alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte Edward McNEELY.

No. 35033.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 28, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1963.

Alan Haley, Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., and Carl E. F. Dally, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an extradition case.

The demand of the Governor of the State of Mississippi was not executed by him or anyone performing his executive functions as provided by Section 1 of Article 1008a (Uniform Criminal Extradition Act), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. The record is therefore void of “a statement of the Executive Authority of the demanding state that the person claimed” is subject to extradition, as is required by Section 3 of such Act.

This question does not appear to have been heretofore before this Court but was decided recently in McGahagin v. State, 131 So.2d 425 (1961), wherein the Alabama Court had before it a demand from the State of California signed “Edmund G.,” which the Court held could not be regarded as the official signature of the Governor of California. In the case at bar, the line for the signature of the Governor of Mississippi is blank, and therefore presents a stronger case than McGahagin.

Also, recently in Ex parte Harck, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 602, 274 S.W.2d 74, this Court held that where the record shows that in fact there was no demand from the Governor of Arizona the presumption as to the regularity of the Executive Warrant of the Governor of this State was overcome.

The order of the District Court is reversed, and appellant is ordered discharged.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1191 

KA 09-01256 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

JALETTE R. FAIN, ALSO KNOWN AS JALETTE FAIN,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

GARY A. HORTON, PUBLIC DEFENDER, BATAVIA (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered May 11, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 330

To amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to require producers of an agricultural

commodity for which an acreage limitation program is in effect to pay

certain costs as a condition of agricultural loans, purchases, and payments, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 1 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

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

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to require producers

of an agricultural commodity for which an acreage limitation program is in effect to pay certain costs as a

condition of agricultural loans, purchases, and payments,

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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Irrigation

5 and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 330 IS

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS UNDER ACREAGE

2 LIMITATION PROGRAMS.

3 Title I of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C.

4 1441 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the follow5 ing new section:

6 ‘‘SEC. 116. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS UNDER ACREAGE

7 LIMITATION PROGRAMS.

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If an acreage limitation program

9 is announced for a crop of a commodity under this title,

10 as a condition of eligibility for loans, purchases, and pay11 ments for the crop under this title, the producers on a

12 farm shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior an amount

13 that is equal to the full cost incurred by the Federal Gov14 ernment of the delivery to the farm of water that is used

15 in the production of the crop, as determined by the Sec16 retary of the Interior.

17 ‘‘(b) APPLICATION.—

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall not

19 apply to the delivery of water pursuant to a contract

20 that is entered into before January 1, 1996, under

21 any provision of Federal reclamation law.

22 ‘‘(2) RENEWAL OR AMENDMENT.—If a contract

23 described in paragraph (1) is renewed or amended

24 on or after January 1, 1996, subsection (a) shall
3

•S 330 IS

1 apply to the delivery of water beginning on the date

2 of renewal or amendment.’’.

Æ
Norflurazon Focus Meeting Contact Sheet 4/11/13 meeting with Syngenta

Name Organization Email

Harold Coble USDA Harold.coble@ars.usda.gov

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

Natalia Peranginangin Syngenta Natalia.peranginangin@syngenta.com

Richard Brain Syngenta Richard.brain@syngenta.com

Tracy White OPP/RD White.tracy@epa.gov

Mark Corbin OPP/EFED Corbin.mark@epa.gov

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

Ibrahim Abdel-Saheb OPP/EFED Abdel-saheb.ibrahim@epa.gov

Jihad Alsadek OPP BEAD Alsadek.jihad@epa.gov

Ana Rivera-Lupianez OPP/HED Rivera-lupianez.ana@epa.gov

William Donovan OPP/HED Donovan.william@epa.gov

Sunil Ratnayake OPP/BEAD Ratnayake.sunil@epa.gov

Jerry Wells Syngenta Jerry.wells@syngenta.com

Jeff Perine Syngenta Jeff.perine@syngenta.com

Jisu Bang Syngenta Jisu.bang@syngenta.com

Les Glasgow Syngenta Les.glasgow@syngenta.com

Dan Campbell Syngenta Dan.campbell@syngenta.com

Neil Anderson OPP/PRD Anderson.neil@epa.gov

Mike Metzger OPP/HED Metzger.michael@epa.gov

Michael Goodis OPP/PRD Goodis.michael@epa.gov

Tom Moriarty OPP/PRD Moriarty.thomas@epa.gov
ACCEPTED04-15-00673-CVFOURTH COURT OF APPEALSSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS10/29/2015 3:14:10 PMKEITH HOTTLECLERK04-15-00673-CV
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                     187,052,402
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,075,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    158,475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           188,741,690
<PP&E>                                      80,044,175
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,108,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             372,631,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,099,438
<BONDS>                                    217,766,403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,772
<OTHER-SE>                                 134,694,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               372,631,418
<SALES>                                      5,551,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,920,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,380,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (16,256,554)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (26,560,091)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (26,560,091)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (4,217,677)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (30,777,768)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 April 1, 2013

s0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146300

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146300

COA: 305931

Wayne CC: 11

- 000764

- FJ

DONTAY DANDRE BELL

- COOK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2012

judgment 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.
#### BRAZOS ELECTRIC POWER CO-OPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 02-5120, 02-5121.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 9, 2002.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
Exhibit 32.2

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 Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert H.B. Baldwin, Jr., 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, 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: May 9, 2008



/s/ Robert H.B. Baldwin, Jr.Robert H.B. Baldwin, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Curis, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael P. Gray, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Dated: April 28, 2011



/s/    MICHAEL P. GRAYMichael P. Gray Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




48
#### Maxie Wayne HART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38111.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 26, 1965.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1965.

Second Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1965.

*917Marion G. Holt, Nacogdoches, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Tried upon an indictment alleging an assault with intent to murder with malice, appellant was found guilty by the jury of aggravated assault and was assessed a term of 9 months in jail and a fine of $500.

The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for the lesser offense submitted to the jury in the court’s charge is not questioned.

The assault was alleged to have been made upon Tommy Hutto. He testified that appellant, without provocation, struck him with a blackjack and, during the ensuing encounter, fired several shots toward him with a pistol. Hutto’s testimony was corroborated by other witnesses for the state.

Appellant denied that he had a blackjack, or struck Hutto or that he fired his pistol at Hutto. His testimony was corroborated by a witness.

The jury resolved the fact issues raised by the testimony against appellant and there is evidence sufficient to sustain their verdict.

In his brief appellant presents as bills of exception his motion for mistrial and objection to the court communicating with the jury while they were deliberating.

There are no formal bills of exception. The complaints designated as bills of exception which relate to motions complaining that the trial judge received and answered certain communications from the jury present nothing for review, there being no certification by the court or showing in the record that any such message was in fact received by the court or answered.

The statement of a ground of objection is not a certificate of the judge that the facts that form the basis of the objection are true. 5 Tex.Jur.2d 330, Sec. 200. A motion for new trial is but a pleading and will not prove itself. 5 Tex.Jur.2d 265, Sec. 167.

The judgment is affirmed.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

MORRISON, Judge.

By supplemental transcript, appellant has called our attention to his bill of exception in which he complains of the court’s answer to a question from the jury. *918The written question was unsigned and read as follows: “Charles Phillips has disqualified himself as a Jurior (Juror) because of the cows he has on the Maxie Wayne Heart (Hart) land.. He does not feel he can make an impartial decision,” to which communication the court replied in writing, “Lady and Gentlemen, All 12 of you are qualified as jurors in this case. Please proceed with your deliberations; s/ Jack Pierce, Judge Presiding.”

The bill itself does not state sufficient facts to- show that error occurred, and since no evidence appears to have been adduced at the hearing on the motion for new trial, this Court is without authority to reverse this conviction because of the incompleteness of the bill. Peters v. State, 138 Tex.Cr. R. 613, 137 S.W.2d 1008.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 15, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 02-51131

____________

SANDRA VASQUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN SNOW, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Treasury,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. A-01-CV-508-SS

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 533 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.533

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
 To clarify the rules governing removal of cases to Federal court, 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. REMOVAL.

    The first sentence of section 1447(c) of title 28, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``any defect in removal procedure'' and 
inserting ``any defect other than lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT
32.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR




RULE
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the quarterly report of Renewable Energy Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig
Huffman, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, 2008
              By:
              /s/  
      Craig HuffmanCraig
      HuffmanActing
      Chief Executive Officer and
                Acting
      Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     Exhibit 12
 
                        HOMESTEAD VILLAGE INCORPORATED
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (Dollar amounts in thousands)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Year Ended December 31,
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        1998(1)  1997(1) 1996(1)  1995  1994(1)
                                        -------  ------- ------- ------ -------
<S>                                     <C>      <C>     <C>     <C>    <C>
Earnings (loss) from continuing
 operations............................ $(3,889) $ 5,771 $ 3,082 $2,851 $  974
Add: Interest expense, net.............  23,190    2,190   5,971  2,958  1,409
                                        -------  ------- ------- ------ ------
Earnings as adjusted...................  19,301    7,961   9,053  5,809  2,383
                                        -------  ------- ------- ------ ------
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense.....................  23,190    2,190   5,971  2,958  1,409
  Capitalized interest.................  25,315   69,747   4,365  2,143  1,039
                                        -------  ------- ------- ------ ------
    Total fixed charges................ $48,505  $71,937 $10,336 $5,101 $2,448
                                        -------  ------- ------- ------ ------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.....    0.40     0.11    0.88   1.14   0.97
                                        =======  ======= ======= ====== ======
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Earnings for these periods (years ended December 31, 1998, 1997, 1996 and
    1994) were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $29,204,000, $63,976,000,
    $1,283,000 and $65,000, respectively.
 
   For purpose of computing these ratios, "earnings" consist of earnings from
operations plus fixed charges other than capitalized interest. "Fixed charges"
consist of interest on borrowed funds (including capitalized interest) and
amortization of debt discount and expense.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 1, 2006 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 Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended October 1, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: November 15, 2006 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 





Exhibit 10.3.2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERCOMPANY AGREEMENT This Amendment (the Amendment), dated as of April 1, 2003, is made among
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation (MSH), a Maryland corporation, MeriStar
Hospitality Operating Partnership, L.P. (MSH OP), a Delaware limited
partnership, MeriStar Hotels Lessee, Inc. (Leasing and, together with MSH and
MSH OP, the MSH Parties), a Delaware corporation, Interstate Hotels &
Resorts, Inc. (OPCO), a Delaware corporation and formerly known as MeriStar
Hotels & Resorts, Inc., and MeriStar H&R Operating Company, L.P. (OPCO OP
and, together with OPCO, the OPCO Parties), a Delaware limited partnership. RECITALS WHEREAS:  A.
    
    MSH, MSH OP and the OPCO Parties entered into that certain
Intercompany Agreement (the Agreement), dated as of August 3,
1998, as amended January 1, 2001, whereupon Leasing became a party
to the Agreement.B.
    
    The Board of Directors of each of MSH and OPCO have
determined that it is in the best interests of their respective
corporations to amend the Agreement in light of the current
relationship between the corporations. NOW, THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows:  1.
    
    All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement
as such meanings may be modified hereby.2.
    
    Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the following:6. MeriStar Trademark. Effective April 1, 2003, the
OPCO Parties shall transfer, for consideration of $1.00, all
right, title and interest held by the OPCO Parties in and to the
name MeriStar, and all variants thereof, to MSH OP, and the OPCO
Parties shall have no further rights to use such names and shall
discontinue all use of such names.3.
    
    Section 7(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety.4.
    
    Section 7(c) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety.5.
    
    Section 8 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.6.
    
    As amended hereby, the Agreement is ratified and shall remain
in full force and effect.




---



##### 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date
first written above. MERISTAR HOSPITALITY COPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Jerome J. KraisingerName:
    
    Jerome J. KraisingerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President and General CounselMERISTAR HOSPITALITY OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.By:
    
    MeriStar Hospitality Corporation,
its general partnerBy:
    
    /s/ Jerome J. KraisingerName:
    
    Jerome J. KraisingerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President and General CounselMERISTAR HOTEL LESSEE, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Jerome J. KraisingerName:
    
    Jerome J. KraisingerTitle:
    
    Vice President and SecretaryINTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Christopher L. BennettName:
    
    Christopher L. BennettTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President and General CounselMERISTAR H&R OPERATING COMPANY, L.P.By:
    
    Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Christopher L. BennettName:
    
    Christopher L. BennettTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President and General Counsel