alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenneth Eugene LUMAN and James Haskell Luman, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

Nos. F-78-624, F-78-625.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 18, 1981.

Rehearings Denied Dec. 18, 1981.

James W. Fransein, Tulsa, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Michael Avant-Pybas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

ORDER CORRECTING OPINION

It has come to the attention of this Court that a correction should be made in the opinion issued for the above styled and numbered cause. The concluding paragraph in *Luman v. State,*629 P.2d 1275 (Okl.Cr.1981), appearing on page 1277 and beginning on line 23 reads:

> The final proposition of error is that the punishment was excessive. We find this argument to have merit only with respect to the fines imposed. Under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, 63 O.S.Supp.1980, § 2-101, *et seq.,*the applicable penalty section, 2-401 B.2, authorizes punishment up to ten (10) years’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the cultivation (manufacture) of marijuana. Therefore, in Case No. CRF-77-167 for Unlawful Cultivation of Marijuana, ten (10) years’ imprisonment each for James and Kenneth Luman was proper, but both the Ten Thousand Dollar ($10,000) fine for James and the Fifteen Thousand Dollar ($15,000) fine for Kenneth exceed the statutory maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000). Therefore, the fine portion of the sentences should be reduced to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) each. The judgments and sentences are therefore AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

NOW THEREFORE, this Court finds that the last paragraph should be and is hereby CORRECTED to read as follows:

> The final proposition of error is that the punishment imposed is excessive. As a result of the cultivation convictions, both appellants were sentenced to ten (10) years’ imprisonment; James Luman was fined Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and Kenneth Luman was fined Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000). For the possession with intent to distribute convictions, Kenneth Luman was sentenced to ten *473(10) years’ imprisonment to run consecutively with his other sentence; James Lu-man to five (5) years, to run concurrently with the other sentence.

> We find this proposition to be without merit as the sentences and fines imposed are within the statutory limits provided in 63 O.S.Supp.1980, § 2-509, Laws 1976, c. 259, § 16; and 63 O.S.Supp.1980, § 2-401, Laws 1975, c. 22, § 1.

The judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS and the Seal of this Court this 18th day of December, 1981.

TOM BRETT, P. J. HEZ J. BUSSEY, J. TOM R. CORNISH, J.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 430

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Pledge of Allegiance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 26, 2002

Mr. RILEY (for himself, Mr. POMBO, Mr. COX, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. SESSIONS,

Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. OTTER, Mr.

HAYWORTH, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HAYES, Mr. GREEN of

Wisconsin, Mr. AKIN, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. HERGER, Mr. RYUN of Kansas,

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr.

CRAMER, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. STEARNS, Mr.

FOLEY, Mr. PITTS, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. EVERETT, and Mr. THUNE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Pledge

of Allegiance.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Con3 gress opposes the ruling of a Federal appeals court that

4 the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorse5 ment of religion and cannot be recited in schools, because
2

•HCON 430 IH

1 the Pledge is a deeply embedded symbol of our Nation and

2 the freedoms we hold so dear.

Æ
391 A.2d 708

#### Ebersole, Appellant, v. Stratton.

Argued March 14, 1978.

Lester H. Zimmerman, Jr., with him Barron & Zimmerman, for appellant; Robert Siegel, with him Peter J. O’Donnell, for appellee.

Order affirmed.

HOFFMAN and PRICE, JJ., dissented.
# Official Journal C 122I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 122I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6315 April 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 122I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6315 April 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 122 I/01 | Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on COVID-19 in vitro diagnostic tests and their performance | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 122 I/01

Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on COVID-19 in vitro diagnostic tests and their performance

in vitro

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### FAA Docket No. FAA**- 2011**  **- 1170** 

**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  8 - 24 - 10 **Regional Airline Association Dave Lott**  **erer Connie**  **Arnold** 8 - 24 - 10

**Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  8 - 24 - 10 **ATA Joe White**  8 - 24 - 10
**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 Internet Acquisition Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 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: 

 

|   | 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/ Matt Lettau                                    |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Matt Lettau                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | Principal Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | August 9, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 231 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 231

_______________________________________________________________________

                         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 Thursday, September 20, 2001, 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 September 19, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 231

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a message from the 
                               President.
```
#### Anthony G. HARRIS, Receiver of Mobile Insurance Company, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert BRIGGS and Intermountain General Agency, Inc., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 16841.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 2, 1980.

The list of appearances of counsel for the report of this opinion, 621 P.2d 1244, is corrected as follows:

Jerry R. Kennedy of Christensen, Jensen, Kennedy & Powell, Salt Lake City, and Christopher M. Maisel, Austin, Texas, for plaintiff and appellant.

Lambertus Jansen, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.
**
Exhibit 12.1 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

I, Emiliano Kargieman, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Satellogic Inc.;

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 
4.
The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a- 15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 
 (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 
 (b)
[intentionally omitted]; 

 
 (c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 
 (d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 
**

5.
The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 
 (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 
 (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 29, 2022 

 
Signature: 
/s/ Emiliano Kargieman
Emiliano KargiemanChief Executive Officer
DENY; and Opinion Filed February 4, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00120-CV

No. 05-19-00121-CV

No. 05-19-00122-CV

IN RE MATTHEW REESE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-00306-P, F13-00723-P, and F13-60347-P

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Schenck

In this original proceeding, relator complains that the trial court has not ruled on relator’s 

September 18, 2017 “motion to rescind the stacking order.” We deny the petition.

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the 

trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. 

Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking 

relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to 

establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a certified or sworn copy” of 

certain documents, including any order complained of, any other document showing the matter 

complained of, and every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed 

in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). 
–2–

Here, the mandamus record does not include a certified or sworn copy of the trial court’s 

docket sheet or other proof that establishes relator brought the motion to the trial court’s attention, 

requested a hearing and/or ruling on the motion, and the trial court has failed to act on relator’s 

requests within a reasonable time. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). This record is insufficient 

to establish that the trial court was asked to rule but failed to do so within a reasonable time. As 

such, relator has not established a violation of a ministerial duty and is not entitled to mandamus 

relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) 

(the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

190120F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
From: Lydia W egman/RTP/USEPA/US To: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Joseph -J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marta Montoro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Jenkins/

Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/22/2010 10:45 PM Subject: Further thoughts on econ signif issue I think we should leave it as it is because I'm not honestly sure and I don't think I can reach Ron now. I don't think it hurts us to leave it as it is, do you?

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov> To: Lydia W egman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marta Montoro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph -J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Jenkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/22/2010 10:36 PM Subject: RE: Updated version of the NO2 final notice Lydia, does EPA want to retain "economically significant" designation in Secti on VIII? As strange as it seems to say this about a NAAQS, I don't believe this rule meets the definition. h

----- Original Message ----- From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:33 PM To: King, Heidi R.; Mancini, Dominic J. Cc: Curry.Bridgid@epamail.epa.gov; Montoro.Marta@epamail.epa.gov; Dougherty.Joseph - J@epamail.epa.gov; Jenkins.Scott@epamail.epa.gov; Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Fw: Updated version of the NO2 final notice Here's the track changes version. (See attached file: NO2 primary NAAQS - final (1 - 22 - 2010 track changes).doc.docx)
[No. 19040-1-II.

Division Two.

August 23, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Donald Eugene Earley, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 94-1-01360-2, Thomas L. Lodge, J., entered January 5, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Bridgewa-ter, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 448 Agreed to House (ATH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 448

Providing for a special meeting of the Congress in New York, New York, 
  on Friday, September 6, 2002, in remembrance of the victims and the 
heroes of September 11, 2001, in recognition of the courage and spirit 
            of the City of New York, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2002

   Mr. Armey (for himself and Mr. Gephardt) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a special meeting of the Congress in New York, New York, 
  on Friday, September 6, 2002, in remembrance of the victims and the 
heroes of September 11, 2001, in recognition of the courage and spirit 
            of the City of New York, and for other purposes.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, thousands of innocent people were killed and 
        injured in combined terrorist attacks involving four hijacked airliners, 
        the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon;
Whereas in the aftermath of the attacks, thousands more were left grieving for 
        beloved family and friends, livelihoods were compromised, and businesses 
        and property were damaged and lost;
Whereas the greatest loss of life, personal injury, and physical destruction 
        occurred in and was sustained by the City of New York;
Whereas Government and the American people responded decisively, through the 
        bravery, sacrifice and toil of the fire and rescue workers, law 
        enforcement, building trades, caregivers, Armed Forces, and millions 
        more who through their many expressions of care and compassion brought 
        forth comfort, hope, and the promise of recovery;
Whereas the City of New York attended to the aftermath of the destruction of the 
        World Trade Center with profound respect for the victims and compassion 
        to the survivors; and
Whereas the City of New York has invited the Congress to meet at the site of the 
        original Federal Hall, where the First Congress of the United States 
        convened on March 4, 1789: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in remembrance of the victims and the heroes of September 11, 
2001, and in recognition of the courage and spirit of the City of New 
York, the Congress shall conduct a special meeting in Federal Hall in 
New York, New York, on September 6, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT CARVER

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. '

'

'

'

'

' No . 08

- 12

- 00 300

- CR

Appeal from the

362 nd District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC# F

- 2010

- 2243

- D )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to represent himself on appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel has previously filed a brief in this case and he has not filed a motion

to withdraw. In order to determine whether Appellant is entitled to the relief requested in the

motion, we abate the appeal and remand the c ause to the trial court in order for the court to conduct

a hearing in compliance with Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45

L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and Hubbard v. State , 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). The trial

court is directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the following:

11. whether Appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. whether Appellant’s request to remove appointed counsel and represent himself on

appeal is an attempt to obstruct court procedure or interfere with the administration of

justice;

3. whether Appellant is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self

- representation on

appeal;

4. whether Appellant is aware that if he persists in his desire for self

- representation, the

brief previou sly filed by appointed counsel will be stricken and will not be considered

by the Court of Appeals for any purpose; and

5. whether Appellant’s decision to represent himself on appeal is competently and

intelligently made.

A transcription of the hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the court’s

findings and orders must be certified and filed in this Court by July 8, 2013

.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that deadline for these appeals are suspended pending further

order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of June, 2013

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.

2
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

I, Richard M. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of Baseline Oil & Gas Corp.,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2006 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Baseline
Oil & Gas Corp.

Dated: August 1, 2006


                                               /s/ Richard M. Cohen
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Richard M. Cohen
                                               Chief Financial Officer

A signed original 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.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00135

- CR

M ATTHEW R EGAN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 367th District Court

of Denton County ( F19

- 2862

- 367 )

February 25 , 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker