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

No. 24718.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 29, 1950.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1950. .

See 229 S.W.2d <333.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., *ot*Austin, for the State. '

.GRAVES, Judge. ■

Appellant was charged by indictment with passing as true a false and forged instrument in writing, and upon being found guilty by a jury, he was assessed a penalty of five years in the state penitentiary. He appeals.

It is shown herein that appellant was placed in jail sometime in July, 1949, this offense being alleged to have occurred in April, 1949. Soon after his arrest, appellant made a statement relative thereto and seemed ready to plead guilty to such charge, but the reason he did not do so was the refusal of the District Attorney to agree to his request for a suspended sentence.

This cause was called prior to the day of trial and appellant stated to the court that his brother and sister were on their way to Wichita Falls with a lawyer for him, so the trial court passed such case to the succeeding day, on which these persons failing to appear, appellant was told by the trial court that he would appoint an attorney to conduct his defense, and a practicing attorney of that county was thus appointed. Appellant refused such services and demanded that he have the services of Sam Spence who had tried a case in this same court the previous day in appellant’s presence, although appellant, who claimed to be possessed of $800 in money, had not spoken to Mr. Spence relative to undertaking his defense. Thereupon the' court informed appellant that Mr. Spence was in Oklahoma engaged in’the Federal Court, but that he would appoint another attorney, whose services were also refused by appellant, who stated that he wanted no other attorney. Whereupon he was called upon to plead to the indictment, and he responded in the following words:

> “Mr. Bell: Well, I am pleading guilty for one reason that I am guilty and I am denied my defense.

> “The Court: In that case, the Court will-enter a plea of not guilty for you.”

*189This case then proceeded to trial in the absence of any attorney for the appellant, although the court directed thé last appointed attorney (Mr. Charles Butts) “to stay around; if he changes his mind, why he can have counsel.” '

The only bill of exception herein found relates to certain questions propounded to appellant while he was on the witness stand in his own behalf. He was interrogate4 relative to many indictments in different counties .in Texas, all, charging felonies or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, none of which were categorically denied by appellant. We think these transactions were admissible relative to his credibility as a witness. See Branch’s Ann.Tex. P.C., p. 101, sec. 167.

We find no error shown in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
# AGENCY: 

Department of Defense, National Security Education Program (NSEP).

# ACTION: 

Notice.

# SUMMARY: 

The NSEP announces the opening of its Seventh Annual Competition for Grants to U.S. Institutions of Higher Education.

# DATES: 

The 2000 NSEP Grants Competition begins on Friday, February 4, 2000. [Preliminary Proposals are due Monday, April 10, 2000.

# ADDRESSES: 

Grants Solicitations (application and guidelines) will be available and may be downloaded from the NSEP home page (http://www.ndu.edu/​nsep) beginning Friday, February 4, 2000. As alternate methods, you may obtain copies of the solicitation package by: writing to NSEP, Institutional Grants, Rossyln P.O. Box 20010, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1210, Arlington, VA 22209-2248; by facsimile request nsepo@ndu.edu

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Anne Spreen, Institutional grants Director, National Security Education Program, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210, Arlington, VA 22209-2248; (703) 696-1991; Electronic mail address: spreenc@ndu.edu

Dated: November 22, 1999.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-2442  Filed 2-3ndash;00; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shaquan Martin, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.), rendered March 17, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant entered the rear door of a laundry establishment before business hours on June 5, 1987, and asked to speak with an employee. The complainant, who was working on his payroll, indicated that this individual was not yet present. The defendant left the premises only to reappear shortly thereafter wielding a wooden stick. After a struggle, the defendant fled with the payroll money and two checks *429payable to the laundry. The complainant pursued him, and the defendant was ultimately apprehended in a nearby schoolyard after a chase in which a neighboring business owner, his employee, and a customer joined. The neighboring owner removed from the defendant’s pocket a roll of money and two checks payable to the complainant’s laundry. As a result of this incident, the complainant sustained bruises and lacerations on his forehead, head and left arm.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the defendant’s representation, reveal that the defendant received meaningful representation *(see, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705; *People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 799; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137,147).

No objection was made before the sentencing court regarding any perceived deficiencies in the procedure utilized to adjudicate the defendant a persistent felony offender. The issue has thus not been preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Sullivan,*153 AD2d 223, 233). We note, moreover, that "the statutory purposes for filing a predicate statement, that is, to apprise the court of the prior convictions and to afford the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard, were satisfied here” *(People v Jackson,*151 AD2d 781).

In light of the defendant’s extensive criminal history and the indication of his probation officer that prospects for the defendant’s rehabilitation were so remote that the maximum term of incarceration was recommended, the sentence imposed was not excessive.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.
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 Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Kevin M. Shook, 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 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 operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|                                      
|/s/    KEVIN M.
SHOOK                 
|Kevin M. Shook Chief Financial Officer

Dated: March 5, 2010
Exhibit 99.3



                              MANAGEMENT ASSERTION

For the period of January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the servicing of
consumer finance receivables owned by BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2005-A has been
conducted by BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, in its capacity as servicer, in
compliance with the servicing standards in all material respects, set forth in
Articles IV and V of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated March 1, 2005.

By:   BMW Financial Services NA, LLC

By:        /s/  Kerstin Zerbst
        -----------------------------------
        Kerstin Zerbst

Title:  CFO
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: June 1, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. F AA-2015-2440 

COMPASS SYSTEMS & SALES, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014-GL~70-0239 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On February 18, 2016 an Order Clarifying Court Jurisdiction and Directing Procedural 

Compliance in Future Filings was filed. 

On June 1, 2016 a Stipulated Notice of Compromise ("Notice") was filed. This Notice 

stated that the FAA was withdrawing its Complaint, because the parties had ''entered into an 

agreement of compromise and resolution" resolving each violation. (Not. 1.) The parties 

requested dismissal of the proceedings. 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised~ 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The June 8, 2016 Telephone Motion Conference (10:30 aip- 12:00 pm ET) is cancelled. 

2. The July 20, 2016 Final Pre-Hearing Conference (10:30 am - 12:00 pm ET) is cancelled. 

3. The August 2, 2016-August, 3, 2016 Hearing scheduled in Cleveland, Ohio is 

cancelled. 

4. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this 

·proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Atta<;hment: Service List 
.\ 

SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

. Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 1 

Mr. Brian K. Khan 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel;AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7109 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

Mr. Stuart A. Strasfeld 

Respondent's Counsel 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge 

100 E. Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, OH 44503 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

ONE COPY 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-2015-2440 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Verna LAWSON, Appellant, v. Laura BUHL, Executrix, etc., et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 3, 1954.

T. E. Mahan, Williamsburg, Cleon K. Calvert, Pineville, for appellant.

C. B. Upton, Williamsburg, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

This action combines certain features of a declaratory judgment proceeding and a settlement suit. The principal controversy concerns the sum of $1,451.21, which had been deposited in the Bank of Wil-liamsburg in the name of the deceased, Isham Lawson.

In the Whitley County Court where the decedent’s will was probated the appraisers reported this fund as a part of the decedent’s estate, and by order of the Whitley County Court approximately all of it was set aside to appellant, decedent’s widow, as her exemption under KRS 391.-030. Subsequently the executrix of the estate, one of the appellees, filed objections and exceptions to the appraisers’ report and moved to set aside the order of the county court purporting to transfer this fund. Before the objections, exceptions, and motion were passed upon, the present suit was1 filed in the Whitley Circuit Court by the executrix in that capacity, and individually, and also by other parties. The widow and the bank were made defendants.

After a hearing on the merits, the Chancellor adjudged that the money in the bank was not that of the deceased but was a trust fund created for the purpose of paying doctors and hospital bills. Appellant, the widow, appeals on the ground that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to pass upon the issue presented because this proceeding constituted a collateral attack upon the order of the county court.

Assuming, without deciding, that the county court could properly in the first instance try the question of whether or not this bank account jvas the property of the decedent, it is obvious that the order of the county court was not binding upon the appellees in this action because they were not parties to the proceeding in the county court. (While the executrix may have been a party to that proceeding, as such, she was not a party in her individual capacity.) It is apparent to us that the ex-parte order of the county court did not purport to pass upon the issue presented in this suit, and certainly the order was ineffective to deprive appellees (and third-party beneficiaries) of their interest in this fund. It follows that the circuit *379court had jurisdiction of the controversy. {It may- be noted that the county court, subsequent to the judgment entered in this action, has set aside his order in conformity with the judgment entered in this case.)

For the reasons stated, the motion for appeal is denied and the judgment stands affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mniteb ~tate~ QCourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI QCircuit

MICHAEL J. STARANOWICZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Respondent.

2012-3197

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in case no. PH0752110383-C-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Department of Treasury moves for a 10-day

extension of time, until October 25, 2012, to file its brief.

Michael J. Staranowicz responds. The Department of

Treasury replies. Staranowicz moves for oral argument.

The Department of Treasury does not oppose.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for an extension oftime is granted.

Case: 12-3197 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2012
MICHAEL STARANOWICZ v. TREASURY 2

(2) The motion for oral argument is deferred for consideration by the merits panel assigned to hear the case.

(3) A copy of the papers relating to the motion for oral

argument and this order shall be transmitted to the

merits panel assigned to decide this case

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

Case: 12-3197 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2012
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4703 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4703

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Paclobutrazol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Paclobutrazol.

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

SECTION 1. PACLOBUTRAZOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.01 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Paclobutrazol) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                 CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CEO 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 Paragon Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joel L. Hoffner, President and CEO 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:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                            /s/ Joel L. Hoffner
                            -------------------------------------------------
                            Joel L. Hoffner
                            President and Chief Executive Officer
                            November 13, 2006
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2005 — Selmani v Council and Commission

(Case T-299/04) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Council common positions - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Action for annulment - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Time-limits - Admissibility)

(2006/C 48/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Abdelghani Selmani (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: C. Ó Briain, Solicitor)

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and D. Canga Fano, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Brown, Agents)

Application for

primarily, annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restricted measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28) and all decisions adopted by the Council on the basis of Regulation No 2580/2001 and having the same effect as Decision 2004/306, in so far as those measures apply to the applicant,

Operative part of the Order

----

(1)OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 26, 2018.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 26, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18A1563. MICHAEL ROBERT BURROWS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Oklahoma Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Oklahoma Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 865   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,117  | 5,024  | 3,771  | 2,019  | 2,881  | 4,527  | 1,238  | 2,499  | 4,753  | 10,847
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 7,373  | 976    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023