alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Marcos Galarza, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Curtis Farber, J.), rendered September 12, 2017, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted criminal contempt in the second degree,</p><p>and attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and imposing sentence. </p><br><b>Per Curiam.</b><p>Judgment of conviction (Curtis Farber, J.), rendered September 12, 2017, affirmed. </p><p>Our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily with the aid of counsel, and after the court sufficiently advised defendant of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty (<i>see People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375 [2015]; <i>People v Sougou</i>, 26 NY3d 1052 [2015]). Contrary to defendant's present contention, nothing in the plea allocution record, in which defendant admitted that he had violated an order of protection by attempting to place his hands around the victim's neck, negated any element of the attempted criminal contempt charge to which he pleaded or triggered a duty to inquire into a potential defense (<a href="../2018/2018_03601.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Roberson</i>, 161 AD3d 544</a> [2018], <i>lv denied</i> 32 NY3d 940 [2018]; <a href="../2004/2004_02485.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Fiallo</i>, 6 AD3d 176</a>, 177 [2004], <i>lv denied </i>3 NY3d 640 [2004]; <a href="../2016/2016_02572.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also People v Velez</i>, 138 AD3d 418</a> [2016], <i>lv denied</i> 27 NY3d 1140 [2016]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 13, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1329. BROWN-MCGHEE v. THE STATE.

This case was docketed by this court on March 11, 2015 , and appellant’s brief

and enumerations of error were due March 31, 2015. Although the appellant was

ordered on April 23, 2015, to file a brief within 10 days, he has not done so as of the

date of this order. Because no brief has been filed, we therefore DISMISS this

appeal. Court of Appeals Rule 23(a).

Because Brown-McGhee is represented by counsel, he is hereby informed

of the following: 

This appeal has been dismissed because of your counsel’s failure to

file a timely brief and enumeration of errors on your behalf. If you

still wish to appeal, you may petition the trial court for leave to file an

out-of-time appeal. If the trial court enters an order granting your

request, you will have 30 days from the filing date of that order to file

a notice of appeal referencing your conviction. If the trial court enters

an order denying your request, you will have 30 days from the filing

date of that order to file a notice of appeal referencing the denial of

your request for an out-of-time appeal.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to BrownMcGhee as well as Brown-McGhee’s attorney, and the attorney is also directed to

send a copy to Brown-McGhee.

June 09, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,

Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/09/2015
Exhibit 23

LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders

MidCarolina Financial
Corporation and Subsidiary

Burlington, North Carolina

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-146523 filed as of October 5, 2007; 333-153802 and 333-153803 both filed as of October 2, 2008) on Form S-8 of MidCarolina Financial Corporation and
Subsidiary (the Company) of our report dated March 24, 2009 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, which report appears in the Companys 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

LOGO

Raleigh, North Carolina

March 31, 2009
#### Ex parte LANGSTON.

No. 24437.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 18, 1949.

George S. McCarthy, Amarillo, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator is charged by indictment with the murder of Alfred Munroe Allison on the 16th day of April, 1940. She sued out a writ of habeas corpus before. District Judge Henry S. Bishop. Upon a *469hearing thereof, she was denied bail and remanded to the custody of the sheriff, and she appeals from such order.

From the evidence presented to us, the facts seem sufficient to justify the trial court’s conclusion that she shot Mr. Allison with a pistol four times in the back from which wounds he died.

While not necessary to the decision of -this matter, we entertain some doubt as rto the admissibility of relator’s statement while under arrest in the office of the .sheriff.

There is no testimony offering any justification or excuse for the killing; and it :being evident that a capital offense has 'been committed, we think the trial court ■was correct in denying bail.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
#### BARROW v. LAVINE.

No. 4881.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

April 30, 1953.

John O. Young, Orange, for appellant."

Hughes & Clampitt, Jasper, for appellee.

■ R. L. MURRAY, Justice. .

Appellant attempted an appeal from a judgment in the district court of Newton County in a suit in the nature of an election contest. Judgment was rendered and entered in favor of Theodore Lavine against Ellis Barrow on June 10, 1952. Barrow filed his motion for new trial June 10, 1952. Nothing is shown in the transcript as to calling the motion to the court’s attention, or presenting it to the court, or postponing the decision on the motion by agreement in writing by counsel. The motion for new, trial was therefore overruled by operation of law thirty days after it was filed,. July 10, 1952. The appeal bond was filed on September 4, 1952, and was therefore not filed in time to confer jurisdiction of the appeal on this court.

A hearing was attempted on the motion on August 8, 1952, but the careful trial judge entered an order on that date, holding that the motion had already been overruled by operation of law and that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the motion.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
#### PIRTLE v. STATE.

No. 25956.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1952.

No attorney on appeal.

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

BEAUCPIAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of trwo years in the penitentiary for murder without malice. The indictment charges the murder, without malice, of Lorenzo Pleasant on the 2nd day of February, 1952.

A voluntary 'Confession admitted in the case details the incidents of the murder and fully sustains the jury’s verdict. According to her testimony given as a witness in the case, much of which is in conflict with that contained in the written confession, the deceased and another Negro who had come to the house had bought some whisky and were engaged in a drinking party. She went to the home of another person and was preparing to make ice cream for that evening. When she returned she found her talcum powder spilled on the dresser and some of her clothes lying on her trunk were burning which had filled the house with smoke. This gave rise to the difficulty, resulting in his death. She, in her evidence before the jury, defended her action on the plea of self-defense. Evidently the jury discounted this issue.

The weapon used was a knife, with which she stabbed the deceased severing the jugular vein and he bled to death shortly thereafter.

No brief has 'been filed for appellant in this case and we are unable to determine from the record as it is before us what complaint is chiefly relied upon in asking for reversal. The formal bills of exception complain of the failure of the court to give certain charges which were requested. We have examined these and are of the opinion that the main charge submitted all pertinent issues raised by the evidence in the case.

There are three indexed exceptions found in the statement of facts anid these are generally referred to as informal bills. The first of these complains of a question asked Jack Keeton, defendant’s witness, by the County Attorney, as to whether or not he owed Madera Kirkland any money. He answered that he did not. After the answer was made objection was made, which the court overruled. The purpose oif the question is not revealed and certainly the answer given did no 'harm to defendant’s case.

Another exception, found on page 66 of the statement of facts, might be similarly treated. The question asked and the answer given are found in the record. The obj ection was later made by the County Attorney and this was sustained 'by the court. The evidence was not withdrawn and we are unable to tell from the record whether the objection relates to evidence already *175given or to the indicated questions to follow. The bill has no force.

The third informal bill, found on page 69 of the re'cord, is not a complete hill and we are unable to understand the complaint which is attempted to be made.

We find no reversible error in the trial of the case and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25872]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

[OJP (OJJDP)-1304]


Meeting of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is 
announcing the meeting of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice.

DATES: The meeting dates are:
    1. Thursday, November 9, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., ET.
    2. Friday, November 10, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m., ET.
    3. Saturday, November 11, 2000, from 8:00 a.m. until 6:30 p.m., ET.
    4. Sunday, November 12, 2000, from 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., ET.

ADDRESS: All meetings will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 700 N. 
Westshore Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about how to attend 
this meeting, contact Freida Thomas, Grants Management Specialist, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 810 7th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20531; telephone: 202-307-5924. (This is not a 
toll-free number.) Questions may also be submitted by fax (202-307-
2819) or e-mail (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#50162235393431103f3a207e2523343f3a7e373f26"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c4a7e6965686d4c63667c22797f686366226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 
established pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, is meeting to carry out its advisory functions 
under section 5651 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq. The purpose of this 
meeting is to discuss and adopt recommendations from members regarding 
the committee's responsibility to advise the OJJDP Administrator, the 
President, and Congress about State perspectives on the operation of 
OJJDP and Federal legislation pertaining to juvenile justice and 
delinquency prevention. This meeting will be open to the public.

    Dated: October 3, 2000.
John J. Wilson,
Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 00-25872 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5590 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5590

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Disperse Blue 359.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Disperse Blue 359.

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

SECTION 1. DISPERSE BLUE 359.

    (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      (2-                 Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        Anthracenecarboni                                                  31/2015.......
                        trile,1-amino-4-
                        (ethylamino)-
                        9,10-dihydro-
                        9,10-dioxo-)
                        (Disperse Blue
                        359) (CAS No.
                        62570-50-7)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3204.11.35)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Jeffrey R. Mason, Chief Financial Officer of Amarc Resources
Ltd. (the Company), 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 the
best of my knowledge:

(i)        the Annual Report on
Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (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

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

Date:   September 27, 2007



/s/ Jeffrey Mason
            
______________________________________By:       Jeffrey
R. Mason Title:   Chief Financial Officer



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
#### EAST TEXAS MOTOR FREIGHT LINES v. STERRETT et al.

No. 14237.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

May 11, 1951.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1951.

Leachman, Matthews & Gardere and Henry D. Akin, all of Dallas, for appellant.

Mullinax, Wells & Ball, of Dallas, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

On June 23, 1950 we reversed the judgment below and remanded this cause for new trial, 232 S.W.2d 253. Thereafter the Supreme Court granted a writ of error and, on consideration of the merits, reversed our judgment and remanded the cause to this Court for our consideration and judgment on points 3 and 6, not passed upon by us in our former opinion, 236 S.W.2d 776.

 Point 3 involved asserted misconduct of the jury, in that one or more of the jurors stated or discussed in the jury room while they were considering the case, the question of whether the plaintiff’s employer . would fire the plaintiff after the trial. There was no evidence on such question before the jury; the tendered evidence thereon having been excluded. While we are still of the opinion that such discussion was improper, our reading of the record leads us to believe that no injury resulted to appellant on the liability issues submitted, but only as bearing on the damage issue. Point 6 complains of the amount of damages being excessive. We are of the opinion that the verdict on past and future doctor bills was excessive, since the evidence shows the doctor’s charges for past and estimated future treatments would amount to $470, while the jury allowed $750. We therefore find such answer excessive in the sum of $280.

Considering the record as a whole on the question of damages for personal injuries, and without repeating the evidence set out in our original opinion, and in the opinion of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the verdict on damages for personal injuries is excessive in the sum of $3,000. Accordingly it is our order that if ap-pellees within ten days from date of this *353opinion file a remittitur in the sum of $3,-280, the balance of the judgment below for $5,470 will be affirmed; otherwise the judgment below will be reversed and cause remanded to the trial court for another trial.
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 9 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 10 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 58 Filed 11/09/20 Page 11 of 11
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Case 6:20-cv-00458-ADA Document 3 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 1
#### WILLIAM FRIEZEN v. B. F. BYERS and Others.1

October 27, 1911.

Nos. 17,253—(124).

Case followed.

Action in the district court for Renville county to determine adverse claims *541•of defendants to a lien upon certain real estate by virtue of a certain judgment. The case was tried upon stipulated facts before Powers, J., who ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Prom an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial, they appealed.

Affirmed.

*George F. Gage*and *John F. Byers,*for appellants.

*J. M. Freeman,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 132 N. W. 920.

PEB CURIAH.

The decision in this case is controlled by the decision in Kelly v. Byers, supra, page 489, 132 N. W. 919.

Affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 540 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to issue a medal to honor veterans 

of the Armed Forces who died after their service in the Vietnam War, 

but whose deaths were a direct result of their service in the Vietnam 

War. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2011 

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to issue a medal to 

honor veterans of the Armed Forces who died after their 

service in the Vietnam War, but whose deaths were a 

direct result of their service in the Vietnam War. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘In Memory Medal for 

5 Forgotten Veterans Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 540 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDAL TO HONOR VETERANS OF THE ARMED 

2 FORCES WHO DIED AS A RESULT OF THEIR 

3 SERVICE IN THE VIETNAM WAR. 

4 (a) MEDAL AUTHORIZED.—There is established a 

5 medal, to be known as the ‘‘Jesus (Chuchi) Salgado 

6 Medal’’, to be issued by the Secretary of Defense to honor 

7 each veteran of the Armed Forces— 

8 (1) who served in the Vietnam War; 

9 (2) who died after serving in the war, but 

10 whose death is determined by the Secretary of De11 fense to be a direct result of that service; and 

12 (3) whose name is not eligible for placement on 

13 the memorial wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memo14 rial (as defined in section 5(f) of Public Law 96–297 

15 (16 U.S.C. 431 note), as added by section 1 of Pub16 lic Law 106–214 (114 Stat. 336)). 

17 (b) APPLICATION AND DESIGN.—The Secretary of 

18 Defense shall issue the Jesus (Chuchi) Salgado Medal 

19 upon receipt of an application for the medal, submitted 

20 in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary pre21 scribes. The medal shall be of an appropriate design ap22 proved by the Secretary. 

23 (c) ISSUANCE TO REPRESENTATIVE OF DE24 CEASED.—The Jesus (Chuchi) Salgado Medal shall be 

25 issued to the next-of-kin or representative of a veteran deVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:42 Feb 10, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H540.IH H540

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 540 IH

1 scribed in subsection (a), as designated by the Secretary 

2 of Defense. 

3 (d) ASSISTANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF VET4 ERANS AFFAIRS.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 

5 make available to the Secretary of Defense such records, 

6 and otherwise provide such assistance, as the Secretary 

7 of Defense may require for purposes of carrying out this 

8 section. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS