alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry CHAMBERS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37066.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1964.

*908G. Ray Lee, James W. Lee, III, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., W. F. Alexander, George Milner, Jim Miller and C. M. Turlington, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of marijuana; the punishment, 7 years

No statement of facts showing the evidence adduced before the jury is found in the record and there are no formal bills of exception and no written objections relating to the court’s charge.

In his amended motion for new trial filed October 30, 1963, appellant complains of the overruling of his motion for mistrial, his complaint being that the trial judge amended his charge during the argument of appellant’s counsel and in connection therewith stated that counsel had misquoted the charge.

The record contains a statement of facts in a hearing on the amended motion held December 13, 1963, (which was more than 20 days after the amended motion was filed) and an order of the trial court dated January 3, *1964,*refusing the amended motion.

The complaint regarding the amending of the charge and remarks of the court in connection with such amendment is not before us for review.

Appellant’s motion is not one of the motions included in or referred to in Art. 760e Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. and a bill of exception was necessary. Thomas v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 54, 344 S.W.2d 453.

Further, the amended motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law 20 days after it was filed, no action having been taken. Arts. 755 V.A.C.C.P.; Hart v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 375, 350 S.W.2d 547.

If the matter is before us, we find no error in the court’s amending his charge in order to correctly state the law. Nowlin v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 480, 175 S.W. 1070; Holt v. State, 39 Tex.Cr.R. *282,*45 S.W. 1016.

Upon the record before us and in the absence of the facts adduced before the jury, we are unable to agree with counsel’s contention that the remarks of the court were calculated to or did injure the rights of the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cytogen Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Christopher P. Schnittker, Vice President 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.



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.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: March 16, 2005 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Christopher P. Schnittker                                              
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Christopher P. Schnittker Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1346 

To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels 

illegal. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2011 

Mr. CHABOT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and 

exporting cartels illegal. 

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 ‘‘No Oil Producing and 

5 Exporting Cartels Act of 2011 or ‘NOPEC’ ’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT. 

7 The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended 

8 by adding after section 7 the following: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1346 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be illegal and a violation 

3 of this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality 

4 or agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in com5 bination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality 

6 or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, 

7 whether by cartel or any other association or form of co8 operation or joint action— 

9 ‘‘(1) to limit the production or distribution of 

10 oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product; 

11 ‘‘(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural 

12 gas, or any petroleum product; or 

13 ‘‘(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of 

14 trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product; 

15 when such action, combination, or collective action has a 

16 direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on 

17 the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural 

18 gas, or other petroleum product in the United States. 

19 ‘‘(b) SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—A foreign state en20 gaged in conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not 

21 be immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from 

22 the jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United 

23 States in any action brought to enforce this section. 

24 ‘‘(c) INAPPLICABILITY OF ACT OF STATE DOC25 TRINE.—No court of the United States shall decline, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1346 IH

1 based on the act of state doctrine, to make a determina2 tion on the merits in an action brought under this section. 

3 ‘‘(d) ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General of the 

4 United States and the Federal Trade Commission may 

5 bring an action to enforce this section in any district court 

6 of the United States as provided under the antitrust 

7 laws.’’. 

8 SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 

9 Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

10 amended— 

11 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the 

12 semicolon; 

13 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and 

14 inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(8) in an action brought under section 7A of 

17 the Sherman Act.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23




                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To CYTOGEN CORPORATION:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's  previously filed Form S-8
Registration  Statement  (File No.  33-30595),  filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on August 18, 1989, Form S-3  Registration  Statement (File
No.  33-35140),  filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on May 31,
1990,  Form S-8  Registration  Statement  (File No.  33-52574),  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on September 29, 1992, Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File No. 33-57004), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 12, 1993, Form S-3  Registration  Statement (File No. 33-77396) filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  April  6,  1994,  Form S-8
Registration  Statement  (File No.  33-63321),  filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on October 10, 1995, Form S-8 Registration  Statement (File
No. 333-00431), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25,
1996 and Form S-8 Registration  Statement (File No.  333-04679),  filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on May 29,  1996,  Form S-8  Registration
Statement (File No. 333-27673) filed with Securities and Exchange  Commission on
May 23, 1997, Form S-3  Registration  Statement (File No.  333-43809) filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  January 6,  1998,  Form  S-1/A-2
Registration  Statement  (File No.  333-68759)  filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on January 8, 1999 and Form S-1/A-1  Registration  Statement
(File No.  333-67947)  filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on
January 27, 1999.


                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP




Philadelphia, PA
    February 22, 1999




                                       63
EXHIBIT 32.2

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



The undersigned  hereby certifies in her capacity as Chief Financial  Officer of
Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the "Fund"), that:

(a)  the  quarterly  Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended June
     30, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
     13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund
     for such period.


Date:  August 14, 2003

                                /s/ Michelle A. Alexander
                                -------------------------
                                Michelle A. Alexander
                                Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1291 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1291

  To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the 
 Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2011

   Mr. Cole introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the 
 Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes, 
                        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. AUTHORITY REAFFIRMED.

    (a) Clarification.--Section 5 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly 
known as the ``Indian Reorganization Act''; 25 U.S.C. 465), is amended 
in the first sentence by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting 
``Except in Alaska, the Secretary''.
    (b) Reaffirmation.--Section 19 of the Act of June 18, 1934 
(commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization Act''; 25 U.S.C. 479), 
is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``The term'' and inserting 
                ``Effective beginning on June 18, 1934, the term''; and
                    (B) by striking ``any recognized Indian tribe now 
                under Federal jurisdiction'' and inserting ``any 
                federally recognized Indian tribe''; and
            (2) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
        following: ``In this section, the term `Indian tribe' means any 
        Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, 
        or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to 
        exist as an Indian tribe.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as 
the ``Indian Reorganization Act''; 25 U.S.C. 479), on the date of 
enactment of that Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lee COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30517.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 15, 1959.

Alex P. Pope, Tyler, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is transporting beer in a dry area; the punishment, sixty days in jail.

The record contains no statement of facts or bills of exception.

The trial was before a special judge agreed upon, Judge Harry Loftis being disqualified.

Appellant’s complaint that the record contains no certification of disqualification of Judge Loftis has been answered by supplemental transcript showing that there had been entered in the minutes (1) certification by Judge Loftis of his disqualification (2) agreement that Attorney Kenneth R. King act as Special Judge to preside in the trial and (3) oath of Kenneth R. King.

We overrule the contention that the agreement that Kenneth R. King act as Special Judge is insufficient because it was not signed by appellant in person and bears no date.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                              COMMUNICATE.COM INC.

                            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 Communicate.com Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David Jeffs, the 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 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.



                                              /s/ David Jeffs
                                              -------------------------------
                                              David Jeffs
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              August 14, 2002


<PAGE>


                              COMMUNICATE.COM INC.

                            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 Communicate.com Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, J Cameron Pan, the Chief Financial 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 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.



                                            /s/ J Cameron Pan
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            J Cameron Pan
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            August 14, 2002
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Hiroaki Nishio COMPLAINANT


### v. Commonwealth Ports Authority RESPONDENT. Docket No. 16-13-03

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-AssistedAirport EnforcementProceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules ofPractice). Pursuant to the Rules ofPractice,

· §16.11(a), the date by whichthe Director, FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management

Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before July 28, 2015.

# 1h-(1l~Jt

# fn

R; ndall S. Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis 

# ArJ z,Cj I 

# Z615
DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

## 00iv I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April.£1lL, 2015, I placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid), a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime addressed to: Hiroaki Nishio P.O. Box 5910 CHRB Saipan, MP 96950 Complainant Maryann Q. Lizama Acting Executive Director Commonwealth Ports Authority Saipan International Airport P.O. Box 501055 Saipan, MP 96950-1055 Respondent Robert Tenorio Torres Attorney at Law P.O. Box 503758 CK Saipan, MP 96950 Counsel to the Respondent Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100

# ~~ J '' Clau ia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
#### Evelyn M. AXELROD; Herbert R. Axelrod, v. CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 01-4478.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued July 23, 2002.

Decided Aug. 28, 2002.

John I. Alioto, Alioto *&*Alioto, San Francisco, CA, Robert J. Gilson (Argued), Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, Morristown, NJ, for Appellant.

Alan M. Lebensfeld (Argued), Lebensfeld, Borker & Sussman, Red Bank, NJ, for Appellees.

Before SLOVITER, NYGAARD, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, Appellant, Central Garden and Pet Company, asks us to reverse those portions of the District Court’s Order that granted the Axelrods’ motion to confirm a January 31, 2001 arbitration award rendered in the Axelrods’ favor by PrieeWaterhouseCoopers. The initial conflict arose out of Central’s purchase of all of the Axelrods’ shares of TFH Publications. The arbitration was conducted to resolve disputes that arose between the Axelrods and Central as to the amount, if any, of additional purchase price Central owed to the Axelrods. Central argues on appeal that the District Court should have dismissed the Axelrods’ petition to confirm the arbitration award because the arbitration was not an arbitration at all, but rather an appraisal. Further, Central argues that the District Court should have abstained or stayed judgment pending the conclusion of a state court action. We conclude that neither issue has merit, and would affirm, except that both parties agree the District Court erred by calling its order a Declaratory Judgment, rather than a mere confirmation of an arbitrator’s award. We agree, will vacate the Declaratory Judgment and remand the cause for the District Court to enter a judgment confirming the arbitration award.
#### Le Roy WATKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27561.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 20, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, District Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*137PER CURIAM. '

The offense is procuring; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts of bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. RONALD DOUGLAS JANDA, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 202 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 29th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Exhibit 31.1

                   Certificate of Chief Executive Officer

     I, Tim Page, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lions
Capital Holdings, Inc. ("LCHI")

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other
financial information included in this quarterly report fairly present, in
all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of LCHI as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report.

     4.   As LCHI's Chief Executive Officer, I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for LCHI.  As such, LCHI has:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
     material information relating to LCHI, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
     prepared;

     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of LCHI's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
     this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

     5.   LCHI's other officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of LCHI's board
of directors:

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
     internal controls which could adversely affect LCHI's ability to
     record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
     identified for LCHI's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
     controls; and

     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in LCHI's internal
     controls.

     6.   LCHI's other officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: August 11, 2005              /s/ Tim Page
                                   Tim Page,
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer