alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.4
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (a)
    
    The Form 10-K of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the period ended December 31,
2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.
 By:
    /s/ C. Reynolds Thompson, IIIC. Reynolds Thompson, IIIChief Financial Officer of Colonial Properties
Trust, the general partner of Colonial Realty
Limited PartnershipFebruary 26, 2010
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4446 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial 

Commission Act to extend the expiration date of the 

Commission, and for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4446 RFS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

2 The Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial 

3 Commission Act (Public Law 114–224) is amended— 

4 (1) in section 7(b), by striking ‘‘January 31, 

5 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘January 31, 2019’’; and 

6 (2) in section 10, by striking ‘‘September 30, 

7 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2019’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William J. Barnes, Jr., Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Further, because defendant failed to object to the court’s instruction on the affirmative defenses of extreme emotional disturbance and insanity, any errors in the charge have not been preserved for our review and we decline to reach them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15). Additionally, although those instructions could have been better phrased, reversal would not be warranted because the jury, hearing the whole charge, was given the correct rule to apply in considering those defenses *(see, e.g., People v Canty,*60 NY2d 830, 831-832).

Defendant also failed to preserve for our review the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury pursuant to CPL 60.55 (2) and we decline to reach that error in the interest of justice *(see, People v Kinitsky,*166 AD2d 456, *lv denied*77 NY2d 840). In any event, any error was harmless because defendant conceded at trial that he committed the double homicide and, therefore, there is no reasonable probability that, but for this error, the jury would have found that defendant did not *627commit the crimes charged *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Kinitsky, supra).*

We also find no merit to defendant’s contention that the trial court’s admission, over objection, of the People’s psychiatrist’s testimony constituted reversible error. Although it would have been preferable for the psychiatrist not to have referred to Penal Law § 40.15 in giving his expert opinion, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of that testimony *(see, People v Cronin,*60 NY2d 430, 433). We further find no merit to defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in prohibiting him from introducing testimony through a third party that, two to three months before the slayings, decedent Bucher had on three occasions told defendant of her infidelities. Defendant sought the introduction of that evidence to establish his mental state at the time of the homicides. That evidence was properly excluded because it was too remote. In any event, even if the witness’s testimony was improperly excluded, such error was harmless because there was no reasonable probability that, but for the exclusion of that evidence, the jury would have acquitted defendant *(see, People v Crimmins, supra).*

We have reviewed the remaining contentions raised by counsel and defendant, *pro se,*and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### Ex parte BEAM.

No. A-11864.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 24, 1952.

Orval Grim, Sáyre, O. E. Enfield, Arnett,, for petitioner. ■ > ■

*180Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, Judge.

This is an action in habeas corpus instituted'by C. R. Beam to secure his release from imprisonment in the county jail by the sheriff of Ellis County at; Arnett, where he is being confined pursuant to an extradition warrant issued by the Governor of Oklahoma directing that he be extradited to the State of Kansas to answer a charge of an alleged felony there pending against him in Franklin County.

The petitioner contends that the prosecution in the State of Kansas for uttering a false and bogus check was in bad faith and for the sole purpose of trying to collect a debt.

In Ex parte Scott, 91 Okl.Cr. 345, 219 P.2d 249, this court held:

> “To be a 'fugitive from justice’ within the meaning of the federal law deal? ing with extradition, it is sufficient that person legally charged in demanding state with commission of crime within such state when sought to be subjected to its criminal process for the offense, has left its jurisdiction and is found within the jurisdiction of asylum state upon whose execútive requisition is made.

> “Under provisions of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, House Bill No. 37, approved by Governor on March 25, 1949, 22 O.S.Supp. § 1141.1 et seq., the courts of Oklahoma may not inquire into the guilt or innocence of person seeking release from custody under extradition warrant or make any inquiry into the motives or purposes -of the prosecution.

> “Where extradition papers required' by statute are in proper form and extradition warrant has been issued by the Governor, the only evidence admissible - on habeas corpus to secure release from custody under the warrant of extradition is. such as may tend to prove that defendant was not in demanding state at time crime was allegedly committed, or that the person sought to be extradited is not actually the person charged with the crime in the demanding state.”

See also Ex parte Birch, 89 Okl.Cr. 417, 209 P.2d 510; and Ex parte Bledsoe, Okl.Cr.App., 227 P.2d 680.

