alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Arthur SCOTT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 76-1533.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 21, 1976.

Decided and Filed Nov. 23, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1977.

Frank S. Spies, U. S. Atty., Robert C. Greene, Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant..

William C. Marietti, Boeschenstein, Marietta Mullally & Grimm, Muskegon, Mich., for defendant-appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and WEICK and PECK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellee was charged in a three count indictment with the distribution of cocaine, codeine and heroin. The counts related to separate occurrences, and because a substantial period had elapsed between the commission of the offenses charged in counts 1 and 2, a motion for their dismissal on the ground of preindictment delay was filed prior to trial, which was denied without prejudice. At the jury trial the motion was renewed at the conclusion of the government’s case, and it was again denied without prejudice. Subsequently, after the defense had presented its case and had rested, the motion to dismiss was renewed and it was then granted by the district court on the basis of preindictment delay and the prejudice the district judge found that it caused to defendant’s case. The jury thereafter returned a verdict of not guilty as to count 3, and the present appeal is purported to have been perfected by the government from the order dismissing counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

18 U.S.C. § 3731 permits an appeal by the United States in a criminal case to a court of appeals from an order of a district court dismissing an indictment as to any one or more counts, but provides “that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.” We conclude that this case falls squarely within that exception.

This court has held that appellate review is barred, where as here, a mid-trial ruling by the district judge was based upon facts established by evidence received at trial, *United States v. Robbins,*510 F.2d 301 (6th Cir. 1975), and where a mid-trial decision acquitted the defendant after the court had granted a defense motion to suppress evidence. *United States v. Lucido,*517 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1975). See also what has been referred to as the *Wilson-Jenkins-Serfass*trilogy, *(United States v. Wilson,*420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); *United States v. Jenkins,*420 U.S. 358, 95 *904S.Ct. 1006, 43 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975) and *Serfass v. United States,*420 U.S. 377, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975)).

It is concluded that this Court is without jurisdiction in the premises.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation
(Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Jason Davis, Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby
certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350),
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 result of operations of the Company.




Date: May
17, 2010




By: /s/ Jason Davis
 Jason
Davis
 Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer
#### GULLATT v. STATE.

No. 22847.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1944.

George Allison, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder with malice, and his punishment assessed at four years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or hills of exceptions appear in the record, in the absence of which no question has been presented for review. The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,670
<SECURITIES>                                    17,737
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,926
<PP&E>                                           4,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,153
<SALES>                                         15,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,111
<CGS>                                              200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (133)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       471
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00123-CR

OSCAR OLIVERIA III APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1308079W

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Amended Motion To Withdraw Appeal.” 

The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we 

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 7, 2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6550

JERRY GLENN KILLEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN WATSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (7:08-cv-00025-jct-mfu)

Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: July 16, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Glenn Killen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Glenn Killen seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely.

In a civil case in which the United States is not a party, a notice

of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The

district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a

party requests such an extension within thirty days after

expiration of the appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect

or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). The district court may

also reopen the appeal period pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

To move for an extension of the appeal period, an appellant must

file a separate motion for extension, unless his notice of appeal

includes a manifest request for additional time. See Washington v.

Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989). A bare notice of

appeal filed within the excusable neglect period cannot serve as a

motion for extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5). Shah v. Hutto,

722 F.2d 1167, 1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983). 

The district court dismissed Killen’s § 2254 petition on

February 29, 2008. Following the dismissal, Killen filed a

document with this court that was construed as a notice of appeal

and forwarded to the district court. The document was received by

this court on April 7, 2008; pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(d), this

serves as the date on which the notice of appeal is considered to
*

The notice of appeal appears to have been mailed on April 3,

2008; however, there is no indication in the record as to when this

document was executed or given to prison officials for mailing.

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (motion is considered

filed on date it was given to prison officials for mailing).

- 3 -

have been filed.* Because Killen failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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
1 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Distribution Transformer MV Subcommittee Negotiation Meeting #3 Tuesday, 08 November 20112 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Agenda

• Changes to Medium
- Voltage Dry Engineering Analysis

• Examples

• Next Steps3 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • New Design Option Combination

– M4 Al Al step - lap miter

• Adjusted Material Prices for M4 and worse

• Revised labor estimates

• Revised bus and lead losses to reflect those of a substation
style transformer

• Plan to scale mid
- BIL design lines (11 and 12) to higher and lower BIL classes 

### MV Dry
- Type Changes4 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### MV Dry
- Type Examples5 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### MV Dry
- Type Examples6 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Steel Price Sensitivity Tool on SharePoint

• Simplified Cost Plots on SharePoint

• Develop scaling relationship between mid
- BIL lines and low
- and high
- BIL lines 

### Next Steps
#### SULLIVAN v. STATE.

No. 24934.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1950.

No attorneys, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for murder 'with punishment assessed by the jury at 35 years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception and no objections to the court’s instructions to the jury.

The killing occurred at a cafe where a dice game was in progress and, according to the State’s version, immediately followed the discovery by one of the players that appellant had a third dice in his hand which bore only the numbers 1, 3 and 5, and not the customary numbers from 1 to 6.

No witness testified to having seen the shot fired by appellant, and the court submitted the case on circumstantial evidence.

The witnesses testified to having heard the shot fired, and to having seen the pistol in the hands of appellant immediately thereafter. It was shown that no other pistol was exhibited in the room.

The bullet and empty shell were identified by an expert as having been fired from appellant’s pistol, the testimony being based upon a laboratory examination and comparison of a test shell and bullet fired from the pistol.

The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, and no error appears in the record requiring reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

y0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142299

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142299 COA: 293015 Kalkaska CC: 08-003028-FC SHELDON JAMES MCDONALD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CESAR JOSE FLORES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50356

D.C. No. 8:05-cr-00145-JVS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Cesar Jose Flores appeals from the 26-month sentence imposed upon

revocation of supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Flores’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,

along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Flores

FILED

AUG 19 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50356
Compensatory Arrangements with Non-Management Directors



 Exhibit 10.10.2 
 Compensatory Arrangements with Non-Management Directors 
  

			
	Annual Retainer	  	$30,000
		
	Additional Annual Retainer for Audit Committee Chair	  	$7,500
		
	Additional Annual Retainer for Other Committee Chairs	  	$5,000
		
	Board Meeting Attendance Fees	  	$750 per meeting ($1,500 for concurrent TECO Energy, Inc. and Tampa Electric Company Board meetings)
		
	Committee Meeting Attendance Fees	  	$1,500 per meeting
		
	Restricted Stock	  	Annual grant of 2,500 shares

 TECO Energy, Inc. also pays for or reimburses directors for their meeting-related expenses.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 June 30, 2006 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. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 August 9, 2006.
|                                                    

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

|39
|--
EXHIBIT 99.1





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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Incara
Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Clayton I. Duncan, President and Chief
Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/s/    CLAYTON I.
DUNCANClayton I. Duncan President and Chief Executive Officer February 13, 2003
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 quarterly report of Pathmark Stores, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 4, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank G. Vitrano, Chief Financial Officer of 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:(1)
        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
        the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Frank G. VitranoName:
        
        Frank G. VitranoTitle:
        
        President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
        
        September 12, 2007
Order entered January 9, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00578-CR

MONIQUE DANAE MCCLINTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR11-1799

ORDER

Before the Court is the State of Texas’s January 6, 2014 motion for an extension of time 

to file its response to appellant’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS the State 

to file its responsive brief with the Court no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 13, 2014. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00322- CV

Rafael Pinedo, Appellant

v.
The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 200 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GV-0 9-0 0047 2, H ONO RAB LE LO RA J. LI VINGSTO N, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

By letter dated J uly 20, 2010, this Court’s cler k informed appellant Rafae l Pinedo

that he had f

ailed to pay

or make arr ang ements to pay for the c lerk’s r ecor d, and that his failure to

do so could result in dismiss al of his appea l. He has not filed a response in this Court, nor have we

rec eived notice that he has paid or made arr ang ements to pay for the cler k’s rec ord. We dismiss this

appea l for wa

nt of prosec ution. See Tex. R. App. P . 37.3(b).

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice

Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: September

10, 2010
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 Viseon, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2003 ("Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

Dated: November 14, 2003         /s/ John C. Harris
                                 ------------------
                                 John C. Harris
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer