alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert E. LEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28520.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1956.

*783Boling & Griffith, Lubbock, for appellant.

Harold Green, County Atty., Tahoka, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is transporting beer, wine, gin and whisky in a dry area; the punishment, 60 days in jail and a fine of $500.

The agreed statement of facts in narrative form shows without question that appellant was stopped by Tom Hale and D. Lindley, Deputy Sheriffs of Lynn County, while he was driving an automobile on a road in that county and a large quantity of beer, wine, gin and whisky was found in the car and admitted in evidence. The area was admittedly dry.

Appellant urges that the search of appellant’s car was illegal and the evidence as to its results was therefore inadmissible. The State attacks the sufficiency of the objection,to raise such issue.

Deputy Hale, in the hearing before the court in the absence of the jury, when the admissibility of this evidence was being considered, testified that after he .had seen the carton of beer in the car, appellant gave him permission to search and voluntarily opened the hood of the car where two cases containing whisky and gin were found. He had previously testified to having seen the carton of beer while checking appellant’s “driver’s license.”

There being evidence before the court that appellant consented to the search of his car, we overrule the contention that the court erred in admitting in evidence the results of the search.

As presented in the court’s bill of exception, the objection to the court’s definition of the word “transport” shows no reversible error. The court defined transport to mean “the carrying or conveying from one place or locality to another place or locality,” and the objection was that the charge did not clearly and properly define the term transport.

We are bound by the court’s bill, no bystanders’ bill being filed.' See Prosch v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 68, 253 S.W.2d 432; Klinedinst v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 510, 265 S.W.2d 593; Crownover v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 286 S.W.2d 624.

Under our holding that the search of appellant’s car was upon consent, the remaining bills of exception, considered without reference to the court’s qualification or the bills prepared by the court, show no error which would call for reversal.

The evidence sustains-the conviction and we find no reversible error.

The judgment is affirpied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification ofCEO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of CDRV Investors, Inc. (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John M. Ballbach, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ JOHN  M. BALLBACH                          |     |
|------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Name: John M. Ballbach                         |     |
| *Title: President and Chief Executive Officer* | * * |
| Date: March 30, 2007                      |     |

 

----
EXHIBIT 13.2





Section 1350 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F /A of Global Green Matrix Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:    July 23 , 2012





/s/ Greg Pendura”


Greg Pendura


Chief Financial Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PERRY FLETCHER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3378

[February 15, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 14-6219CF10A and 14-7755CF10A.

Perry Fletcher, Arcadia, pro se.

No brief fled for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION OF 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 on Form 10-Q of Madison River
Capital, LLC (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), J. Stephen Vanderwoude, as Managing Director, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, 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 the
Company.


/s/ J. Stephen Vanderwoude
----------------------------------------

Name:   J. Stephen Vanderwoude
Title:  Managing Director, Chairman
        and Chief Executive Officer
Date:   May 12, 2005




This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NO. 07-06-0149-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 11, 2006

	______________________________

	DAVID MERIWEATHER ANDERSON, APPELLANT

	V.

	JACK A. SUNSERI AND CONSOLIDATED PARTNERS, LTD., APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

	NO. GN 503,111; HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, David Meriweather Anderson, filed a notice of appeal from a Judgment entered February 15, 2006.  The clerk’s record was filed on May 30, 2006 and there is not a reporter’s record per the docketing statement filed by appellant.  By letter dated September 11, 2006,  the clerk of this court notified appellant that his brief was due September 1, 2006, but had yet to be filed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).  The letter further advised appellant that the appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if the brief, or a response reasonably explaining the failure to file a brief with a showing that appellee had not been injured by the delay, was not filed by September 21, 2006.  No brief, motion for extension or other response has been received.

	Accordingly, we now dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a directive of the court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b), (c).    

						Mackey K. Hancock

						        Justice
#### STEELE v. STATE.

No. 23964.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 10, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a fine of $500 upon a plea of guilty of selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area.

The manner of the trial of this party is the subject of an attack in a bill of exception. The judge of a trial court has a duty to conduct the trial of cases in accordance with established procedure, as required by the due process clause of our Constitution. Vernon’s Ann.St.Const. art. 1, § 19. When this is not done we are required to take note of it, provided the question is properly brought before us. This plea of guilty was taken by the judge, without a jury, at the same time and in exactly the same way as in Steele v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 209 S.W.2d 186. The things which apparently took place, however, are not brought before us in' the manner required by law. See the opinion in the companion case.

Because no reversible error is presented for our consideration, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
----

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS

Call for proposals for specific co-funded projects 2006

(2006/C 49/13)

A call for proposals concerning the Framework programme for judicial cooperation in civil matters is currently launched. The priorities, the full text of the call, the application forms and the guidelines can be found on the website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/civil_cooperation/funding_civil_cooperation_en.htm

You must return the completed application form and all its annexes to the Commission by 20 April 2006,

to the following address:

Your envelope must be marked ‘APPLICATION UNDER THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS’

----
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|Lower 48 States Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Lower 48 States Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 37    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 78     | 216    | 85     | 209    | 318    | 134    | 129    | 215    | 127    | 189   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 142    | 71     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### CLARK v. STATE.

No. 25454.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1951.

Charles W. Tessmer, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for burglary; the punishment, six years in the penitentiary.

Appellant sought a continuance contending that he had no counsel and for that reason had been unable to have his witnesses subpoenaed. He objected to having a court appointed attorney and complained that he had employed Charles W. Tessmer to represent him after his case had been called that morning. He alleged that his attorneys needed more time to prepare his defense.

The overruling of the motion for continuance was alleged as error in appellant’s motion for new trial. The State controverted the motion and alleged that Mr. Tessmer had been the attorney of record for appellant for some two weeks or more prior to the trial, and had been notified of the March 21st setting of the case on March 8. No testimony appears to have been heard on the issue raised on the motion for new trial.

It appears that appellant was represented on the trial both by the court appointed attorney and by Mr. Tessmer, the attorney of his choice, and that the absent witnesses named in his motion appeared and testified.

Appellant concedes that the motion for continuance is equitable in nature and one addressed to the discretion of the trial court. We are unable to agree that an abuse of such discretion is shown.

The manager of a White’s Auto Store in Dallas testified that he left the store closed at about 8 o’clock P. M. on December 6, 1950, and returned shortly before 8 o’clock the following morning, when he discovered that the store had been burglarized.

A television set missing from the store was sold by appellant to W. R. Cothran the latter part of December.

Appellant’s confession was offered in evidence wherein he said that he and one Burks broke into the store about 10 P. M. on December 6 and sold the television set and -other property taken by them from the store to Cothran.

Appellant did not testify but offered testimony to the effect that he was at another and different place during the night in question.

The indictment contained no allegation as to whether the burglary was committed at night or in the daytime and the trial court *30in his charge did not define daytime but authorized a conviction upon a finding of an entry by force and breaking, either in the night or daytime.

The indictment is in approved form and we see no error in the court’s charge in so submitting the case to the jury.

It is unnecessary that we consider the sufficiency of. the record to raise the issues herein discussed.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4719 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Terbacil. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Terbacil. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TERBACIL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 3-tert-Butyl-5-chloro-6- 

methyluracil (Terbacil) 

(CAS No. 5902–51–2) 

(provided for in subheading 2933.59.10) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4719 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4918 

To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium thiocyanate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Ms. FUDGE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium thiocyanate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SODIUM THIOCYANATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 NaSCN (Sodium 

Thiocyanate) (CAS No. 

540–72–7) (provided for in 

subheading 2842.90.10) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4918 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                        
|Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1      | 2      | 6      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4081 — Fujitsu Siemens Computer Holding/Siemens Business Services)

(2006/C 62/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 9 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
#### BENEDICT v. STATE.

No. 26743.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 9, 1953.

No attorney on appeal.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for Ihe State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated and under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The punishment assessed is a fine of $150.

The complaint and information, as well as all other matters of procedure, appear to be in regular form. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 DigitalPost Interactive, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification
      is
      an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of DigitalPost Interactive,
      Inc. does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
      of
      the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
      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 operations of the Company.




Date:
                April 11, 2007/s/ Steven
                DongSteven
                Dong*Chief
                Financial Officer*
#### Johnnie EDDINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27310.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1954.

*417No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the possession of a still, mash and equipment for the manufacture of liquor; the punishment, a fine of $350.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.