alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John SAYLOR, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 7, 1958.

*876Edward P. Roark, Lancaster, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., David B. Sebree, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Judge.

The appellant, John Saylor, was convicted of the statutory offense of removing from the state his automobile, on which there was a mortgage, with the intent to prevent or hinder the enforcement of the lien. The jury fixed his punishment at a year in the state reformatory, and it is asserted on this appeal that the verdict is against the law and the evidence.

There were many mitigating circumstances in the case which were presented to the jury, and which will doubtless be considered when parole of the sentence is sought. The appellant gave a mortgage on his 1949 Chevrolet automobile to secure a $120 debt for tires. He used the car to go to Detroit and Chicago in an effort to obtain work, and on his way home, at Ft. Wayne, Indiana, his car developed such serious motor trouble that he. traded it in for $35 on another car. The appellant testified that he didn’t call the mortgagee from Ft. Wayne because he didn’t have the money to make the call. He declared that his intention at the time of the trade of the automobile was not to prevent or hinder the enforcement of the mortgage, but merely to get home.

' Although the appellant argues that there was not sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury and that he was entitled to a peremptory instruction, we are constrained-to hold that the sale, in the circumstances, was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer the appellant’s intention. Sims v. Commonwealth, Ky., 260 S.W.2d 393; Quillen v. Commonwealth, 275 Ky. 158, 120 S.W.2d 1047.

The judgment is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CONSUELO CERVANTES,

 Appellant,

v.

EL PASO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, 

LTD. D/B/A DEL SOL MEDICAL 

CENTER,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00227-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2017DCV4175)

O R D E R

On our own motion, and pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 39.1, the Court finds that oral argument 

in the above styled and numbered cause would not materially aid in the disposition of this cause. 

Accordingly, the Court vacates the oral argument setting of February 24, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., and 

this cause will be submitted without oral argument on that same date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, J., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

Marion, C.J. (Ret.), sitting by assignment
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00021-CR

No. 10-22-00050-CR

EX PARTE EMILY ANN SHEPHERD

Original Proceedings

From the County Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 20-2-CR and 20-11-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In these proceedings, Emily Ann Shepherd, acting pro se, has filed documents that

we have construed as original applications for a writ of habeas corpus. The courts of 

appeals, however, have no original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. Ex 

parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding).

On January 31, 2022, the Clerk of this Court sent Shepherd a letter in the 

proceeding assigned Cause No. 10-22-00021-CR to notify Shepherd that the Court may 

dismiss the proceeding unless, within fourteen days of the date of the letter, Shepherd 

showed grounds for continuing the proceeding. Shepherd responded, but she has shown 
Ex parte Shepherd Page 2

no grounds for continuing these proceedings. Accordingly, these proceedings are

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.1

Shepherd’s “Motion for Rehearing,” filed on February 17, 2022; her “Motion to Set 

Amount Required to Supersede Judgment,” filed on March 1, 2022; and her “Motion to 

Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief,” filed on March 14, 2022, are dismissed as moot.2

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 23, 2022

Do not publish

[OT06]

1 Court of Appeals No. 10-22-00046-CR—Shepherd’s appeal from the trial court’s “Order Dismissing 

Defendant’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” signed on or about February 4, 2022, in Trial Court 

Case No. 22-01-CV—and Court of Appeals No. 10-22-00068-CR—Shepherd’s appeal from the trial court’s 

“Order Dismissing Defendant’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” signed on or about January 26, 

2022, in Trial Court Case No. 22-11-CV—remain pending.

2 Shepherd’s “Motion for Rehearing” was filed before any opinion had issued. Shepherd apparently filed 

the motion in response to the Clerk of the Court’s January 31, 2022 letter to Shepherd notifying her of the 

Court’s intent to dismiss.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

s0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

137875

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137875 COA: 287338 Ingham CC: 07-000813-FH SHERRY JEAN DIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 12, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY

, C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).

C AVANAGH

, J., would grant leave to ap peal to reconsider People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).
Exhibit 32.3

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, furnished herewith.

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

(the Company)

Written Statement by Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the
Companys Form 10-Q periodic report containing its financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information
contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of that date.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael D. Lockhart                        
|Michael D. Lockhart                            
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|Armstrong World Industries, Inc.               

Dated: October 30, 2006

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.
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1556 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 19, 2012 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to allow 

certain land to be used to generate income to provide 

funding for academic programs, 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, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1556 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LAND USE. 

2 Section 824(a) of the Omnibus Indian Advancement 

3 Act (Public Law 106–568) is amended to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘(a) LIMITATION FOR EDUCATIONAL, HEALTH, CUL5 TURAL, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.—The 

6 land taken into trust under section 823(a) shall be used 

7 solely for the educational, health, or cultural purposes of 

8 the Santa Fe Indian School and economic development 

9 projects that provide funding for such purposes.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00092

- CR

MATTHEW JAMES AUBIN, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court Panola County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016

- C

- 0109

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O RDER The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed August 13, 2018, and the reporter’s record was filed September 18, 2018, making the appellant’s brief originally due October 18, 2018. This Court extended that briefing deadline twice on appellant’s motions, resulting in the most recent due date of December 10, 2018. We informed counsel when we g ranted the last extension request that further requests for extension of time would not be granted. Nonetheless, counsel has filed a third motion seeking an additional thirty

- day extension of the briefing deadline. We have reviewed the case file and appel late record, as well as counsel’ s most recent motion to extend time , and find no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant an additional thirty

- day extension of the filing deadline. Consequently, counsel’s third motion to extend the time to file the appellate brief in this matter is denied.
W e hereby order counsel to file the appellate brief in this matter with this Court on or before December 21 , 201 8

. This gives counsel twenty

- one additional days to complete the brief, which we are certain will be adequate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: December 12, 2018
#### Eddie L. HORGIN, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, RespondentAppellee.

No. 01-7112.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 17, 2002.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

*375ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
**EXHIBIT 24.7**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris, John Metcalf and Kerry Mustoe, and eachof them, his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 2, 2007 and any and allamendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents andeach of them shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred. 

Dated: July 26, 2007.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL

■★

■

■ ■

★

■

■

■

■

● ★

●

● ●

★

●

● ●

●
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
TRUST'S  AUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER  31,  1996  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000726593
<NAME>                        Capital Industries Liquidating Trust
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-24-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         75,783
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               76,289
<PP&E>                                         581,150
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,428,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          35,354
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               75,677
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               96,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,825)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, C. Jayson Brentlinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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
     for the periods presented.

                                       /s/ C. Jayson Brentlinger
                                       ----------------------------
                                       C. Jayson Brentlinger
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
                                       April 30, 2004
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey Speakman, certify that:

> 
1.    I have reviewed this report on Form	10-QSB of One Move Entertainment, Inc.;

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 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 the small business issuer as of, and	for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.    I am the sole officer and director	and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls	and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))	for the small business issuer and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,		or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under		my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the		small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made		known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the		period in which this report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business		issuer disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report		my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and		procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on		such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small		business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that		occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter		(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an		annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to		materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over		financial reporting; and

5.    I have disclosed, based on my most	recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small	business issuer's auditors of the small business issuer's board of directors	(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material		weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial		reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small		business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report		financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves		management or other employees who have a significant role in the small		business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 20, 2005

 

/s/ JeffreySpeakman            

Jeffrey Speakman, President
#### William George BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28496.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 24, 1956.

William G. Brown, San Antonio, for appellant.

; Terry.L.’Jacks, County Atty., San-Marcos, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. ■ . •

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This prosecution arose in the justice court, and upon appeal to the county court appellant was convicted of a violation of the speed laws of this state, with punishment assessed at a fine of $200.

The jurat to the complaint reads as follows,: ,

> “Sworn to ánd subscribed by R. B.’ Christian, a credible person, before on or about the 11 day of Oct. A.D. 1955."

The attack thereon is twofold: (a) There is no certain date on which the affidavit was made, the term “before on or about” being ■vague and indefinite, and (b) the officer before whom the affidavit is alleged to have been made does not certify that it was made before “me.” ’

One of the elements necessary to constitute a valid jurat to a complaint is that it be shown that it was sworn to and subscribed’by the affiant before the officer administering’the oath.

In Carpenter v. State, 218 S.W.2d 207, 208, this court reannounced the holding .in Robertson v. State, 25 Tex.App. 529, *7238 S.W. 659, that “A jurat is the certificate of the officer before whom the complaint is made, stating that the same was sworn to and subscribed by the affiant before *him** *

In order to be sufficient, the jurat must be dated. Ex parte Day, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 66 S.W.2d 695.

Here, the date of the jurat is *“before on or about*the 11 day of Oct. A.D. ,1955.” The term “before on or about” is indefinite.

The defective jurat vitiates the complaint.

For the reason stated, the judgment .is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A 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: April 28, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Christopher P. Schnittker                    
|                      |  |  |  | Christopher P. Schnittker                        
|                      |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

128 KA 15-00949 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAMONI HALL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DEBORAH K. JESSEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered January 30, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal ( see generally People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence ( see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court