alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. 1437-98
GREGORY CHARLES WICKWARE, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS COUNTY

Per Curiam.

OPINION 

### On appeal from his conviction for possession with intent to deliver more than 400 

## grams ofcocaine, the appellant presented apoint oferrorthat the police officers' entry into his residence violated the Fourth Amendmentbecause they did not knock and announce their 

### entry. See generally Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).Wickware - 2 

### The Court of Appeals placed the burden on the appellant to show that the police conduct in knocking down his door as they shouted, "Police," was unreasonable. Wickware
v. State, No. 05-95-01767-CR, slip op. at 7 (Tex. App. — Dallas June 17, 1998) (not 

### designatedfor publication). The court held that the appellant had not satisfiedhis burden since an officer gave two reasons for this method ofentry: to protect the officers and to 

### preventthe drugs from beinghidden or flushed down the toilet. Id. at 8. In making theseholdings, the court did not take account ofthe more recent decision ofthe Supreme Court in Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). The Richards Court disapproved aper se exception to the "knock and announce" factor ofthe Fourth Amendment for all drug searches. The Court said: [I]n each case, it is the duty ofa court confronted with the question to determine whether the facts and circumstances ofthe particular entry justified 

### dispensing with the knock-and-announce requirement. In order tojustify a "no-knock" entry, the police must have a reasonable 

### suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation ofthe crime by, for example, allowing the destruction ofevidence. This standard — as opposed to a probable cause requirement

— strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual privacy interests affected by no-knockentries. Cf. Marylandv. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 337 (1990) (allowing a protective sweep of a house during an arrest where the officers have "a reasonable beliefbased on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene"); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) (requiring a 

### reasonable and articulable suspicion of danger tojustify a pat-down search). 

### This showing is not high, but the police should be required to make it whenever the reasonableness ofa no-knock entry is challenged. Id, at 394-95 (emphases added). •*Wickware - 3 

### The appellant's petition fordiscretionary review is granted, the judgment of the Court 

### of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration ofthis point oferror.

En banc. Delivered January 13, 1999. Do not publish.
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                           
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                     
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 19,117 |        |        |        |        | 12,930 | 12,430 | 12,224 | 12,516
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 11,728 | 10,912 | 9,780  | 9,174  | 9,748  | 9,274  | 9,543  | 9,673  | 9,147  | 9,242 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 9,239  | 9,811  | 8,960  | 9,325  | 9,588  | 10,447 | 10,474 | 10,045 | 11,573 | 20,688
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 29,277 | 30,358 | 21,949 | 20,164 | 22,975 | 16,097 | 17,816 | 36,119 | 34,127 | 36,497
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 37,397 | 39,859 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History:                                                  
|                                                               
|Kansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                               
|                                                               
|Kansas Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 219    | 209    | 147   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 97     | 107    | 77     | 51     | 115    | 71     | 151    | 76     | 60     | 37    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 68     | 198    | 35     | 98     | 102    | 78     | 59     | 54     | 23     | 24    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 58     | 46     | 71     | 78     | 47     | 108    | 93     | 149    | 78     | 24    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 27     | 62     | 310    | 375    | 271    | 62     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Case 4:98-cr-00173-RAJ Document 47 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40119

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-639-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Miguel Angel

Romero raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render 21

U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face. The Government’s

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.8

LETTER OF CONSENT

I, Cashel Meagher, P.Geo., refer to the Annual Report (Annual
Report) on Form 40-F of HudBay Minerals Inc. (HudBay) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011.

I consent to the appearance of my name in the Annual Report.

I also consent to the incorporation
by reference of the appearance of my name in the Annual Report into the Registrants Form S-8 Registration Statement (SEC File No. 333-170295).



Yours very truly,/s/ Cashel MeagherPer: Cashel Meagher, P.Geo.


Dated: March 31,
2011
Exhibit
      32.2











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





I,
      Larry
      Mosley, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Data
      Call Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December
      31,
      2006 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 Form
      10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
      results of operations of Data Call Technologies, Inc.





