alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marcus Neil SALTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 33873.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1961.

*886Louis A. Caso, Galveston, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, 4 years.

The transcript contains no bills of exception.

The statement of facts forwarded to this Court does not bear the approval of counsel for the state or the appellant or his counsel, and has not been approved by the court, hence cannot be considered. Art. 759a, Sec. 1, subd. E, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Baird v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 589, 288 S.W.2d 67.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

DICE, Commissioner.

In affirming the judgment of conviction on original submission, we did not consider the statement of facts because it did not bear the approval of counsel for the State or the appellant or his counsel and had not been approved by the court.

Appellant, in his motion for rehearing, requests us to reconsider our opinion upon the basis of certain statements in a letter addressed to this Court, by the Clerk of the trial court, in which he accepts “partial responsibility” for the statement of facts being transmitted to this Court without having been approved, as required by Sec. 1, subd. E of Art. 759a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

 It is the duty of counsel for an appellant, to see that a statement of facts not agreed to by counsel for the State and the appellant or his counsel, as provided in said Art. 759a, Sec. 1, subd. E, supra, is presented to the trial judge and to follow it up and see that it is approved and filed in time. When such duty is delegated to others, both the attorney and the appellant are bound by any negligence or laches of their agents. 4 Tex.Jur., par. 309, page 446; Teague v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 83, 253 S.W.2d 276. An appellant is also charged with the same duty. Fleming v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 279 S.W.2d 340. The duty prescribed is not shown to have been discharged by appellant or his counsel in the present case.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<PAGE>


                            OPNET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

                            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 OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
W. Kuhn, 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 result of operations of
       the Company.


/s/ Joseph W. Kuhn

Joseph W. Kuhn
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2002
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-KAnnual Report of Mandalay Resort Group (the "Company") for the annual period ended
January 31, 2004 filed 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
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
April 14, 2004

| |  | /s/GLENN SCHAEFFERGlenn Schaeffer, President and Chief Financial Officer of Mandalay Resort
Group
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### Elbert “Bub” CHANDLER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 21, 1956.

*718Ed. H. King, Paintsville, for appellant.

Jo iM. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Chief Justice.

The appellant, Elbert “Bub” Chandler, was convicted of selling whisky in local option territory in violation of KRS 242.230 (1) and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and thirty days in jail. The jury had returned a verdict merely fining the appellant $50, but was sent back to the jury room with instructions that a jail term of not less than thirty nor more than sixty days was mandatory under the statute if a verdict of guilty was rendered.

The jury’s mistake was caused by an error in the instructions of the trial judge who inadvertently used “or” when he should have used “and.” He had told the jury that it could fine “or” imprison the accused if it found him guilty, whereas the statute fixes the punishment at both a fine “and” imprisonment. While it may appear at first blush sensible for the court to send the jury back to correct its verdict, reflection indicates that, as stated by Judge Pryor in 1890 in Roberts v. Commonwealth, 90 Ky. 654, 14 S.W. 832, 833, 12 Ky.Law Rep. 681, “ * * * it is sufficient to say that the jury might have returned a different verdict from either of the findings made, if they had been properly instructed in the first instance.” In other words, if the jury considered the Commonwealth’s case rather weak, it might not have found Chandler guilty had it known a prison term was mandatory. The court, finding the instruction it had given to be erroneous, should have permitted the verdict to be entered and set it aside granting the appellant a new trial.

Other points raised for reversal are not discussed.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
Exhibit 99.1

Co-Registrant (Commission File Number 000-30761):

UbiquiTel Inc.
One West Elm Street
Suite 400
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428

Co-Registrant (Commission File Number 333-39950):

UbiquiTel Operating Company
One West Elm Street
Suite 400
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald A. Harris, Chief Executive Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel
Operating 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 UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating
Company.

| |  | UBIQUITEL INC.                                        
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/DONALD A. HARRIS                                   
| |  | Donald A. Harris
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | UBIQUITEL OPERATING COMPANY                           
| |  | /s/DONALD A. HARRIS                                   
| |  | Donald A. Harris
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | November 13, 2002                                     

---
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No.333-76584, No. 333-69614, No. 333-52081, No. 333-72037, No. 333-48384 and No. 333-122223; and FormS-8 No. 333-85244, No. 333-63116, No. 333-15947,No. 333-62039,  No. 333-92169 and No. 333-128525) of AradigmCorporation of our report dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the financial statements of AradigmCorporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPPalo Alto, CaliforniaMarch 30, 2006
**EXHIBIT      32**

**Certification      of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|                                                                                      |   |   |                                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Donald              R. Uzzi                                                      |   |   | /s/ Allyson              Vanderford                                         |
|                                                                                           |   |   |                                                                                  |
| Name:              Donald R. UzziTitle: Chairman and Chief Executive              Officer |   |   | Name:              Allyson VanderfordTitle: Chief Financial              Officer |
Future Electronics

www.fut-elctronics.com Page 1

Ardupilot APM 2.6 simplified setup

APM:Plane Setup

You can setup and running APM 2.6 BY Mission Planner in few Minutes just follow the steps 

below.

Download and Installing Mission Planner software

Download the Mission Planner (here)

Begin running the installation utility, it will install the necessary drivers.

If you receive the warning pictured here, select install this driver software anyway to continue.
Future Electronics

www.fut-elctronics.com Page 2

Connect APM to computer

Once you’ve downloaded Mission Planner onto your ground station computer, connect APM to your 

computer using the micro USB connector and APM’s micro USB port. 

Windows will automatically detect APM and install the correct driver software.

Connect APM to Mission Planner

Next we’ll let Mission Planner know which port we’re using to connect to APM. In Mission 

Planner, use the drop-down menus in the upper-right corner of the screen (near the Connect 

button) to connect to APM. Select Arduino Mega 2560 and set the Baud rate to 115200 as 

shown. Don’t hit Connect just yet.
Future Electronics

www.fut-elctronics.com Page 3

Select firmware

Now we’ll select which firmware to download to APM; by clicking the corresponding icon: Quad, Hexa, Y6, 

plane, rover, or other. The firmware screen will not appear if you have already selected Connect, so 

ensure that Mission Planner shows a disconnected icon in the upper-right corner to access the firmware.

Once you select your frame, Mission Planner will automatically detect the latest firmware version for 

your craft and prompt you to confirm the download. Select Yes to download the firmware onto APM. 

When the download status reads Done, your firmware download is complete.
Future Electronics

www.fut-elctronics.com Page 4

Connect to MavLink

Select Connect (upper-right corner of the screen) to load MavLink parameters to APM.

When the window displays Done and Mission Planner shows the Disconnect option in place 

of Connect, your APM firmware has been downloaded successfully.
Future Electronics

www.fut-elctronics.com Page 5

 Installing the 3DR UBlox GPS + Compass Module

Connecting to APM 2.6

3DR uBlox GPS with Onboard Compass is compatible with APM 2.6 and includes two cables: the 

compass I2C cable is 4-position and the GPS cable is 6-position-to-5-position cable or can 6 to 6 position. 

If it 6 to 5, connect it to the upper GPS port (new GPS style port. If it is 6 to 6, connect it to the side GPS 

port (old style GPS port). 

Once GPS is connected, you will see , the “No GPS” message on the upper left corner (the green box in pic 

below) will change to “GPS not FIX”. Wait for less than one minute for GPS to collect data from satellites and it 

will change to “GPS FIX”, the GPS is working now. Please note that the GPS antenna better be directed to sky 

(outdoor) for easy GPS start.
Future Electronics

www.fut-elctronics.com Page 6

Setup the Compass in Mission Planner

Just follow the figures below:- 
Future Electronics

www.fut-elctronics.com Page 7
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 482 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 482

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EMERALD 
                                 AYES.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              March 2 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

 Mr. Hollings (for himself and Mr. Thurmond) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EMERALD 
                                 AYES.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106 and 12107 
of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may 
issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for 
the vessel EMERALD AYES, United States official number 986099.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2018

No. 04-18-00029-CV

AUTOBUSES ZAVALA PLUS,

Appellant

v.

Maria Torres MARTINEZ,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CI02517

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Time is extended to November 19, 2018. Further requests for extension of time will be 

disfavored.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b). 

1. Case No. SD32911 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

 v. 

 DAVID MICHAEL HAMILTON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.
EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF SHARES USED IN COMPUTING BASIC AND DILUTED NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>


                                                       Year ended December 31,
                                                     1999       1998       1997
                                                   -----------------------------
        <S>                                        <C>       <C>        <C>
        Net Loss                                   $ (786)   $(1,800)   $(1,116)
        Basic and  Diluted Net Loss
        Per Share:
        Weighted Average SharesUsed in Computing
         Per Share Amounts                         16,529     16,274     14,007
                                                  -------    -------    -------
        Basic and Diluted Net Loss Per Share       $(0.05)    $(0.11)    $(0.08)
                                                  -------    -------    -------

</TABLE>




Note:  Options to purchase 1,523,489, 1935,976, and 248,342 shares of common
stock were outstanding as of December 31, 1999, 1998, and 1997, respectively,
and were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because
of the Company's net losses for those years.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of ICG Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to
his knowledge on the date hereof:



|Date: April 1, 2004 |  | /s/JEFFREY R. PEARLJeffrey R. Pearl Interim
Chief Executive Officer                                                           
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 1, 2004 |  | /s/RICHARD E. FISH, JR.Richard E. Fish, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6829

STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND,

Party in Interest - Appellant,

and

ALLEN MCRAE; CHARLES STEVENSON; PATRICK

LAHENS; DENNIS BLYDEN; DAVID EVICK, JR.;

RASHID QAWI AL-AMIN,

Plaintiffs,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, in his official capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-164-3)

Submitted: September 1, 2004 Decided: October 28, 2004

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
- 2 -

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Stephen E. McClelland, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Joel

Christopher Hoppe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Stephen E. McClelland appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to intervene filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 24. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion

in the district court’s denial of relief. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s denial of McClelland’s motion for intervention

as of right under Rule 24(a) for the reasons stated by the district

court. See McClelland v. Johnson, No. CA-03-164-3 (E.D. Va.

Apr. 20, 2004). We dismiss the appeal from the district court’s

denial of McClelland’s motion for permissive intervention under

Rule 24(b). See Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R.

Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524 (1947) (“Ordinarily, in the absence of an

abuse of discretion, no appeal lies from an order denying leave to

intervene where intervention is a permissive matter with the

discretion of the court.”). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
**Exhibit14**

 

Code of Business Conductand Ethics

 

NVE has and will continue to uphold the highest levels of businessethics and personal integrity in all types of transactions and interactions. Tothis end, this Code of Ethics serves to (1) emphasize the Company’s commitmentto ethics and compliance with the law; (2) set forth basic standards of ethicaland legal behavior; (3) provide reporting mechanisms for known or suspectedethical or legal violations; and (4) help prevent and detect wrongdoing.

 

The values embodied in the NVE Corporation Code of Ethics are meant toguide the business decisions of our organization. The Code of Ethics tells usthat we should strive to be trustworthy, to respect all people, to beresponsible to our constituents and publics, fair in our dealings, and caringof the people we affect.

 

This Code of Ethics will apply to all officers, directors and employeesof the Company.

 

NVE Code of Ethics

It is the responsibility of all employees to adhere to the followingprinciples:

 

1. We will always be honest and truthful.

 

2. We will adhere to the letter and the spirit of all applicablegovernmental laws, rules and regulations.

 

3. We will handle all actual or apparent conflicts of interest betweenpersonal and professional relationships in an ethical manner.

 

4. All public filings will contain full, fair, accurate, timely, andunderstandable disclosure.

 

5. All public communications will include full, fair, accurate, timelyand understandable disclosure.

 

6. All employees will promptly report to the Audit Committee of theBoard of Directors any violations of this Code.

 

7. We will protect employees who report violations of this code fromunfair and undo repercussion by those accused.

 

8. All employees will be held accountable for adherence to this Code.

 

Adopted by the Board of Directors of NVE Corporation April 19, 2004.

 

 
| /s/ Daniel A. Baker |   |
|---------------------|--------|
| Daniel A. Baker     |
| President and CEO   |

 

----
##### 



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
  (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 10, 2006
    
    By: /s/ Robert E. BiesRobert E. BiesExecutive Vice-President andChief Financial Officer
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00486- CR K e vin Br ya n Bol ding , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-05 -30 0409 , HO NORAB LE JON N. WIS SER, JUDGE PRESI DING

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Kevin B ryan B olding se eks to appea l f rom a judgment of convic tion for forg ery . The trial court ha s cer

tified that this is a plea

barg ain ca se and B olding ha s no right of appe al. SeeT e x. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) . The a ppeal is dismissed. Se eid . rule 25.2(d) .

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Puryear Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: September

30, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh