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

No. 25135.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1951.

Sentell, Beene & Rosser, Snyder, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated and by a jury assessed1 a fine of $200.00; hence this appeal.

The proven facts are briefly summarized as follows:

Some officers of Scurry County, being informed of an automobile' wreck south of Snyder, in said county, went to the place to make an investigation.- Upon arriving there, appellant was found in charge of one of the automobiles, which he said he was driving at the time of the wreck, and he was drunk. He told officers that he had been drinking beer.

There are four bills of exception in the record.

Bill No. 1 complains of the overruling of a motion for a continuance because of the absence of one, T. W. Bowen, by whom appellant alleged he expected to prove that he took Bowen to his (Bowen’s) house some few hours prior to the time he (appellant) was alleged to have been under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that he was not intoxicated at such time. This was a second application for a continuance. There is no affidavit from Bowen in the record, and we do not know even no-vy whether he would testify as to the sobriety of appellant at some undesig-nated time prior to this accident. Similar testimony to that desired from Bowen is found in the record, and this desired testimony would have been cumulative thereof. This bill is overruled.

Bill No. 2 complains because of the fact that certain statements were testified to by Deputy Sheriff Head as having been made to him by appellant at the scene of the accident wherein appellant was accused of drunken driving. This bill -is incomplete in that it is not shown therein what the witness Head testified to that was objectionable, nor was it shown that appellant was under arrest; but it was claimed that the appellant had not. been warned that any statement thus made could be used against him. This bill is overruled.

Bill No. 3 relates to the testimony of Sheriff Lloyd Merritt and is in the same condition as Bill No. 2. In addition thereto, it .seems not to have been, signed by the *136trial judge. In any event, this bill is ruled by our action on Bill No. 2 and is overruled.

Bill No-. 4 is a bill requesting the trial court to instruct the jury to find a verdict of not guilty. This was refused and we think correctly so.

Perceiving no error shown herein, the judgment will be affirmed.
#### Ex parte SOLIZ.

No. 26617.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1953.

*503Jack K. Pedigo, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Sam H. Burris, County Atty., Alice, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

This is an original application for habeas corpus which was set down for hearing to determine whether or not the writ should issue. We have concluded that the application should be refused.

. Relator was indicted for rape in Duval County and a conviction in Jim Wells County, after change of venue, was affirmed by this Court. Soliz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 811. He is now an inmate of the penitentiary.

In this proceeding it is contended that the judgment of conviction is void because:

(1) The indictment upon which he was tried in Jim Wells County was not certified to by the Clerk of the District Court of Duval County.

(2) There is no order of the District Judge selecting the jury commission which selected the grand jury panel from which the grand jury was impaneled.

(3) A quorum of the grand jury was not present when the question of returning an indictment against relator was voted on.

This is a collateral attack upon the judgment of conviction and unless the judgment is void the attack must fall.

There is nothing to show that the original indictment was not forwarded by the' Clerk of the District Court of Duval County to the Clerk of the District- 'Court of Jim Wells County, as required by Art. 570, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

Nor is it alleged that the jury commissioners who selected the grand jurors were not in fact appointed by the district judge to whom they delivered the list of grand jurors so selected by them.

 The statute, Art. 333 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., does not require the entry of an order appointing jury commissioners, also, its provisions are directory and not mandatory. Ex parte Traxler, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 550, 189 S.W.2d 749; Harris v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 161, 58 S.W.2d 513.

Admittedly a grand jury of twelve men was impaneled, ten of whom were present when the indictment was returned and delivered to the judge in open court.

 There was no motion to quash the indictment and no question otherwise raised prior to or at the trial regarding the presence of a quorum at the time the vote *504was taken. A quorum having returned the indictment the regularity of the manner of voting cannot be questioned by collateral proceeding after conviction. The indictment is not void because of the alleged irregularity prior to its delivery in open court to the judge.

Ex parte Ogle, Tex.Cr.App., 61 S.W. 122, and other cases cited by relator deal with grand juries composed of more or less than twelve jurors, in violation of Art. 5, § 13 of the Constitution of Texas, and are not in point. The instant grand jury was composed of twelve, nine or more constituting a quorum. Vernon’s Ann.St. Constitution of Texas, Art. 5, § 13; Art.'371 C.C.P.

The application for writ of habeas corpus is refused.
Exhibit
32(a)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Southwestern Electric Power Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Michael G. Morris, the 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, based on my knowledge (i) the 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 the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.








/s/ Michael G.
Morris______________


Michael
G. Morris


Chief
Executive Officer








October
31, 2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4956 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4956

       To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Oleo Turmeric.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

Mr. Ruppersberger introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Oleo Turmeric.

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

SECTION 1. OLEO TURMERIC.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Oleo Turmeric (CAS  Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          No. 8024-37-1)                                                    12/31/2015
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3301.90.10)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 Brampton Crest International Inc. on Form
10-K for the year ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Giuliano, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)  the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 5(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/
      Joseph GiulianoJoseph
      GiulianoChief
      Financial Officer





Date:
April 15, 2010
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1865 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 110 ) IV-K-(B)- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20083:22:17

PM Sheet 110ofl98P. 2


### ENERG Y AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS , INC . 165 5 NORT H FOR T MYE RDRIV E ARLINGTON , VIRGINI

A2220 9 703/528-190 0 IV-K-(B)- 5

Septembe r 11 , 198 6
Mr . Rober t Pahel-Shor t Economi c Analysi s Branc h(MD-12 ) U S Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Researc hTriangl e Park , N C 2771 1 Subject : EP AContrac t No . 68-02-4202 , Wor k Assignmen t No . 1 5

IFCAMModification s Dea r Robert , A t you r request , th e followin g change s hav e bee nmad e t o th e IFCAMsourc e code : 1 . Th e sulfu r emissio nrat e fo r distillat e fue l oi l i s 0. 1 l bS O /MMBtu . 2 . Th e sodium

once-throug hscrubbe r o n a n industria l residua l fue l oi l boile r ca n compl ywit ha 0. 1 l bPM/MMBt u emissio nlimi t withou t an y additiona l pollutio ncontro l equipment . 3 . Cost s fo r a mechanica l collecto r shoul d alway s b e adde d t o th e sodium once-throug hscrubbe r cost s o n a n industria l coal-fire dboiler . 4 . N O emission s contro l cost s ar e blocked : th e curren t baselin e fo r th e x analysi s o f alternativ e SO - NSP S fo r larg e ne windustria l boiler s doe s no t includ e th e curren t N O NSPS , th e propose dN O NSP S o r N O SIP's . Xx x 5 . Th e curren t industria l residua l fue l oi l boile r S0

_an d P MNSP S ar e no t applicabl e i n IFCAMbecaus e IFCAMuse s multipl e package doi l boilers , no t larg e ( >25 0 MMBtu/hr ) field-erecte d oi l boilers . Cal l m e i f yo u hav e anyquestions . Sincerely, / Ti mHoga nfj Projec t Manage r TH/ir t cc : Dr . A . Weh e

MANAGEMENT / ECONOMIC S /

ENGINEERING
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Texas - RRC District 8A Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Texas - RRC District 8A Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 4     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 15     | 14     | 17     | 21     | 7      | 2      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|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
March 15, 2006


Ms. Kristen Driscoll
Citibank, N.A.
388 Greenwich Street 14th Floor
New York, NY 10013


RE:   Officer's Certificate    Statement as to Compliance

     PHH Mortgage Capital LLC, Series:  PHHMC 2005-2

Dear Ms. Driscoll:

The undersigned officer certifies the following for PHH Mortgage Corporation
for the 2005 calendar year.    To the best of our knowledge:


A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding year
and of performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
March 1, 2005 has been made under such officers' supervision.

To the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the Master
Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated March 1, 2005 throughout such year.




Certified by:

/s/ Marc J. Hinkle
------------------------
Officer - Marc J. Hinkle
Vice President - Loan Servicing
PHH Mortgage Corporation
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6519

KENNETH LEON MILLS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL T. W. BELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-00-936-1)

Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Leon Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Leon Mills appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Mills v. Bell, No. CA-00-936-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 14,

2001). 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 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Heritage Financial Group;2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4)
    
    The filers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information
relating to the small business
issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made know to us by
others within those entities,
particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the
filer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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change
in the filers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred
during the filers fourth fiscal
quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the filers internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5)
    
    The filers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the filers
auditors and the Audit Committee of filers Board of Directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 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 filer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 filers internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:      March 31, 2009
    By:
    /s/ T. Heath FountainT. Heath FountainSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4978 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to remove the maximum payment 

amount for certain qualified losses under the Traumatic Injury Protection 

under the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. BACA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to remove the maximum payment amount for certain qualified losses under 

the Traumatic Injury Protection under the 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance program. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4978 IH

1 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF MAXIMUM PAYMENT AMOUNTS 

2 FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED LOSSES UNDER 

3 TRAUMATIC INJURY PROTECTION UNDER 

4 SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 

5 PROGRAM. 

6 Section 1980A(d) of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and the max9 imum payment’’ and inserting ‘‘and, except as pro10 vided by paragraph (3)(A), the maximum’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(3)(A) The maximum payment amount described in 

14 paragraph (1) shall not apply to a qualifying loss directly 

15 caused by a traumatic event described in subparagraph 

16 (B). The Secretary shall determine the payment schedule 

17 for such qualifying losses as the Secretary determines ap18 propriate without regard to such maximum payment 

19 amount. 

20 ‘‘(B) A traumatic event described in this subpara21 graph is one of the following: 

22 ‘‘(i) Armed conflict. 

23 ‘‘(ii) Training under conditions simulating 

24 armed conflict. 

25 ‘‘(iii) Hazardous service. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4978 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) A traumatic event caused through an in2 strumentality of war.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS