alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Melvin Lewis MINICA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28031.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

*628PER CURIAM.

Drunken driving is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $150 and thirty days’ confinement in jail.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The Cleveland Trust Co., Appellee, *v.*The Bonar Realty Co.; Phillips et al., Appellants.

(No. 27442

Decided March 1, 1939.)

*Messrs. Snyder, Seagrave, Boudebush S Adrion,*for appellee.

*Mr. David A. Thomas,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*■*Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Myers, J., not participating.
**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 Section                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/                Dean                Antonis                                            |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dean                Antonis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| Treasurer                and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| Date:  October 15,                2007                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

OSCAR L. SHAW,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00321-CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20160D02955)

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s 

right of appeal. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with 

the trial court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s 

right of appeal as required by TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The trial court clerk shall 

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no 

later than March 24, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7

th day of February, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00832-CR

Alex Garcia, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF SAN SABA COUNTY

NO. 6,856, HONORABLE BYRON THEODOSIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was due June 14, 2006. The brief has not been received and

appellant’s retained attorney, Mr. Alberto Acevedo Jr., did not respond to this Court’s notice that

the brief is overdue.

The appeal is abated. The trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether

appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant is indigent, and, if he is not indigent,

whether retained counsel has abandoned this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). The court shall

make appropriate findings and recommendations. A record from this hearing, including copies of

all findings and orders and a transcription of the court reporter’s notes, shall be forwarded to the
2

Clerk of this Court for filing as a supplemental record no later than August 31, 2006. Rule

38.8(b)(3).

___________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Pemberton

Filed: July 25, 2006

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Richard L. Feinstein, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A 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 Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|April 28, 2017 | /s/ Richard L. Feinstein                                      
|-------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------
|               | Richard L. Feinstein                                          
|               | Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer          
|               | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
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 of Soyo Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Nancy
Chu, Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company  certifies,  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.


 /s/ Nancy Chu
-----------------------
Nancy Chu
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2006
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for thethree months ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”),  Frank H. Laukien, asPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors ofthe Company, and William J. Knight, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of theirknowledge:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 8, 2007 |     |                                               |
|----------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                 | By:      | /s/ Frank H. Laukien, Ph.D.                   |
|                 | * * | Frank H. Laukien, Ph.D.                            |
|                 | * * | *President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman* |
|                 |     |                                               |
| Date: August 8, 2007 |     |                                               |
|                 | By:      | /s/ William J. Knight                         |
|                 | * * | William J. Knight                                  |
|                 | * * | *Chief Financial Officer*                          |

 

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request*.

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0349. AARON STRONG v. THE STATE

Appellant was convicted of felony murder, as well astwo counts of aggravated

assault, and two counts of possession of a knife during the aggravated assaults.

The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over felonymurder convictions. 

Therefore, Appellant’s Motion To Transfer [this appeal] To The Georgia Supreme

Court is herebyGRANTED and the appeal isTRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

September 12, 2019

09/12/2019
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76

37 38 39 

### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/15 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 583

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of

documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for two vessels.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 21 (legislative day, MARCH 16), 1995

Mr. STEVENS 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 two vessels.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica6 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 with a coastwise endorsement for each of the vessels RES-
2

S 583 IS

1 OLUTION (Serial Number 77NS8701) and

2 PERSERVERANCE (Serial Number 77NS8901).

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1458 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1458

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying law school 
    students participating in legal clinics or externships from the 
application of the conflict of interest rules under section 205 of such 
                                 title.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2011

  Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying law school 
    students participating in legal clinics or externships from the 
application of the conflict of interest rules under section 205 of such 
                                 title.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Law Student Clinic Participation Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. LAW STUDENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXEMPTION.

    Section 205 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(j) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to a law student or 
legal clinic staff member participating in the legal clinic or 
externship of an accredited law school, with respect to a matter within 
the scope of the clinic or externship, unless--
            ``(1) the student or staff has participated personally and 
        substantially in the matter as a Government employee or special 
        Government employee through decision, approval, disapproval, 
        recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or 
        otherwise; or
            ``(2) the matter is pending in the department or agency of 
        the Government in which the student or staff is serving.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon 
the expiration of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## Selection ofTrial Standard Levels • Purpose • To develop a listofstandard levels from which impacts are weighed and a proposed standard level is selected

- Each trial standard level consists ofa setofcandidate standard levels covering all equipment classes, and may vary between equipment classes

- NOPR analyses assess impactsfor each ofthe trial standard levels 

### • Method • Trial standard levels are assembled from the equipment classes and candidate standards identified in the PreliminaryAnalysis

- Candidate standard levels cover a range ofefficiencies and can include: • Most energy efficient level (max tech) • Efficiency level with the greatest national energy savings that provide consumersavings • Efficiency level with greatest life-cycle cost savings • Efficiency levels with noteworthytechnologies • Efficiency levels that fill in large gaps between candidate standard levels

- Each trial standard level consists ofthe candidate standard level from each equipment class that meets one ofthe above criteria 1
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 127887 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. BLAINE C. KING, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff, Justices

v SC: 127887 COA: 247451 Kent CC: 01-012556-CK WESTFIELD INSURA NCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

and

GENERAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 4, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0919 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.

September 28, 2005

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41236 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GILBERTO VILLANUEVA-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-448-1

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gilberto Villanueva-Avila on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Villanueva has not filed a response to counsel's motion and brief.Our independent review of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion forNo. 01-41236 -2- leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

OF

HESPERIA TRUSS, INC.

I. The name of this corporation is HESPERIA TRUSS, INC.

II. The purpose of this corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of California other than the banking business, the trust company business or the practice of professions permitted to be incorporated the California Corporations Code.

III	The name and address in the State of California of this corporations initial agent for service of process is:

DONALD SHIMIP9780 "E" Ave.Hesperia, CA 92345

IV.	This corporation is a close corporation, chapter "C".

V.	This corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares of stock; the total number of shares which this corporation is authorized to issue is one hundred thousand (100,000). 

VI.	All of the corporation! s issued shares of stock of all classes shall be held of record by not more than thirty five (35) persons.

DATED: November 6,1996                                                                        /s/ Donald Shimp                                                                                                                                           DONALD SHIMP
#### John B. ADAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27578.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 13, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM

Aggravated assault is the offense; the punishment, six months’ confinement in the penitentiary.

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

• The judgment is affirmed; "" ’
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, furnished herewith.

Armstrong Holdings, 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, 2007 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 of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|Armstrong Holdings, Inc.                         

Dated: October 22, 2007

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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 25, 2013

t1022

Order 

Clerk

October 25, 2013

147333

ROBERT PORTER and JUDITH PORTER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 147333

COA: 306562

Saginaw CC: 11-012799-DZ

CHRISTINA MARIE HILL, f/k/a CHRISTINA

MARIE PORTER,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 11, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). 

The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 35 days of the date of this order 

addressing: (1) whether the parents of a man whose parental rights to his minor children 

were terminated prior to his death have standing to seek grandparenting time with the 

children under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., and (2) whether the term 

“natural parent” in MCL 722.22(d) and (g) is the equivalent of “legal parent” or 

“biological parent.” The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application 

papers.

The Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to file a brief 

amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues 

presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.