alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Betty Lou VINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28760.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1957.

*683No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction, on a plea of guilty before the court, is for the offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $175.

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, filed herewith.



Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

(the
Companies)



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 Companies Form 10-Q periodic
report containing their respective financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 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 Companies as of that date.



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|                                                
|/s/ Michael D. Lockhart                         
|                                                
|Michael D. Lockhart                             
|Chief Executive Officer Armstrong Holdings, Inc.



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



Dated: April 29, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6720

DOUGLAS B. SEIBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versusRONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-00-495) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 2, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas B. Seibert, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Douglas B. Seibert seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Seibert v. Angelone , No. CA-00-495 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
### RE: Updated Boiler MA**CT Preamble/Rule Ma**  **ry Johnson** to

: Higgins, Cortney Cc : RobertJ W ayland, Jim Eddinger

From: Mary Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> Cc: RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

We dnesday, 10/17/2012 5:15 PM Cortney, Per your request as part of the interagency review process, attached in support of the final reconsideration action for Area Source Boilers is the technical memo "Beyond -the - Floor Technology Analysis for Mercury." There are no other new or updated technical memos supporting the final action. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Mary

Area Source Boilers_Hg BTF Memo_2012_05_22.docx Mary Johnson Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Mail Code D 243 - 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541 - 5025 Fax: (919) 541 - 5450
I

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, Fl1,RST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

LASHAWN ANTHONY SMITH

NO. 2022 KW 1377

MARCH 13, 2023

In Re: LaShawn Anthony Smith, applying for supervisory writs, 

32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, 

No. 587665. 

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to include

a copy of the district court's ruling on the Motion for Court to

Take Notice of Law, all pertinent: minute entries and/or

transcripts, particularly the transcript of the district court's

hearing on the motion at issue, the ' indictment, the habitual

offender bill of information, the state's answer to his

application for postconviction relief, and any other portions of

the district court record that might support the claims raised

in the writ application. Supplementation of this writ

application and/or an application for. rehearing will not be

considered. See Uniform Rules of Lou~siana Courts of Appeal, 

Rules 2-18. 7 & 4-9. Any future filir).g on this issue should

include the entire contents of this ~ pplication, the missing

items noted above, and a copy of this ruling. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT

MRT

WRC

CHH
#### Clarence MEEKS and Tom Meeks, Appellants, v. Arvie M. BURCHETT, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 14, 1956.

Joe Hobson, Prestonsburg, for appellants.

W. W. Burchett, Prestonsburg, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment of $500 of the Floyd Circuit Court, Edward P. Hill, Judge. The action was brought to recover $10,100 damages for an assault and battery on Arvie M. Burchett committed by Clarence Meeks, a constable, and to hold Tom Meeks liable as surety on the official bond of Clarence. The answer pleaded self-defense. The judgment was entered on the verdict of the jury.

An examination of the record, and of the authorities cited in briefs, convinces us the judgment is supported by the pleadings and the evidence; and we find no errors prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellants were committed by the court in ruling on evidence or in instructing the jury.

Motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 21, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00837

- CR

Shaun David Samuelson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, R OSE, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and

the parties’ arguments, the Cour t holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because appellant is indigent

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                    OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Catuity,
Inc. (the "Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14b or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

Alfred H. Racine III, the President and Chief Executive Officer, and John H.
Lowry, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, each certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: November 14, 2006


                                       By: /s/ Alfred H. Racine
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Alfred H. Racine III
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       By: /s/ John H. Lowry
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John H. Lowry
                                           Chief Financial Officer

Note: 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.


                                       24
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15E0009. BARTON LEE COLEMAN v. THE STATE.

It is hereby ORDERED that Barton Lee Coleman’s Petition for Supersedeas

Bond is hereby DENIED.

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.

10/28/2014

October 28, 2014
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL C. HILLIARD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. ( 3:17

- cr - 00044

- HEH

- EWH

- 1; 3:19

- cv - 00681

- HEH

- EWH )

Submitted : December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael C. Hilliard , Appellant Pro Se. Aidan Taft Grano

- Mickelsen, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , O FFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNE Y, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7035 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Michael C. Hilliard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 m otion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional righ t.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the disposit ive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hilliard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7035 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Computer Software Innovations, Inc. (the Company), each certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his or her knowledge on the date of
this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nancy K. HedrickNancy K. HedrickChief Executive OfficerDate: May 16, 2011/s/ David B. DechantDavid B. DechantChief Financial OfficerDate: May 16, 2011




48
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1671 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a family 

member. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2011 

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing 

temporarily in housing owned by a family member. 

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 ‘‘Andrew Connolly Vet5 erans’ Housing Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1671 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE SPECIALLY 

3 ADAPTED HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO INDIVID4 UALS RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING 

5 OWNED BY A FAMILY MEMBER. 

6 Section 2102A of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2011’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘December 31, 2016’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Vanita HARBORD, Appellant, v. Leonidas HARBORD, Appellee.

No. 3998.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Nov. 26, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1965.

J. Leonard Gotsdiner and Ranseler O. Wyatt, Houston, for appellant.

James S. Kelly, Houston, for appellee.

WALTER, Justice.

Leonidas Harbord filed suit against his wife for a divorce. The court granted him a divorce and his wife has appealed.

She contends the court erred in rendering judgment for a divorce because all alleged acts of cruelty were condoned; that the judgment is contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence; that there is no evidence to support the alleged grounds of cruel treatment, and because the appellee was guilty of recrimination, as a matter of law.

The parties were married on or about September 22nd, 1961 and lived together about sixteen months.

Appellee testified that shortly after their marriage his wife commenced a course of behavior that was characterized by constant arguing and nagging; that such arguments became progressively more violent and bitter; that his wife used profanity and scurrilous language; that such conduct irritated his intestinal disorder.

Appellee further testified substantially as follows:

The last time I separated from my wife was some time in May ’64, after we had made a trip to Galveston; I had sexual relations with my wife while we were in Galveston; I stayed all night with my wife one time since the Galveston trip — that was on June 8, 1964. We had sexual relations on the night of June 8th. From June 8, 1964, until I filed my suit for divorce on June 23, 1964, I had “no relationship with her at all.”

A Doctor Gordon testified that emotional stress should be avoided by appellee.

The record does not show any new acts of cruelty between June 8, 1964 and the filing of this suit. Appellee voluntarily resumed cohabitation after he separated from his wife. We find from the facts and circumstances set out above and other testimony in the record that all of the alleged acts of cruel treatment were condoned by the appellee. Appellant’s points are sustained. The judgment is reversed and judgment is rendered denying appellant a divorce.

Judgment reversed and judgment rendered for appellant.
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 Report of Kodiak Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard D. Carmichael, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:  May 13, 2011
By:
/s/ Richard D. CarmichaelRichard D. CarmichaelChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

s hould 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. 98-20503 Summary Calendar

_______________

SONYA HUNTER REED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-693)

_________________________ January 19, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

In this employment discrimination case, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer because the plaintiff did not sue within ninety days of receiving her right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a careful and detailed nine-page opinion entered on May 12, 1998, the court explained that there were no disputed issues of material fact and that the city was entitled to judgment2

as a matter of law.
We affirm, essentially for the reasons stated by the district

c ourt. The notice was sent by certified mail to the address plaintiff had furnished to the EEOC. Postal records indicate it was delivered to the plaintiff, who did not sue for more than six
months.
AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. § 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of OSI Pharmaceuticals,Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Colin Goddard, Ph.D., ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.     /s/COLIN GODDARD, Ph.D.       Colin Goddard, Ph.D.     Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 16, 2006
137
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 13, 2018

No. 04

- 16

- 00559

- CR

Stanley Foster BAKER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 1755

- CR

- A

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Pro se ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for rehearing or En Banc

Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to May 5, 2018.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 13th day of April, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court