alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BURLESON v. STATE.

No. 26564.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1953.

J. Lawton Stone, San Antonio, Mae M. Ament, Alpine, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Davidson, Commissioner.

This is a drunk driving case; the punishment, a fine of $50.

In the information, the state elected to describe the offense as having occurred by the driving of a Ford pickup truck while intoxicated “upon a public street, to-wit— U. S. 90, Holland Avenue Street, within the, limits of the incorporated city of Alpine, in said County.”

Having so alleged, the state was under the burden of proving such descriptive allegations.

Appellant says that the state did not do so, in that it was not shown that the city of Alpine was an incorporated city.

Proof of such fact was made 'by the city secretary, reading from the official records showing that the city of Alpine was incorporated as such, in 1917, under the general laws of this state.

If any question existed as to the admissibility of such testimony prior to 1951, *727it was, at that time, put at rest by Chap. 471, Acts of the 52nd Legislature, in 1951, appearing as Art. 3731a, Vernon’s Revised Civil Statutes.

Attracted by the fact that the pickup truck appellant was driving had no taillight, a highway patrolman stopped him. The patrolman testified that appellant was at that time under the influence of intoxicating liquor; that he staggered; and that he smelled intoxicating liquor on his breath.

Appellant voluntarily submitted to a blood test — that is, by and with his written consent a sample of his blood was taken, placed in a glass container, and forwarded to the Department of Public Safety. The specimen was there analyzed for alcoholic content.

The examiner, a graduate chemist, testified that the specimen showed “two and 4-tenths milligrams of alcohol per CC of blood.” The witness expressed the opinion .that such amount of alcohol in the blood would intoxicate.

The specimen so examined was fully traced and identified as that which had been taken from the appellant.

We are constrained to agree that the facts amply support the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

Appellant sought to quash the jury panel from which the jury in this case was selected, because the jurors comprising the panel had, on the day previous, served on a jury in a case in which the accusation was similar in nature to that in this case and in which the same witnesses for the state had testified in support of the state’s case.

Such facts would not disqualify the jurors from serving in this case. Bailey v. State, 56 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 120 S.W. 419; Irvine v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 347, 116 S.W. 591.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit     32.1          Certification.

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of BENTLEYCAPITALCORP.COM INC. pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C.
63.

I, Edward Alexander, the Chief Executive Officer of BENTLEYCAPITALCORP.COM INC.
hereby certify that BENTLEYCAPITALCORP.COM INC.'s periodic report on Form 10-QSB
and the financial statements contained therein fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) and that information contained in the periodic report
on Form 10-QSB and the financial statements contained therein fairly represents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations
of BENTLEYCAPITALCORP.COM INC.

Date: August 14, 2003

(signed)  _______________________
Edward  Alexander
/s/  Edward  Alexander
Chief  Executive  Officer  of
BENTLEYCAPITALCORP.COM  INC.

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


<PAGE>
€D Sr4,.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Z I • REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

AUG 122013

Nil r. Richard W. Co rev

Executive Officer

Cal i Oarnia Air Resources Board

1001 I Street

Sacramento. Calili>rnia 95812

RE: Completeness Determination ftr the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Districts

L2at!lficL!/io11 o/ Con1iiieiicv I?ediic1io17,\t1 tiw 200N PJI Flaii, adopted June 20. 201 3.

Dcaip1

. Corey:

On .Julv 3. 2013. the Calii )rnia Air Resources Board submitted a package of materials containing a

revision to the California State Implementation Plan and supplemented this submission on .July 24 and

August 0. 2013. 1 his revision addresses contingency measure provisions in the California SI P for the San

.loaquin Valley ibr the 1997 PM5INational Ambient Air Quality Standards.

\Ve have reviewed this package and the supplemental materials for completeness and found that they

con form to the completeness criteria ii 40 C1R part 5 1. appendix V. We viI1 he propo5in action on this

submittal soon.

11 you have n questions regarding our review, please call me or have our staff contact Frances Wicher.

Office of Air Planning. at (415) 972-3057.

Sincerely,

Director.

lrdm

Air Division

cc: Sent by e-mail

Mr. Seved Sadredin. Executive Director. San Joaquin Valley APCD

Ms. Lynn Terry. Deputy Executive Officer. CARB

Pnnred on Recycled Paper
Exhibit 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934

 

I, Frank P. Marino, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. (the"registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8618 and 34-52492]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financialreporting; and 

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:	March 28, 2006	
/s/ Frank P. Marino	

Frank P. MarinoVice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

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

I, Charles Bitters, the Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer of
American Energy Productions, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best
of my knowledge:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
         March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: May 22, 2003

                                              /s/   Charles Bitters
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name: Charles Bitters
                                              Title:Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
```
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

KRONOS INCORPORATED, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2021

- 1948

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:14

- cv

- 00091

- RGA, Judge
Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Kronos Incorporated moves to dismiss this appeal forfailure to prosecute. Lakshmi Arunachalam has not responded to the motion to dismiss

. On January 28, 2022, the court reactivated Dr. Arunachalam’s appeal and set February 22, 2022

, as the due
date for her informal brief. Alternatively, Dr. Case: 21-1948 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 06/01/2022ARUNACHALAM v. KRONOS INCORPORATED 2

Arunachalam was required to file her formal opening brief by April 4 , 2022. To date, however, no opening brief has
been filed.

“[F]ailure to compl y with th is court’s rules, includingthe requirements for preparing and filing briefs, appendices and other papers, may result in dismissal of an appeal for failure to prosecute.” Julien v. Zeringue , 864 F.2d 1572, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted )

. Upon consideration thereof

,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) All pending motions are denied as moot.

June 1 , 2022
Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS MANDATE: June 1, 2022 Case: 21-1948 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 06/01/2022
Exhibit 32.1


                 Certification of the 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 the quarterly report of China Energy and Carbon Black
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March
31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), Guo Yuan Wang, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)
and 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/  Guo Yuan Wang
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    Date:  May 23, 2005
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00303

- CR

STACI ANNETTE VASQUE Z

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05

- 01740

- CRF

- 361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Staci Annette Vasquez, has filed a motion requesting the dismissal of

this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in the appeal, and

appellant and her attorney have personally signed the motion. See id. Accordingly, we

grant the motion and hereby dismiss appellant’s appeal.

AL SCOGGINS

JusticeVasquez v. State Page 2

Before Ch ief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 9, 2015

Do not publish

[CR25]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-546

In Re: NATHANIEL HOOVER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-337-3-MU)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Hoover, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Hoover filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court unduly delayed acting on his motion

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.

1214. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402

(1976).

Our review of the record reveals that the delay in Hoover's

action is attributable in part to Hoover's filing of an interlocutory appeal, and in part to a pending action for which Hoover's

§ 2255 has been stayed. The delay in the district court is not

unreasonable under these circumstances. Accordingly, although we

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Robert F. Kirk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Avistar Communications Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Avistar Communications Corporation.





By:
/s/ Robert F. KirkRobert F. KirkChief Executive OfficerDate: May 12, 2011

(Principal Executive Officer)







I, Elias A. MurrayMetzger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Avistar Communications Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Avistar Communications Corporation.





By:
/s/ Elias A. MurrayMetzgerElias A. MurrayMetzgerChief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate SecretaryDate: May 12, 2011

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated April 23, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Smart Trust 428 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-229708) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 23, 2019
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 Quarterly Report of Deep Down, Inc. (“Deep Down”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), the undersigned, Ronald E. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of Deep Down, hereby 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 Deep Down.
 
 This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Deep Down and will be retained by Deep Down and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 Date:       March 8, 2011
 
 /s/ RONALD E. SMITH
 Ronald E. Smith
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
  I, Subrah S. Iyar, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WebEx Communications, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
 operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 7, 2004
 
 
 /s/SUBRAH S. IYAR Subrah S. Iyar Chief Executive Officer
  Form 10-Q for quarter ended March 31, 2004 
 Form 10-Q for quarter ended March 31, 2004
Exhibit 10.12




---



##### 



Definitions
 Affiliate
 Agreement
 Base Pay
 Benefit Plan
     Bonus Plan Payment
 Board
 Cause
 2




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Code
 3




---



##### 



Date of Termination
 Exchange Act
 Good Reason
       Notice of Termination
 4




---



##### 



Parent Company
 Stock Incentive Plan
 Stock Award Agreements
 Subsidiary
 Successor
 Termination of Employment
 5




---



##### 



Third Party
 Term of Agreement
 Benefits upon a Change in Control
   Cash Payments
 Group Health Plans
 6




---



##### 



Gross-Up Payments
 Outplacement Services.
 7




---



##### 



Treatment of Stock Options and Other Equity-Based Awards
 Indemnification
 Successors
 Binding Agreement
 Notices
 Disputes
 8




---



##### 



Related Agreements
 No Employment or Service Contract
 Survival
 Miscellaneous
 9




---



##### 



Sincerely,ev3 Inc.By:Name:Title:[ev3 Endovascular, Inc./Micro Therapeutics, Inc./
FoxHollow Technologies, Inc.]By:Name:Title:Agreed to and Accepted as of this  day of , :[Name of Employee]
 10