alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of A. L. C., a child under the age of 18 years.

No. J-77-191.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 18, 1977.

John T. Elliott, Public Defender, Oklahoma County, Major R. Wilson, Asst. Public Defender, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Andrew M. Coats, Oklahoma County, Dist. Atty., for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Appellant, A. L. C., previously adjudged a Delinquent and placed on probation, had his probation revoked in a redispositional hearing in the District Court, Juvenile Division, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, in Case No. JF-76-257, and was remanded to the custody of the Department of Institutions, Social and Rehabilitative Services. He has perfected this timely appeal.

Appellant’s probation was revoked on a charge of Burglary in the Second Degree. An agreed stipulation of facts shows that Daniel Night, chief of maintenance of an Oklahoma City apartment complex, testified that on November 17, 1976, the tenant in apartment 3245 N. Jordan was in the process of moving out and still had property inside the apartment. Night said he noticed a window was broken out and he heard voices from inside the apartment. Although he didn’t see the appellant he testified he recognized his voice from many conversations he had had with him regarding previous breakins. He said that when the appellant refused him entrance into the *660apartment he left to get his master key and to call the police. When he returned he said the appellant and others were in the vicinity of the apartment, but outside of it. He said he had not given the appellant permission to enter the apartment and was not sure but thought the tenant had turned in the key to the apartment.

As assignments of error the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence by arguing that the State failed to show the alleged breaking and entering occurred without consent of the tenant, failed to show the appellant intended to commit a felony, and contends that the identification of the appellant was faulty.

There was no evidence presented by the vacating tenant and no evidence that anything was missing from the apartment.

In *Morris v. State,*Okl.Cr., 547 P.2d 386 (1976) this Court said:

> “It is incumbent upon the State to prove the necessary criminal intent either by circumstantial or direct evidence.”

This Court finds this element totally lacking in the case at bar. There was no testimony from the person in control of the premises — apparently still the tenant as he had property inside the apartment and was in the process of vacating — that he had not given the appellant permission to enter. One might possibly infer an unauthorized breaking and entering from the broken window but there was no testimony as to how long the window had been broken, and again no testimony from the tenant of the apartment regarding the broken window.

In light of the above, we REVERSE AND REMAND this case for a new redis-positional hearing not inconsistent with this opinion.

BLISS and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
      32.2


**CERTIFICATION**
  **Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 **(Section
        1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
        Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhao
        Hongwei, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:
                May 15, 2008By:
              /s/ Zhao
                  HongweiZhao
                HongweiChief
                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.
  31
# C_2016202EN.01018101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/181 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/181

---

Article 311

(ex Article 269 TEC)

(ex Article 269 TEC)

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.

Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources.

The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down implementing measures for the Union's own resources system in so far as this is provided for in the decision adopted on the basis of the third paragraph. The Council shall act after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

---
National Organic Standards Board

Ad hoc GMO Committee

Proposal

Letter to the Secretary on GMOs

May 22, 2012

May 22, 2012

The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Secretary of Agriculture

US Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250

Dear Honorable Secretary Vilsack:

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) members appreciate the opportunity to 

carry out our authority under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) to provide 

advice on the development of organic standards and to determine substances for the

National List.

The NOSB accepts responsibility for making recommendations that pertain to "excluded 

methods" to ensure that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are prohibited in 

organic production and handling. To do this we have established an Ad Hoc Committee 

on GMOs. The NOSB, speaking for the organic community, believes the USDA’s 

actions on genetically engineered crops have been insufficient to protect the organic 

industry. 

Unsolicited public comments at many NOSB meetings since the rule came out in 2002 

have illustrated the extreme concern about the impact that continued deregulation of 

new genetically engineered crops has had on our community of organic farmers, 

handlers and consumers.

The NOSB ad hoc GMO committee will examine all the areas where GMO 

contamination poses a threat to organics and will provide leadership in clarifying what 

excluded methods actually are, and how compliance to the provisions of the rule can be 

monitored. We see the potential of contamination by genetically engineered crops as a 

critical issue for organic agricultural producers and the consumers of their products.

There are significant costs to organic producers and handlers associated with 

preventing this contamination and market loss arising from it.

Organic farmers must no longer be held solely responsible to prevent contamination 

from practices outside their control. We feel the developers of the GMO technology 

should share the burden that organic farmers now assume in mitigating the gene flow 

between farms and should compensate organic farmers for genetic drift. 
We intend to keep you informed of our recommendations on this and other GMO issues. 

We would like to open the door to continued dialogue with the USDA so that the 

responsibility to prevent GMO contamination of organics is shared by those who 

develop, use, and regulate this technology. USDA actions are critical to the integrity of 

the organic seal and consumer confidence.

