alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte BROWN.

No. 24406.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 27, 1949.

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1949.

*155None on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his conviction for a felony in Harris County, relator was sentenced to serve a term of from two to six years in the penitentiary. After serving for a time, he was granted a six-months reprieve which was later extended for a period of one year.

Upon the expiration of the time fixed in the extended reprieve, relator did not return to prison nor did he offer himself for such return but remained at large for a period of something like six months and .until 'he was arrested and returned to prison as a reprieve violator.

Relator claims that he is entitled to be given credit on his sentence for the. six months he was at large after the reprieve had expired and, with such credit, he has served the sentence imposed and is entitled to be discharged from custody. It is his contention that the extended reprieve remained in effect until revoked.

In accordance with this contention, relator presented his application for the writ of habeas corpus to the Judge of the District Court of Walker County, who heard the fact's and certified same to this court for final determination.

The extended reprieve, upon its face, shows that the rights extended thereunder were “under the terms thereof.” With the expiration of the reprieve all rights given to relator thereunder expired.

A convict sentenced to the penitentiary in a felony case may be relieved of the punishment imposed (a) by serving the sentence, (b) by earned commutation, or (c) by the clemency of the pardoning power.

The time which relator seeks to have here credited upon his sentence—that is, the time -he was at liberty after the extended reprieve had expired—not coming within any of the conditions mentioned is therefore not available as a credit upon his sentence.

The relief sought by the writ of habeas corpus is refused.

Opinion approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator’s claim is based upon the proposition that he was granted a reprieve from confinement in the state prison, such reprieve to expire on April 24, 1946. He enjoyed his freedom until that date and continued to remain at large and did not return to prison voluntarily, and as a clemency violator, he was apprehended and returned to prison on October 3, 1947, he being thus at large after the expiration of his reprieve for approximately one year and six months. It' is also worthy of note that the record contains a statement and agreement signed by relator, accepting his reprieve, and agreeing therein to return to the prison on or before April 24, 1946, when said reprieve expired. He did not do so, and now desires to add to his time spent in such prison the one year and six months spent at large after the expiration of such reprieve" and his return thereto. This he cannot do -under the terms of his reprieve, as well as his signed agreement.

The motion for a rehearing will be overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                         624,893
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  953,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                   333,783
<INVENTORY>                                  2,829,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,968,956
<PP&E>                                       9,756,536
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,409,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,162,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,502,201
<BONDS>                                      2,753,134
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,806,482
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,100,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                     12,718,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,718,239
<CGS>                                        5,757,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,507,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (703,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (218,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (485,961)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (485,961)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6462

BOBBY PONDER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(3:07-cv-00778-RBH) 

Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 14, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Bobby Ponder, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Bobby Ponder seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Ponder 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Carl J. Grivner, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XO Communications,Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: Aug 9, 2004    /s/ Carl J. Grivner      Carl J. Grivner
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|No chart available.                                                                        
|No chart available.                                                                        
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

December 23, 2015

d1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2015

152070

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152070

COA: 322808

Washtenaw CC: 14

- 000272

- AR

JOSHUA MATTHEW PACE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED , because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Ruth Swan, Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. (the Company) do hereby 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.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended January 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: May 30, 2013





/s/  "Ruth Swan"

Ruth Swan,

Chief Financial Officer
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03518

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4829 

To suspend temporarily the duty on used camshafts and crankshafts for 

diesel engines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. NUNNELEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on used camshafts and 

crankshafts for diesel engines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. USED CAMSHAFTS AND CRANKSHAFTS FOR 

4 DIESEL ENGINES. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Used camshafts and crankshafts for diesel engines 

(provided for in subheading 8483.10.30) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4829 IH

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58053-58054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24712]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force

[[Page 58054]]


ACTION: Notice to delete records systems.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete two systems 
of records notices from its inventory of records systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: The action will be effective on October 27, 2000 unless comments 
are received that would result in a contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Air Force Access Programs Manager, 
Headquarters, Air Force Communications and Information Center/ITC, 1250 
Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Anne Rollins at (703) 588-6187.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force's records 
systems notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 
(5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal 
Register and are available from the address above.
    The proposed deletions are not within the purview of subsection (r) 
of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which would require the 
submission of a new or altered system report for each system.

    Dated: September 20, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
F036 AFCA B

SYSTEM NAME:
    Individual Academic Training Records (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793).
    Reason: These records have been destroyed therefore, the system of 
records notice is being deleted.
F036 AFCA D

SYSTEM NAME:
    Training Progress (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793).

    Reason: These records have been destroyed, therefore, the system of 
records notice is being deleted.
[FR Doc. 00-24712 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered by thisannual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-18;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports;3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006   By: /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName:
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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
  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;
andb)
    
    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: March 15, 2011
    By:

/s/
Edward J. WhalenEdward J. WhalenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4465 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrasulfotole. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrasulfotole. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PYRASULFOTOLE. 

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 5-Hydroxy-1,3- 

dimethylpyrazol-4-yl 2- 

mesyl-4- 

(trifluoromethyl)phenyl ketone (Pyrasulfotole)(CAS 

No. 365400–11–9) (provided for in subheading 

2933.19.23) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4465 IH

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION




By
signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of White
River Capital, Inc.




Date:
March 13, 2009.






/s/
      John
      M. EggemeyerJohn
      M. Eggemeyer, IIIChief
      Executive Officer







/s/
      Martin
      J. SzumskiMartin
      J. SzumskiChief
      Financial Officer