alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40186

c/w No. 06-40196

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CELSO CHAVEZ-BALTAZAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-149

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed for Celso ChavezBaltazar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). ChavezBaltazar has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our

independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
No. 06-40186

c/w No. 06-40196

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
# C_2010113EN.01000401.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)) — Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-135/08) (1)

1

(Citizenship of the Union - Article 17 EC - Nationality of one Member State acquired by birth - Nationality of another Member State acquired by naturalisation - Loss of original nationality by reason of that naturalisation - Loss with retroactive effect of nationality acquired by naturalisation on account of deception practised in that acquisition - Statelessness leading to loss of the status of citizen of the Union)

2010/C 113/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Janko Rottmann

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 17 EC — Acquisition of the nationality of a Member State entailing the definitive loss of the nationality of the Member State of origin — Loss of the new nationality with retroactive effect as a result of deception in connection with its acquisition — Statelessness of the person concerned with the consequence of loss of citizenship of the Union

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

It is not contrary to European Union law, in particular to Article 17 EC, for a Member State to withdraw from a citizen of the Union the nationality of that State acquired by naturalisation when that nationality was obtained by deception, on condition that the decision to withdraw observes the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.

1

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: In re William H. Atwell, II

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 0 1066

- CV

Trial court case number: 463026

Trial court: Probate Court No. 3 of Harris County

Relator, William H. Atwell, II , file d a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the

Honorable Rory Olsen ’s September 5 , 2018 order denying relator’s M otion to Transfer Venue as well as relator’s Supplement to Motion to Transfer Venue and Mo tion for Entry of Ruling. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b), the Court “must abate the [original] proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 7.2(b).

The proceeding is ABATED and REMA NDED to the trial court. Within 15 days of the date of this order, relator is directed to obtain a hearing date, if necessary , from the trial court coordinator and to notify all parties of such date. The hearing shall be set for a date no later than 30 day s after the date of this order. The trial court coordinator shall advise the Clerk of this Court of the hearing date as soon as it is set

. Within 40 days of the date of this order, the district clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s record, if any, with the ruling by the successor, the Honorable Jason Cox

. This case is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. This original proceeding will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the succes sor respondent has reconsidered the original respondent’s decision and either party informs the Clerk of this Court of the ruling with a certified copy of the order. This Court will also consider a motion to reinstate by either party.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Justice Peter Kelly

___________________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ January 7, 201 9

_____
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Francis Truex, Defendant.

Justice’s Court, Town of Frankfort, Herkimer County,

August 7, 1959.

*Albert W. Schneider, District Attorney (Henry D. Blumberg*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Chester J. Winslow, Jr.,*for defendant.

George B. Murtaugh, J. P.

The defendant is presently before this court charged with a violation of subdivision 5 of section 70 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendant has moved, after arraignment, for an examination of the People’s witnesses under sections 8 and 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

*“*This motion has its rationale in a patent misconception on the part of defendant’s counsel concerning the preliminary procedural rights of a defendant charged with a misdemeanor ” *(People*v. *Dunn,*5 Misc 2d 1063). Preliminary examinations are covered by sections 188 through 221-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such sections are contained in part IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Part IV of the code relates to “ Proceedings in Criminal Actions Prosecuted by Indictment.” A misdemeanor under the Vehicle and Traffic Law is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Court of Special Sessions. (Code Crim. Pro., § 56, subd. 35.) A violation of subdivision 5 of section 70 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is not a criminal action prosecuted by indictment. No application for removal under sections 57 and 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having been made in this case, this court retains exclusive jurisdiction. *(People*v. *Cuatt,*70 Misc. 453, 457.)

*‘ ‘*Preliminary examinations can be granted by the justice in those cases only which Special Sessions cannot try, and in which the justice is obliged to discharge the defendant or send the case to the grand jury.” *(People*v. *Mullen,*66 Misc. 476, 479.) *“*Despite some dicta to the contrary in *People ex rel. Domens*v. *Warden, etc.*(154 App. Div. 728, appeal dismissed 209 N. Y. 519), I have never understood that there was any right to examine a complaining witness before trial except in a case *138involving an indictable offense ” *(Matter of Barber*v. *Richardson,*176 Misc. 210, 212).

The defendant’s motion for an examination of witnesses is, in all respects, denied.
Exhibit  32
-----------

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


     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Seamless  Wi-Fi, Inc (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  the  undersigned in the capacity and on the date indicated
below,  hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18  U.S.C.  Section  1350),  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.

Date:  February  9,  2006

/s/  Albert  R.  Reda
---------------------
Chief  Executive  Officer


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q/A-1 (the "Report") of
Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Colin Binny, 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.   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/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
January 20, 2010
# C_2008301EN.01001301.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-70/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/72/EC - Statute for a European Cooperative Society - Involvement of employees in the decision-making of the society - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 301/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 26, 2012

t1217 

# Order

December 26, 2012

145847

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145847

COA: 309770

Wayne CC: 11

- 007488

- FH

KENNETH LEBRON EDWARDS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM THE COMPANYS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>			6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>			JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>			JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>			DEC-31-1998
<CASH>				0
<SECURITIES>			0
<RECEIVABLES>			2,500
<ALLOWANCES>			0
<INVENTORY>				0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>			2,500
<PP&E>				0
<DEPRECIATION>			0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>			2,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>		0
<BONDS>				0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>		0
<PREFERRED>				2,090
<COMMON>				462
<OTHER-SE>				2,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	2,500
<SALES>				0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>			2
<CGS>					0
<TOTAL-COSTS>			38
<OTHER-EXPENSES>			0
<LOSS-PROVISION>			0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>		0
<INCOME-PRETAX>			2,239
<INCOME-TAX>			0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>		2,239
<DISCONTINUED>			0
<EXTRAORDINARY>			2,275
<CHANGES>				0
<NET-INCOME>			2,239
<EPS-PRIMARY>			.01
<EPS-DILUTED>			.01



</TABLE>
August 30, 2000

22586

#### State v. Stringert

Affirmed
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q (the "Report") of Amaru,
Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Colin Binny, 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.       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/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
November 16, 2009
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Premier Development & Investment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Eric R. Boyer, President and 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
12th day of August, 2004.



/s/ Eric R. Boyer
-------------------------------
Eric R. Boyer
President and CEO
Premier Development & Investment, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2570
GROVER L. DRUMMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Governor of Maryland, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-3765-1-BEL) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grover L. Drummond, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Grover L. Drummond appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Drummond v. Ehrlich , No. CA-04-3765-1-BEL (D. Md. filed Dec. 10, 2004 & entered Dec. 14, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1034 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court Street 

in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Charles Clark United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 21, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 

East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the 

‘‘Charles Clark United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHARLES CLARK UNITED STATES COURT4 HOUSE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

6 located at 501 East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, 

7 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Charles Clark 

8 United States Courthouse’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1034 IS

1 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub2 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

3 ‘‘Charles Clark United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Morgan, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered December 5, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On Thursday morning, just prior to closing arguments, Juror Number Four telephoned the court and indicated that he had an abscessed tooth, and that he could not come in, on that day or the next, but "might” be able to come in on Monday. Since the length of the juror’s absence was not fully ascertainable, but would be at least four days, the court properly denied the defendant’s request to adjourn the trial until the juror was able to return and instead seated an alternate juror *(see, People v Washington,*72 NY2d 69; *People v Lee,*155 AD2d 483; *People v McDonald,*143 AD2d 1050; *People v Lawrence,*143 AD2d 1045).

*185Further, in marshaling the evidence, the court did not summarize the evidence in an uneven or prejudicial manner *(see, People v Roman,*149 AD2d 305, 306). Nor did it suggest an opinion to the jury *(see, People v Bell,*38 NY2d 116). We also find that the court’s charge on burden of proof and reasonable doubt, when taken as a whole, properly conveyed the correct standard *(see, People v Scott,*118 AD2d 881, 882; *People v Fisher,*112 AD2d 378).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Abamectin Focus Meeting Contact Sheet 2/20/2013 meeting with Syngenta

Name Organization Email

Christine Olinger HED/OPP Olinger.christine@epa.gov

Steve Jarboe BEAD/OPP Jarboe.steve@epa.gov

Jessica Rogala RD/OPP Rogala.jessica@epa.gov

Laura Parsons PRD/OPP Parsons.laura@epa.gov

Nancy Dodd HED/OPP Dodd.nancy@epa.gov

Nancy Tsaur HED/OPP Tsaur.nancy@epa.gov

Nicholas Federoff EFED/OPP Federoff.nicholas@epa.gov

Whang Phang HED/OPP Phang.whang@epa.gov

Thomas Harris RD/OPP Harris.thomas@epa.gov

Shanna Recore HED/OPP Recore.shanna@epa.gov

James Parker BEAD/OPP Parker.james@epa.gov

Kris Garber EFED/OPP Garber.kristina@epa.gov

Brian Anderson EFED/OPP Anderson.brian@epa.gov

Khue Nguyen PRD/OPP Nguyen.khue@epa.gov

Claire Paisley-Jones BEAD/OPP Paisley-jones.claire@epa.gov

Roy Boykin Syngenta Roy.boykin@syngenta.com

Chuck Levey Syngenta Charles.levey@syngenta.com

Tammy Tyler Syngenta Tammy.tyler@syngenta.com

John Abbott Syngenta John.abbott@syngenta.com

Jay Overmyer Syngenta Jay.overmyer@syngenta.com
16847

#### State v. Eckenfels

Affirmed
#### Dollie BROWN, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12740.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 29, 1959.

*580Waldo E. Jones, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., J. Walker Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Dollie Brown was charged in the court of common pleas of Tulsa County with the sale of intoxicating liquor; was tried before a jury, convicted and punishment assessed at a fine of $50, and thirty days confinement in the county jail. Petition in error with casemade attached was filed in this Court on March 10, 1959. Brief in support was, under rules of Court, due to be filed within twenty days thereafter. The case was set for oral argument on the May 20, 1959 docket, but no one appeared to represent defendant, and no brief has been filed.

We have read the record in the case, and find the evidence supports the charge. The sale was for only half a pint of moonshine whiskey, at a price of seventy-five cents, but the jury assessed only the minimum punishment.

We find no fundamental error. There is a serious question as to the sufficiency of the motions and orders in perfection of the case for appeal to this Court that, under the circumstances, it is not necessary to detail. Suffice to say, under the uniform holdings of this Court, the case must be affirmed. See Livingston v. State, Old. Cr., 335 P.2d 937, and cases cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an Australian company (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year endedDecember 31, 2008 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: June 3, 2009