Sincerely,

Barry Flamm

Chair of the National Organic Standards Board

c/o NOP office

Moved: Colehour Bondera Second Zea Sonnabend

Yes 15 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 0 Recuse 0
May 2, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROWENA MANUELA KLINKER, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00160-CR

NO. 14-12-00161-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be 

certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 (the “Report”),
I, L’Sheryl D. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer of 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:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report 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) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                   
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2014 |  | /s/ L’Sheryl D. Hudson                            
|                       |  | L’Sheryl D. Hudson
        Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1526 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1526

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, as the ``Eva G. 
                         Hewitt Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. EVA G. HEWITT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Eva G. Hewitt Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Eva G. 
Hewitt Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 17, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1526

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, as the ``Eva G. 
                         Hewitt Post Office''.
```
Order entered April 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00422-CV

ALAN D. GERTNER, IRA, Appellant

V.

HQZ PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-03044-H

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 16, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to 

file the clerk’s record TO THE EXTENT that the clerk’s record shall be filed by June 16, 2015. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 853 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 853

 To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to apportionments 
     under the Airport Improvement Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2015

  Mr. Smith of Nebraska (for himself and Mrs. Lummis) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to apportionments 
     under the Airport Improvement Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Airport Regulation Relief Act 
of 2015''.

SEC. 2. APPORTIONMENTS.

    Section 47114(c)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
                    ``(G) Special rule for fiscal years 2015 and 
                2016.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
                shall apportion to the sponsor of an airport under that 
                subparagraph, for each of fiscal years 2015 and 2016, 
                an amount based on the number of passenger boardings at 
                the airport during calendar year 2012 if the airport 
                had--
                            ``(i) fewer than 10,000 passenger boardings 
                        during the calendar year used to calculate the 
                        apportionment for fiscal year 2015 or 2016 
                        under subparagraph (A); and
                            ``(ii) 10,000 or more passenger boardings 
                        during calendar year 2012.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.7**

 

**CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY L.P.**

 

February 24, 2011

 

We hereby consent to the use of and reference to Ryder Scott Company L.P., and the information derived from our reports evaluating certain oil and gas properties of Nexen Inc. (the “Corporation”) located in the United States Gulf of Mexico, contained in the sections entitled “Reserves, Production and Related Information” and “Interests of Experts” in the Annual Information Form of the Corporation dated February 16, 2011, which is included in the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 40-F”), as described or incorporated by reference in: (i) the Form 40-F; (ii) the Corporation’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-119276, 333-118019 and 333-13574, (iii) the Corporation’s Registration Statements on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-142670, 333-142652 and 333-84786, and (iv) the Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-159551), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as applicable.

 
| /s/   Ryder Scott Company L.P.         |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
| RYDER   SCOTT COMPANY L.P.             |
| TBPE Firm Registration No. F-1580 |

 

1

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 30, 2019

t0422 

# Order

Clerk April 30, 2019

157360 & (42)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157360

COA: 335439

Kent CC: 15

- 010506

- FH

DARRIS ANTHONY PHARMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRA NTED. The

application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for articulation of its reason s for finding a

lack of merit in the questions presented in the defendant’s supplemental brief, filed under

AO 2004

- 6 (Minimum Standards for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services),

Standard 4, as part of his appeal of right. In all other respects, leave to appeal is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 10.0
                Letter of May 25, 2000 referring to Exhibit 10.


                               STUART G. SCHWARTZ
                                 ATTORNEY AT LAW
                            299 BROADWAY, SUITE 1600
                              NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007
                            TELEPHONE (212) 385-0668


                                                        May 25, 2000


Steven C. Duvall, Esq.
Assistant Director
Division of Corporate Finance
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549-0404

Re: Hawks Industries, Inc. - Proxy Statement

Dear Mr. Duvall:

     At the request of Dwight B. Despain, Esq., counsel to Hawks Industries,
Inc. ("Hawks"), there are submitted herewith, as supplemental material, three
copies of the agreement dated May 27, 1997 between Doyon, Limited and North Star
Exploration, Inc., (to which I am counsel), as requested in comment 3 of your
(per Timothy Levenberg) letter of comment dated May 12, 2000 addressed to Bruce
A. Hinchey, president of Hawks.

     Since the agreement contains private information the disclosure of which to
the public could prove harmful to the parties, it is respectfully requested that
the documents submitted herewith be granted confidential treatment.

                                                        Yours very truly,

                                                        /s/ Stuart G. Schwartz
                                                        Stuart G. Schwartz

Encls.

Via Federal Express
!Ii
%V^ £*d ^ ^ MP**** c^d-Jy

/in .£^^4/ -fcL^ £~ fry /t> ^n^Apmfa/o AW'^V CLa/c S*t*d. Xfrttt. £*- ty*5

Wit-31 J^ksH^-^* ^fy^L

„^crtnr\

'60s*—
April 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ESTEBAN SANCHEZ, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00250-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 31.4



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Raymond F. Lancy, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Bridgford Foods Corporation; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No.1 to Annual Report does 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 Amendment No.1 to Annual Report.



Date: February 27, 2017



|/s/
    RAYMOND F. LANCY                                                 | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Raymond F. Lancy                                                         | 
|Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, Treasurer & Assistant Secretary | 
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                             |
#### Timothy Charles PROCK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-77-211.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 13, 1977.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

WHEREAS, this is an appeal from the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-76-630, wherein Appellant was convicted for the crime of Robbery with Firearms and was sentenced to serve fifty (50) years’ imprisonment;

AND WHEREAS, on this 13th day of September, 1977, the Court being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, having escaped from custody, has waived all error raised in his appeal. See, *Brinlee v. State,*Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 343 (1973) and *Brinlee v. State,*Okl.Cr., 554 P.2d 816 (1976). The mere fact that a Motion to Dismiss was not filed by the State until after his recapture does not change *474the character of his deed. The act of escape “disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims.” *Molinaro v. New Jersey,*396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).

NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with *Brinlee v. State,*Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 343 (1973), the Court finds that this appeal should be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, that the above styled and numbered cause be, and the same is hereby, DISMISSED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 13th day of September, 1977.

(s) HEZ J. BUSSEY, PRESIDING JUDGE

(s) TOM BRETT, JUDGE
# Alabama_county_differentials_20