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

No. 26299.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1953.

Blair & Clifford, E. A. Blair, Lubbock, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Possessing intoxicating liquor in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $750 and 90 days in jail.

Appellant was, by an agent of the Liquor Control Board, apprehended upon the streets of the city of Lubbock driving an automobile in which there was a considerable amount of whisky, gin, and beer. Appellant admitted the ownership of the liquor.

The facts abundantly support the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

Appellant did not testify as a witness in his own behalf.

A bill of exception certifies that, in closing argument to the jury, state’s counsel said, “ ‘The defendant did not introduce any evidence as to his j ob and what he did for a living and as far as you gentlemen are concerned, you don’t know what the defendant does for a living.’ ”

The argument was objected to as being a reference to the failure of the appellant to testify as a witness in his own behalf— which objection was overruled. Whereupon, appellant moved that the argument be withdrawn from the jury. The objection and request were each overruled.

Under the mandatory provisions of Art. 710, C.C.P., it is reversible error for state’s counsel, in argument to the jury, to allude to or comment upon the failure of the accused to testify as a witness in his own behalf. To come within that prohibition, however, the argument must be such as cannot be reasonably applied to the failure of the accused to produce other testimony than his own. Hubbard v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 480, 251 S.W. 1054.

Neither the evidence nor the record before us suggests that there was no person other than the appellant who could have given testimony as to “ ‘what he did for a living.’ ” Hence, it cannot be said that the argument complained of was a reference to the failure of appellant to testify. See Rambo v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 613, 101 *520S.W.2d 267; Fowler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 247 S.W.2d 393.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved toy the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF SYMETRICS  INDUSTRIES  INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
          

<S>                             <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              56
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,299
<PP&E>                                           5,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           406
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,076
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,158
<SALES>                                          6,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,401
<CGS>                                            4,937  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    271 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        95
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                176
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       176
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11

        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3235 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3235

    To provide for the compensation of any Federal, State, or local 
employee furloughed due to a lapse in appropriations which began on or 
                         about October 1, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 2, 2013

   Mr. Griffin of Arkansas introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the compensation of any Federal, State, or local 
employee furloughed due to a lapse in appropriations which began on or 
                         about October 1, 2013.

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Any Federal employee or State or local employee 
furloughed due to a lapse in appropriations (from the Treasury of the 
United States) which began on or about October 1, 2013, shall be 
compensated at such employee's standard rate of compensation, for the 
period of such lapse in appropriations, as soon as practicable after 
such lapse in appropriations ends.
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act--
            (1) the term ``Federal employee'' means an employee as 
        defined by section 2105 of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) the term ``State or local employee'' means an 
        individual employed by the government of a State, municipality, 
        or other political subdivision of a State, or by the government 
        of the District of Columbia, whose principal employment is in 
        connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in 
        part by loans or grants made by the United States; and
            (3) the term ``State'' means a State or territory or 
        possession of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

I, Andrew S. Prince, certify that:

 

- I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision AerospaceComponents, Inc. (the “Company”);

 

- Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

- As the Company’s sole certifying officer, I am responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe Company and have:

 

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controlsand 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;
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;
 and
Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

- As the Company’s sole certifying officer, I have disclosed, basedon my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committeeof the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

/s/ Andrew S. Prince

Andrew S. Prince

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: August 20, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 211 (Tuesday, October 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27837]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

[T.D. 00-77]


Cancellation of Customs Broker Licenses

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Customs Broker License Cancellations.

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

    I, as Assistant Commissioner, Office Field Operations, pursuant to 
Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), and 
the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111), hereby cancel the following 
Customs broker's licenses without prejudice based on the authority as 
annotated:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Name                                Port              License No.           Authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Motor Freight, Inc...............  Seattle....................         14362  19 CFR 111.51(a).
ClearFreight Corporation................  San Francisco..............         06174  19 CFR 111.51(a).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: October 25, 2000.
Bonni G. Tischler,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 00-27837 Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 321

_____________________________
M ICHAEL J OSEPH B RANSFORD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Hentz McClellan , Judge

. April 18, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , O STERHAUS , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and L. Allen Beard, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney Genera l, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00265-CR

Bryan Bernard Kulhanek

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

County Court of Wharton County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 62660

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 10, 2016.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H IR D D IS T R IC T , A T A U S T IN
JUDG MENT RE ND ER

ED AU GU ST 1, 2005
NO. 03-05-00149- CV
Ja c k in t he Box Eas te r n Di vis ion , L. P ., App e lla nt
v. SPC Jack, Ltd. and SPC Jack GP , LLC, App ellees

AP P EAL F RO M 201 ST D I STRI C T C OU R T OF T R A V IS CO UN TY BEFORE JU STIC ES B . A . S M I TH , P URYE AR AN D P E M B E RT ON DI SM ISSED ON AP P ELL ANT’S M OTI ON -- OP IN ION BY J US T I CE P E M B E RT ON

THIS DAY came on to be subm itted to this C ourt appe llant’s motion to di smiss t he appe al in the abo v e ca u s e, and the Court havingfully considere d said motion, and being of the opinion that
same sh ou ld b e g ra

nte d: IT IS THERE F ORE c on sid e re d, a dju dg e d a nd or de re d th a t sa id mot ion is gra nte d, and that th e a

pp e a l i s di sm is sed. I t is F UR THER order ed that the a

ppellant pay all costs re l at i n g t o t h i s appea l, both in thi s Court and the cour t below; and that this decision be ce rtified below f

or obser vance .
Exhibit
32.1





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
Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
March 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
I, Chris Dick, Chief Operating Officer, President and Acting 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:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.





Date: 
       June 29, 2009
              /s/ Chris DickChris
      DickChief
      Operating Officer, President and ActingChief
      Executive Officer ofElite
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.




This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Elite Pharmaceuticals Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**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 Nexicon, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
  1.  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
  Date:May
      6, 2005
    By:/s/
      Daniel UrreaDaniel
      Urrea,Chief
      Financial Officer
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Nexicon, Inc. and will be retained by
Nexicon, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26991]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting on 
Safety Research Program; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Safety Research Program will hold a 
meeting on November 1, 2000, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Wednesday, November 1, 2000--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business

    The Subcommittee will discuss the 2001 draft ACRS report to the 
Commission regarding the NRC Safety Research Program and related 
matters. In addition, it will meet with representatives of the NRC 
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to discuss the ongoing and 
proposed research activities, as needed. The purpose of this meeting is 
to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to 
formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Dr. Medhat El-Zeftawy (telephone 301/415-6889) between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the 
proposed agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: October 16, 2000.
Sam Duraiswamy,
Acting Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 00-26991 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 

November 8, 2019

Order 

Clerk

November 8, 2019

158408(72)

In re ROBERT E. WHITTON REVOCABLE

TRUST.

_________________________________________

MOLLY MICHALUK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

SC: 158408

v COA: 337828

Oakland PC: 2016-372116-TV

EDDIE WHITTON and RICHARD WHITTON,

Successor Trustees of the ROBERT E. WHITTON

REVOCABLE TRUST,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of respondents-appellees to adjourn the 

case from the December 2019 session of the Court is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to 

reschedule the case for oral argument at the January 2020 session of the Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2735]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Earth Sciences Proposal Review Panel; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 
92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Earth Sciences Proposal Review Panel (1569).
    Date/Time: March 8-10, 15-17, 22-24 & 27-29, 2000; 8:00 a.m. to 
6:00 p.m. each day.
    Place: Rooms 340, 360, 380 & 770, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
     Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Herman B. Zimmerman, Division Director, 
Division of Earth Sciences, Room 785, National Science Foundation, 
Arlington, VA, (703) 306-1550.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate earth sciences proposals as part 
of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 1, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-2735 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### HAMILTON v. STATE.

No. 26294.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant. '

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $100.

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

The proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for óür' review, the judgment of the trial.court is affirmed.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00269

- CR

RAYMOND WEBER

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 0773

O R D E R

Appellant’s counsel presented an Anders brief to the Court which was filed on

February 21, 2017. A motion to extend the time for appellant to file his pro se response

to counsel’s Anders brief was also filed on the same date. The Court has already notified

appellant by letter dated February 2 1, 2017 that appellant has 30 days to file a response

to counsel’s Anders brief if appellant so chooses. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for

extension of time is dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAMWeber v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justic e Scoggins

Motion dismissed as moot

Order issued and filed March 8 , 2017