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

No. 25275.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 4, 1951.

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Relator filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Honorable Henry King, Judge of the Criminal District Court #2 of Dallas County, Texas, who granted the same and made it returnable to this Court.

From the Writ it appears that relator was on June 24, 1939, convicted as an habitual criminal in the District Court of Tarrant County and given a life sentence.

Relator was at liberty by virtue of reprieves, extensions of reprieve, and a conditional pardon from 1941 until 1947.

On January 9, 1947, the Governor revoked a conditional pardon theretofore granted relator and ordered relator’s return to the penitentiary to serve the balance of his original sentence and denied him-credit for any time while he was at liberty under clemency.

Relator contends that this revocation is void because the order of revocation does not show that he was guilty of a violation of any of the conditions of the conditional pardon.

The conditional pardon was predicated upon Executive Proclamation #4795 dated July 30, 1942, which provided that the same-might be revoked if relator “is guilty at any time of any misconduct or violation of the law or — for any other reason the Governor may deem sufficient.”

This became a contract, and relator is bound by its terms.

This Court will not inquire into the reasons motivating the Governor in revoking relator’s conditional pardon. The Writ is. denied.

On Motion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

As suggested in our original opinion, the conditional pardon granted to appellant was. predicated upon and was an enlargement and extension of the clemency granted relator by proclamation of July 30, 1942, and the extensions thereof.

*766The conditional pardon was granted upon recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles in order that relator might be inducted into the armed forces; was conditioned upon his acceptance by the armed forces and limited by its terms to the period of his military service only.

In his proclamation of January *9, 1947,*the Governor found “that the said Carl C. Calloway has not proved himself worthy of the trust and confidence placed in him when he was released, and that he has violated, and failed to perform and fulfill the terms and conditions of the conditional pardon heretofore granted unto the said Carl C. Galloway under date of January 17, 1944 by Proclamation No. 37-2078.”

For the reasons stated in the proclamation, the Governor revoked the conditional pardon and ordered relator returned to the penitentiary.

It is not contended or alleged that relator was in fact in the military service at the time of the revocation of the conditional pardon.

We remain convinced that the relief prayed for was properly denied.

Relator’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NCI Scholars Program: RFA CA-01-007.                    

*Date:*                         November 14, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         6 pm to 8 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20007.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mary Bell, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8058, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/496-7878.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction, 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 19, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-27879 Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32(a)


              SECTION 1350 Certification (Chief Executive Officer)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coastal Financial  Corporation,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Michael C. Gerald,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 to the best of
my 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
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.

This Certification is provided as of February 9, 2006.



                                             /s/   Michael C. Gerald
                                             -------------------------
                                             Michael C. Gerald
                                             President/Chief Executive Officer

                                       32
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,542,812
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,500,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,043,560
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,801,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,093,769
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (192,876)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,801,893
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               460,461
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             346,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 76,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                    76,085
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             76,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 85,675
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    76.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    76.09
        

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-51280

Conference Calendar

 

SAMUEL G. NEWTON, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SONIA BLACK NEWTON; FRANK GONZALES; JEFFREY DAVIDSON;

JAMES PETERSON; RON CARR; BYRON LEFLORE, JR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-00-CV-469

- - - - - - - - - -

June 14, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Samuel G. Newton, III, Texas prisoner #477341, appeals from

the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Although couched in terms of civil rights

violations, Newton’s action is an attempt to attack collaterally

the validity of an adverse state-court judgment. Federal courts

lack jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state-court

determinations. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
No. 00-51280

- 2 -

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375

(5th Cir. 1995). 

Newton’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. The district court’s dismissal of the present case and

this court’s dismissal of Newton’s appeal count as two strikes

against him for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution

Newton that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed

in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,908
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             284
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    164,949
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        416,169
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 616,887
<DEPOSITS>                                     367,922
<SHORT-TERM>                                   111,988
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,825
<LONG-TERM>                                     93,774
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            62
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 616,887
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 27,182
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,827
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   236
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                32,245
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,645
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,731
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,514
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (976)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 510
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,018
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,069
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.19
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,660
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,519
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      206
<RECOVERIES>                                        34
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,519
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 331 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 331

 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to permit the centralized 
   reporting of veteran enrollment by certain groups, districts, and 
                consortiums of educational institutions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2013

Mr. Calvert (for himself and Mr. Takano) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to permit the centralized 
   reporting of veteran enrollment by certain groups, districts, and 
                consortiums of educational institutions.

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

SECTION 1. CENTRALIZED REPORTING OF VETERAN ENROLLMENT BY CERTAIN 
              GROUPS, DISTRICTS, AND CONSORTIUMS OF EDUCATIONAL 
              INSTITUTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3684(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``32, 33,'' after 
        ``31,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `educational 
institution' may include a group, district, or consortium of separately 
accredited educational institutions located in the same State that are 
organized in a manner that facilitates the centralized reporting of the 
enrollments in such group, district, or consortium of institutions.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to reports submitted on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.8


LOAN AGREEMENT


(English Translation)





THIS LOAN AGREEMENT, is made this thirty-first day of December, 2009, by and among Harbin Tianmu Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., a Chinese corporation (hereinafter knows as “BORROWER”) and Harbin Tianmu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. a Chinese corporation (hereinafter knows as “LENDER”). BORROWER and LENDER shall collectively be known herein as “the Parties”. In determining the rights and duties of the Parties under this Loan Agreement, the entire document must be read as a whole.




In order to define the rights and obligations of the Borrowers and the Lender under relevant loan arrangements, the Parties hereby agree as follows:




Article 1 Amount and Interest Rate of Loan




1.1 Subject to the terms and conditions herein, the Lender agrees to provide the Borrowers with a loan with the principal of RMB 2,070,947.10




1.2 The interest rate of the Loan hereunder is 7% per year.




Article 2 Use and Term of Loan




2.1
The term of the Loan hereunder shall be five(5) years, counted from the day when the Loan is provided.




2.2
The loan should be used for the company’s working capital.




Article 3 Repayment




3. The borrower should pay the Debt in full at the maturity date.




Article 4 Defaulting Liabilities




3.1 The Borrowers undertake to hold the Lender harmless and indemnify the Lender against any actions, charges, claims, costs, damages, demands, expenses, liabilities, losses and proceedings which the Lender may suffer or be subject to as a result of any default by the Borrowers of its obligations hereunder.




3.2 Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the validity of this Article shall survive the suspension or termination of this Agreement.










This agreement is made out in two originals, one for each party .Both of them have the same force and effect.





(Signature page)




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Loan Agreement to be executed as of the date and in the place first set forth above.




Harbin Tianmu Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd




By: Corporate seal




Harbin Tianmu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.




By: Corporate seal
Exhibit 32.1

                         Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp

          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 Quarterly Report of Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  each hereby
certify,  pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of their 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.

                                            By: /s/ Harold K. Fletcher
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Harold K. Fletcher
                                                    Chairman and President

                                                /s/ Joseph P. Macaluso
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Joseph P. Macaluso
                                                    Principal Accounting Officer

                                                November 11, 2005

       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
  has been provided to Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp and will be retained by
       Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp and furnished to the Securities and
                 Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                      -17-
#### SLONE v. STURGILL et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 1, 1953.

Clark Pratt, Hindman, for appellant.

D. G. Boleyn, Hazard, for appellee.

DUNCAN, Justice.

This action was commenced in the Knott County Court to condemn a private pass-way over appellant’s land pursuant to the provisions of KRS 381.580 to 381.630. The jury in the circuit court found necessity for the passway and awarded appellant $450 as the value of the land táken and incidental damage to the remainder. Appellant insists, as his sole ground for reversal, that the evidence does not sustain the finding of necessity.

The evidence discloses that appellant’s land lies between appellees’ land and the state highway. The appellees, who reside upon their land, must cross either the land of appellant or some other adjoining owner in reaching the highway. It is - not insisted, that appellees have any o.ther pass-way as a matter of right, but it is.argued that a more feasible route would be across the land of Sina Campbell, who is the mother of the appellee, Lamar' Sturgill.

More than mere convenience must exist to support the establishment bf a private passway but absolute necessity 'is not required. Peery v. Hill, 275 Ky. 105, 120 S.W.2d 762. The statute contemplates a practical necessity, which we think was shown in this case. The commissioners who viewed the premises reported that the passway was necessary. Their report and the evidence heard upon the trial fully support the verdict.

We note that counsel for appellees has failed to file a brief in this Court notwitffi standing the fact that appellant’s brief was filed on September 3, 1952. Had the record been large or the question close, we would have declined to assume the burden of meeting the arguments and contentions advanced by appellant without tlje assistance of appellees’ brief. In a majority of the reported cases, appellate courts of. other States have treated the failure, of .appellees’ counsel to file a brief as the equivalent of a confession of error warranting reversal without considering the merits of the appeal. By calling attention to the fact, we hope to prevent similar- derelictions in the future.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### HAYDEL v. STATE.

No. 22959.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1944.

Percy Foreman, of Houston, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for procuring, mp-der Art. 525, P.C., with punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and confinement in jail for one month.

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

No error is apparent.

The judgment of the trial court *is*aF firmed.

*471PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.