Under the above decisions this court refused to hear evidence which questioned the motives of the prosecution. The proof introduced at the' hearing showed that petitioner was in the State of Kansas at the time of the' commission of the alleged offense and did execute the check in question. If petitioner had wished to question the good faith of the prosecution he should have done so at the hearing before the Governor prior to the issuance of the Governor’s warrant. After the extradition warrant was issued by the Governor, under the provisions of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 22 O.S.1951 § 1141 et seq., the legislature has forbidden an inquiry by the courts of Oklahoma into the motives or purposes of the prosecution in the demanding state.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.
# C_2010209EN.01003302.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2010 — Actega Terra v OHIM (TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss)

(Case T-118/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 209/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Actega Terra GmbH (Lehrte, Germany) (represented by: A. Andorfer-Erhard, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: S. Schnäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1467/2007-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Actega Terra GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Actega Terra GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JULY 30, 2012

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, 
July 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of 
proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, 
and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the 
day; that the majority leader be recognized; and that at 4:30 p.m., the 
Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of 
Robert Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth 
Circuit, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form prior to a cloture vote on the Bacharach nomination; 
further, that if cloture is not invoked on the Bacharach nomination, 
the Senate then resume legislative session and adopt the motion to 
proceed to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act; and finally, that if cloture 
is invoked on the Bacharach nomination, upon disposition of the 
nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and adopt the motion 
to proceed to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4404 GEORGE EDWARD JONES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-179) Submitted: May 6, 1997 Decided: May 22, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Brenda Craig Ellis, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Susan M. Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: George Edward Jones pled guilty to mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1994), and false representation of a Social Security number, 42U.S.C.A. § 408(a)(7)(B) (West Supp. 1997). The district court calculated an offense level of 15 and determined that Jones' nine criminal history points placed him in category IV, producing a sentencing range of 30-37 months.* Finding that category IV was inadequate, the court sua sponte departed upward to criminal history category VIalthough neither the probation officer nor the government had suggested that a departure would be appropriate. After establishing a new sentencing range of 41-51 months, the court imposed a sentence of 51 months. Jones appeals this sentence, contending that the district court erred in departing without giving him adequate notice and that the departure was not justified. We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. In Burns v. United States , 501 U.S. 129, 138 (1991), the Supreme Court held that a sentencing court may not depart upward for a reason not identified in the presentence report or a government motion as apossible ground for departure without first giving the defendant reasonable notice that it is considering departure on that specific ground. See also United States v. Maddox , 48 F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Maxton , 940 F.2d 103, 106 (4th Cir. 1991). B ecause Jones received no notice of a possible departure, Burns requires that he be resentenced. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.We express no opinion on the merits of the departure. Should the district court again wish to depart, it must give the parties reasonable advance notice that it may depart and the grounds for the departure being considered. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED

_________________________________________________________________ *United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 5A (Nov. 1995).
2
# C_2009312EN.01002801.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2009 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (Clina)

(Case T-150/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition Proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Clina - Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 312/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, A. Bognár and S. Schäffler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 (Case R 1484/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and REWE-Zentral AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders REWE-Zentral AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders REWE-Zentral AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, of 21.6.2008.

1

---
# Lackawanna - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance Executive Director Jeffrey Box Email &#160;&#x69;n&#x66;&#111;&#x40;&#110;e&#x70;a&#x2d;&#97;&#x6c;&#108;i&#x61;&#110;&#x63;&#101;&#46;&#x6f;r&#x67;The post Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 32          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFCIER
            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the quarterly Report of TheraBiogen, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Kelly T. Hickel, Chief Executive Officer and Robert
Hipple, Manager of CF Consulting, LLC, principal financial officer,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
Material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

December 5, 2008

/s/ Kelly T. Hickel
--------------------------------------
Kelly T. Hickel
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Robert Hipple
--------------------------------------
Robert Hipple, Manager
CF Consulting, LLC
Principal Financial Officer
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ R.H. DillonPrint Name: R.H. DillonTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 14, 2008/S/ James F. LairdPrint Name: James F. LairdTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 14, 2008
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          SENATE BILL REFERRED

  A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the 
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

       S. 3245. An act to extend by 3 years the authorization of 
     the EB-5 Regional Center Program, the E-Verify Program, the 
     Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and 
     the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program, to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary; in addition to the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce for a period to be subsequently determined 
     by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
     provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
     concerned.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

| | (1)
      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
      (2)
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: March 5,
      2008 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM         
|-------------------------- | -----------------------------
|                           | Steven D.
      Bonham       
|                           | Chief Financial
      Officer

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 required by Section 906,
has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2



RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, James A. Nattier, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2) of Dresser, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



|Date: December 11, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    James A. Nattier                 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | James A. Nattier Chief Financial
Officer
# C_2011055EN.01003402.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/34

---

Order of the General Court of 10 January 2011 — Coedo Suárez v Council

(Case T-3/08) (1)

1

2011/C 55/61

Language of the case: French

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---