movements and dive behavior of 
leatherback sea turtles in the waters of New England. Researchers may 
take up to 25 leatherback sea turtles annually that have been 
disentangled from fishing gear by a stranding network or captured with 
a breakaway hoopnet. Turtles would be measured, weighed, photographed 
and videotaped, flipper and passive integrated transponder tagged, 
blood, tissue, and fecal sampled, cloacal, oral, and nasal swabbed, 
tagged with an electronic transmitter, and released.
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth 
in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-6574 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BLACKWATER MIDSTREAM CORP. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Donald St. Pierre, Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


November
      12, 2009
              
              By:/s/ Donald St. PierreDonald
      St. Pierre, Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 299 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 299

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the House of 
Representatives on Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 9 p.m., for the 
purpose of receiving such communication as the President of the United 
States shall be pleased to make to them.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 23, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 299

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a message from the 
                  President on the state of the Union.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 32 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 32

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, 
February 14, 2001, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 
26, 2001, and that when the House adjourns on Monday, February 26,
2001, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 27, 
2001, for morning-hour debate, or until noon on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate 
recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, February 15, 
2001, or Friday, February 16, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, February 26, 2001, or 
until such time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader 
or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on 
the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 14, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
SERVED: MARCH 19, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0046 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012-GL-03-0012) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on-the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Charles R. Barnett III, Respondent's Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

TEL: 847-809-9520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Jeanette B. Daubaras, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, AL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-004.6 

(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 2Wl000, Washington, 

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

-2-
**Exhibit 31.1**

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

​

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2021-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

​

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

​

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing, and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

​

4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

​

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

​

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

​

​

| ​                | ​ | ​                                     |
|------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 26, 2024 | By:     | */s/ Rajesh Kalathur*                       |
| ​                | ​ | Rajesh Kalathur                             |
| ​                | ​ | President of John Deere Capital Corporation |
| ​                | ​ | (as Servicer)                               |

​

----
#### William JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-81-473.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 30, 1982.

*876David L. Miller, Asst. Public Defender, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Appellate Crim. Div., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, William Johnson, was convicted upon trial by jury in Oklahoma County District Court for two counts of Robbery with Firearms. He was sentenced to seven and one-half years’ imprisonment on each count, said sentences to run concurrently, and he appeals.

At 8:30 a.m., on February 5, 1981, a McDonald’s hamburger store in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was robbed at gunpoint. Two men wearing ski masks took money from several cash registers and a five-dollar bill which had been placed on the counter by a customer. A description and tag number of the robbers’ automobile was relayed to Oklahoma City Police; it was stopped by police shortly thereafter. The four occupants of the automobile, one of which was the appellant, were apprehended. Two McDonald’s money sacks, ski masks and guns were recovered from the automobile.

The appellant subsequently confessed to his participation in the robbery. The confession was admitted against him at trial.

Count one of the information charged the appellant with the armed robbery of the McDonald’s store. Count two charged him with robbing the customer of the five dollars she had placed on the counter. The appellant’s sole allegation of error questions whether count two actually constituted a separate crime and, alternatively, argues that proof of count two constituted inadmissible evidence of other crimes.

We do not agree with either of the appellant’s contentions. The acts of the appellant and his accomplice(s) constituted two separate, yet intertwined offenses. Clearly the robbery of the McDonald’s cash registers comprised one count of robbery with firearms. The taking of the five-dollar bill from the counter amounted to a robbery of the customer, not McDonald’s. The money had been tendered by the customer, however, it had not been accepted by the agent for McDonald’s in exchange for food. No change had been made, nor was the bill in the hands of the clerk. The offer thus not having yet been accepted, the five-dollar bill belonged to the customer.

Having established that two separate armed robberies occurred during the episode, we hold that the prosecutor properly alleged them as separate counts of a single information. The crimes stemmed from the same transaction or series of transactions and should have been charged together. *Dodson v. State,*562 P.2d 916 (Okl. Cr. 1977); *Chaney v. State,*612 P.2d 269 (Okl. Cr. 1980); 22 O.S. 1981, § 436 et seq. All the evidence necessary to prove the first count was the same necessary to prove the second. A significant amount of time, expense and effort on all parties involved was saved by the joinder, with no prejudice to the appellant. *Dodson,*supra;*Chaney,*supra. There was no error. AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., and CORNISH, J., concur.
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 Lotus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Liu Zhong Yi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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/ Liu Zhong Yi
 Liu Zhong Yi, CEO, President,
 and principal executive officer
  February 19, 2008  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
[Cite as Dagg v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-4224.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

DAVID DAGG 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

Case No. 2010-01808-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 1} On January 28, 2010 and March 16, 2010, plaintiff was ordered to either 

pay the $25 filing fee or to file a poverty statement. Plaintiff has failed to comply with 

the court order. Therefore, plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant 

to Civ.R. 41(B)(1). The court shall absorb the costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

cc: 

David Dagg Ohio Department of Transportation 

47 N. Monroe Avenue 1980 West Broad Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43203 Columbus, Ohio 43223 

DRB/laa 

Filed 5/5/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 9/2/10