**Data
      Call Technologies, Inc.**








DATED:
      April 2, 2007    By:
      /s/ Larry Mosley


Larry Mosley


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Michael T. Flavin, Chairman and Chief Executive 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:



Date: February 12, 2009/s/ MICHAEL T. FLAVIN, PH.D. Michael T. Flavin, Ph.D. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.


78

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as Adopted as Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion
Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i.) the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 27, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

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



|                        |  |                                                      
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 12, 2010 |  | /S/    JOHN H.
KISPERT                               
|                        |  | John H. Kispert President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT  99.4


                             CERTIFICATE 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 (the "Report") on the Form 10-QSB of
Standard  Capital  Corporation (the "Company") for the nine months ended May 31,
2005,  as  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
I,  B.  Gordon  Brooke,  Chief  Accounting  Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Director,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and  belief:

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

2.     The  information  contained  in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all  material  respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.


Date:  October 25, 2005
                                       /s/  "B.  Gordon  Brooke"
                                       -------------------------
                                          B.  Gordon  Brooke
                                      Chief  Accounting  Officer
                             Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Director
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)



In connection with
the annual report on Form 10-K of Steele Resources Corporation (the “Company”), for the period ended December 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers
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 our 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.



|                    | 2-TRACK GLOBAL, INC.                
|------------------- | ------------------------------------
|                    |                                     
|Dated: May 17, 2012 | /s/ Woosun Jung                     
|                    | Woosun Jung, Chief Executive Officer
|                    |                                     
|Dated: May 17, 2012 | /s/ Woosun Jung                     
|                    | Woosun Jung, Chief Financial Officer
Case 5:20-cv-00374-DAE Document 35 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00374-DAE Document 35 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00374-DAE Document 35 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 3
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|Texas - RRC District 7B Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|Texas - RRC District 7B Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (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                                                                                                                            | 73     | 10     | 15     | 5      | 22     | 121    | 57     | 78     | 16     | 27    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1,855  | 116    | 15     | 0      | 348    | 391    | 165    | 142    | 5     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 44     | 313    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5027 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5027

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixed isomers of 1,3-
                            dichloropropene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself and Mr. Young of Indiana) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixed isomers of 1,3-
                            dichloropropene.

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

SECTION 1. MIXED ISOMERS OF 1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.93 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixed isomers of 1,3-
dichloropropene) 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 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 5126** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RANDY KENDRELL SIMPSON, a/k/a Cheese , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 2:96

- cr - 00011

- NCT

- 1 )

Submitted : April 1, 2010 Decided: April 16, 2010

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un publ ished per curiam opinion
. G. Godwin Oyewole, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Randy Kendrell Simpson seeks to appeal the district court’s order revoking supervised release and imposing a forty

- two month prison term. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). * With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United
S tates v. Reyes Although the time limitations imposed by Rule 4(b) are not jurisdictional, , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), they “must be enforced by th[e] court when properly invoked by the government.” United States v. Mitchell

The district court entered its judgment on October 8, 2009. Simpson filed his notice of appeal on Novem ber 19, 2009, after the ten

- day period expired but within the thirty

- day , 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir. 2008). The Government has moved to dismiss Simpson’s appeal as untimely filed.

* On December 1, 2009, amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure took effect altering certain time periods and the calculation of specific time periods. The events relevant to this appeal all occurred prior to that date. We therefore appl y the rules as they existed before December 1, 2009.3 excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we defer action on the Government’s motion to dismiss and remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Simpson has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten

- day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDE D
San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

Governing Board, 2007 

J. Steven Worthley, Chair 

Supervisor, Tulare County 

Leroy Ornellas, Vice Chair 

Supervisor, San Joaquin County 

Judith G. Case 

Supervisor, Fresno County 

Jon McQuiston 

Supervisor, Kern County 

Tony Barba 

Supervisor, Kings County 

Ronn Dominici 

Supervisor, Madera County 

William O’Brien 

Supervisor, Stanislaus County 

Michael G. Nelson 

Supervisor, Merced County 

Raji Brar 

Councilmember, City of Arvin 

Henry T. Perea 

Councilmember, City of Fresno 

Chris Vierra 

Councilmember, City of Ceres 

Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer

Seyed Sadredin 
This page intentionally blank.