alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MT. VERNON TELEPHONE CO., Appellant, v. William M. PATRICK, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 21, 1956.

Louis Cox, Hazelrigg & Cox, Frankfort, for appellant.

John P. Allen, Mt. Vernon, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion by the Mt. Vernon Telephone Company for an appeal from a judgment of the Rockcastle Circuit Court, in favor of William M. Patrick, for $647.21, representing an award for damage to Patrick’s automobile in a highway collision. It is contended there was not proper proof of damages.

The proof showed only the market *value*of the car before the collision, and the cost of repairs. The verdict was for the cost of repairs, which was some $50 less than the pre-collision value. It was error for the court not to require proof as to the market value of the car immediately after the collision. However, we feel that this error was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant because the nature and extent of the damages were such as to warrant the conclusion that the car had only a junk value in its damaged condition.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10104-10105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02869]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: (24-008)]


Heliophysics Advisory Committee; Space Weather Council; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a 
meeting of the Space Weather Council (SWC). The SWC is a subcommittee 
of the Heliophysics Advisory Committee, which functions in an advisory 
capacity to the Director, Heliophysics Division, in the NASA Science 
Mission Directorate. The meeting will be held for the purpose of 
soliciting, from the science community and other persons, scientific 
and technical information relevant to program planning.

[[Page 10105]]


DATES: Thursday, February 22, 2024, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; and Friday, February 
23, 2024, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. eastern time.

ADDRESSES: Meeting will be virtual. See Webex and dial-in information 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Karshelia Kinard, Science Mission 
Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#254e4457564d40494c440b4e4c4b445741654b4456440b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb4beadacb7bab3b6bef1b4b6b1beadbb9fb1beacbef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will only be available by Webex 
or dial-in for members of the public. Any interested person may join 
via Webex at https://nasaenterprise.webex.com, the meeting number is 
2761 312 2137, and the password is SWCWinter2024! (case sensitive), 
both days. To join by dial-in telephone call, use US Toll +1-415-527-
5035 (Access code: 2761 312 2137), both days, to participate in this 
meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

<bullet> Discussion of Space Weather Council future advisory topics and 
activities such as:
    [cir] Coordination of Space Weather Council with Other Space 
Weather Groups
    [cir] Space Weather Science and Modeling Gap Analysis
    [cir] Space Weather and Deep Space Exploration
    [cir] Research to Operations to Research Process

Patricia Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024-02869 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin W. Greenwald certify in my capacity as the Principal Financial Officer, 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, as amended, and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed as of October 18, 2010.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Martin W. Greenwald    
|Principal Financial Officer

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



33
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2006

GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BENEFICIAL/HOUSEHOLD MEMBER HSBC GROUP;

GLASSER AND GLASSER LAW FIRM,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 05-2007

GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF LOGAN PARK, Logan Park

Group Corporation; GEORGE PASTOR GEORGE

SPICER; MRS. SPICER; RENEE CRANDALL BAKER;

MICHAEL BAKER, Deacon; UNKNOWN, An unknown

party who attended the sale and any additional

parties who were involved in the acquisition

of my family property, for the purpose of

demolishing for a parking lot - namely

Trustees,

Defendants - Appellees.
- 2 -

No. 05-2008

GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BENEFICIAL; CITY OF NORFOLK, City Attorney;

THE NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM; DIVISION OF

NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION; FIRE MARSHALL

DIVISION; DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES, Division of

Water Accounts; TITUSTOWN CIVIC LEAGUE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-05-238-JBF-TEM; CA-05-247-JBF-TEM; CA-05-274-JBF-FBS)

Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geraldine Talley Hobby, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Geraldine Hobby seeks to

appeal from the district court’s orders denying her motions to

proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her civil actions for

failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Hobby v. Beneficial Household No. CA-05-238-JBF-TEM;

Hobby v. First Baptist Church, No. CA-05-247-JBF-TEM, Hobby v.

Beneficial, No. CA-05-274-JBF-FBS (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2005). We

grant Hobby’s motions to amend and file her informal brief out of

time and deny her motion to transfer and for appointment of

counsel. 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
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 September 4, 2012

h0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

144984

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144984

COA: 302738

Wayne CC: 10

- 002067

- 01

- FH

ADRIEL CHURELL LAWHORN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 29, 2012

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1



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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Marc A. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  | 
|------------------------ |  |  | 
|Dated: November 11, 2003 |  |  | 
|                         |  |  | 
|                         |  |  | 
|                         |  |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to OPNET Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by OPNET Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



33
#### Tim CARPENTER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 1, 1959.

Marcus Mann, Jackson, for appellant.

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

SANDIDGE, Judge.

Appellant, Tim Carpenter, was convicted in the Breathitt Circuit Court of the offense of possessing alcoholic beverages for the purpose of sale in local option territory. The jury imposed a fine of $100 and sixty days in jail. From the judgment on the verdict and order overruling his motion and grounds for a new trial the appellant has moved this court .to grant him an appeal, and urges as grounds for reversal; (1) that Instruction No. 1 was erroneous, and (2) that the court erred in overruling his plea of former conviction.

Instruction No. 1 reads as follows:

> “If you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in the county and within twelve months before the finding of this indictment the defendant Tim Carpenter has been proved guilty of illegally possession liquor in Breathitt County and in local option territory you will find him gUÜty * *

The Commonwealth concedes in its brief that this instruction was erroneous, because it did not submit the charge alleged in the indictment. Cornett v. Com., Ky., 251 S.W. 2d 466; Hunter v. Com., Ky., 239 S.W.2d 993. It further admits that the offense of possessing alcoholic beverages for the purpose of sale in local option territory, as charged in the indictment, is an entirely different offense from “illegal possession” mentioned in the instruction, and that mere possession of liquor in local option territory is not a criminal offense under the local option law. Bray v. Com., 302 Ky. 846, 196 S.W.2d 725; Padgett v. Com., Ky., 299 S.W.2d 255. The instruction was erroneous and did not submit any offense to the jury.

Under the evidence the court properly overruled appellant’s plea of former conviction in a justice of the peace court.

The motion for an appeal is sustained and the judgment is reversed, with direction to grant a new trial.
#### Silas DARNELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 34429.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 9, 1962.

*939Ross Huffmaster, Kaufman, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is possession of wine for the purpose of sale in a dry area, two prior convictions being alleged for enhancement of punishment; the punishment assessed by the jury, six months in jail and a fine of $400.

The state’s evidence was to the effect that the appellant was observed by officers using binoculars who testified that they saw him get into an automobile with other occupants and go in a northeasterly direction from appellant’s house; and they watched appellant as he unloaded some boxes of alcoholic beverages; that early the next morning the officers found 12 quarts of wine and some beer at the place where they saw appellant unloading the beverages; that at the place where appellant was barbecuing hogs, the officers found a quart of wine and nearby a half-carton or 12 cans of beer. The wine and beer was offered in evidence.

The state’s evidence further shows that there was a trail leading from the house where appellant lived alone to where the wine and beer was found, a distance of some four or five hundred yards.

The area was shown to be dry, and the prior convictions alleged were proved.

Two points of error are presented, both complaining of the admission of evidence to the effect that appellant was taken by the officers to the stash and while under arrest he said that some of the beer was his.

We find no objection in the record on the ground that appellant’s statement was inadmissible because it was made while under arrest or without warning.

We further note that the appellant testified :

> “They came to the house and loaded me up and carried me down there and showed me that case of wine * * * and said it was mine. It’s not mine.”

> “Q. Is this beer here yours? A. Yes, sir. That beer is mine.

> “Q. You told Mr. Evans that was yours? A. Yes, sir. I told Mr. Evans.

> “Q. Is it your testimony that this carton was found where the wine was ? A. That’s what they were telling me when they got me down there and I told them I didn’t know nothing about that carton there. * * * ”

The admission of the evidence complained of is not, under the record, ground for reversal.

The jury resolved the fact issues against the appellant.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and we find no reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4309 WAYNE LEE BATES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-86-60) Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: January 13, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Thomas M. Blaylock, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennie L. M. Waering, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Wayne Lee Bates filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West Supp. 1999), challenging, inter alia, his convictions on seven counts of interstate transportation of forged traveler's checks in violation of18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 (West Supp. 1999). The district court had sentenced Bates to consecutive five-year prison terms on each of these seven convictions, five years on two counts of violating 28 U.S.C. § 2312 (1994), and five years on one count of conspiracy pertaining to the substantive charges, for a total of forty-five years in prison. Finding that the transportation of the seven forged traveler's checks across state lines constituted only a single offense, this court vacated six of the seven counts and remanded for resentencing on the single remaining § 2314 conviction for transporting the seven forged checks.The district court resentenced Bates to ten years in prison, the statutory maximum, for the single § 2314 violation, giving him a total sentence of twenty years in prison. Bates now appeals, claiming that the district court vindictively gave him a higher sentence on the single § 2314 conviction b ecause he successfully challenged his initial conviction. We find no merit to his claim. Consequently, we affirm.Due process prohibits a district court from vindictively resentencing a defendant for successfully attacking his first conviction. See North Carolina v. Pearce , 395 U.S. 711, 725 (1969). A defendant's resentencing is not considered vindictive where"the ultimate sentence for one or more counts does not ex ceed that given for all c ounts sentenced at the conclusion of the first trial." United States v. Gray , 852 F.2d 136, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Here, Bates' new sentence for the single conviction of transportingthe seven forged checks across state lines is lower than his initial sentence for the seven separate counts of transporting the seven checks across state lines. We find no vindictiveness in Bates' resentencing. Consequently, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
2
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 September 22, 2005 Before Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 04-2481 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. SPENCER DURHAM, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 03 CR 38-1 Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge.

O R D E R After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005); United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir. 2005), the district judge informed us that she would have imposed the same sentence on Spencer Durham had she known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence fell within the correctly calculated guidelines range, it was presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Mykytiuk , 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Since Durham filed no response to rebut that presumption and our independent review uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness, the judgment is AFFIRMED. UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 54893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21793]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9010-9]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 08/26/2013 Through 08/30/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html

EIS No. 20130256, Draft Supplement, USFWS, CA, Coachella Valley 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community 
Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 10/21/2013, Contact: Ken Corey 
760-322-2070.
EIS No. 20130257, Final EIS, BLM, NV, Winnemucca District Proposed 
Resource Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 10/07/2013, Contact: 
Zwaantje Rorex 775-623-1727.
EIS No. 20130258, Final EIS, USFS, WI, Lakewood Southeast Project, 
Review Period Ends: 10/15/2013, Contact: Marilee Houtler 715-276-6333
EIS No. 20130259, Final EIS, FTA, MD, Purple Line Draft Section 4(f) 
Evaluation, Review Period Ends: 10/07/2013, Contact: Daniel Koenig 202-
219-3528.
EIS No. 20130260, Draft EIS, BIA, NV, Moapa Solar Energy Center, 
Comment Period Ends: 10/14/2013, Contact: Amy Heuslein 602-379-7650
EIS No. 20130261, Draft Supplement, NPS, CA, Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area Draft Dog Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 12/04/
2013, Contact: Michael B. Edwards 303-969-2694.
EIS No. 20130262, Final EIS, USCG, NY, ADOPTION--Kosciuszko Bridge 
Project, Queens, Kings and Queens Counties, NY, Contact: Gary Kassof 
212-668-7021.

    The U.S. Coast Guard has adopted the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's Federal Highway Administration FEIS 20080517, 
filed 12/10/2008 with the USEPA. The USCG was a cooperating agency to 
the project. Recirculation of the EIS is not necessary under 1506.3(c) 
of the CEQ Regulations.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130223, Draft EIS, USACE, MO, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid 
Floodway Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/25/2013, Contact: Joshua 
Koontz 901-544-3975.

    Revision to FR Notice Published on 07/26/2013; Extending Comment 
Period from 09/09/2013 to 11/25/2013.

    Dated: September 3, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-21793 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of  Cognigen  Networks,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period  ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
G. Lucas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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/   David G. Lucas
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    David G. Lucas
                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                    September 17, 2002
```