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

No. 25822.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 16, 1952.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1952.

Alex Pope, Tyl'er, James S. Grisham, Dallas, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Indecent fondling of the person of a female minor is the offense; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

That appellant fondled the privates of a four-year-old female is shown by the testimony of at least two disinterested witnesses. The facts warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

Appellant insists that the so-called fondling statute, Art. 535d, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., is vague and indefinite both as to the offense denounced and the punishment authorized to be .assessed thereunder.

We deem the validity of the statute to have been determined by the case of Jones v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 238 S.W.2d 529.

The statute applies to “any person.” It became unnecessary, therefore, for the state to prove either the sex or the age of the appellant. If appellant was not of sufficient age to authorize his conviction of a felony, he should have so shown.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### GROOMS v. STATE.

No. 23804.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment as-a second offender in driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and upon his conyiction, he was given a sentence of two years in the state penitentiary. Hence this appeal.

In his Bill of Exception No. 1, appellant complains because of the admission in evidence over his objection of the testimony of P. A. Mahon, the owner of the automobile which' appellant was charged with driving, that while he and appellant were in jail, appellant told him (Mahon) that he had nothing to worry about because he (appellant) had been the one who drove the car on the evening in question. This was thought by appellant’s attorney to have been inadmissible because the conversation took place while appellant was under arrest. We think the error, if any, was cured on account of the fact that appellant himself took the witness stand and testified, among other things, that he was driving the car at the time of their arrest; and there being no other contention relative to the driver of the car, we see no harm having resulted to appellant by showing after his testimony was given on the stand the conversation that took place between appellant and his companion while they were confined in jail.

The remaining bills of exception related to the introduction of a certain judgment in Cause No. 9122 of the County Court of Tom Green County, Texas, in which was-shown a prior judgment against appellant for drunken driving. This prior conviction for such driving was pleaded as such in the indictment and necessarily had to be pleaded and proven in order to give the District Court of that county jurisdiction over this second offense.

*987While there seem to have been some objections to the introduction of certain papers in the first cause No. 9122 of the County Court, we think that it is evident from the record that appellant pleaded guilty to the County Court case; and while it was hardly necessary to introduce all the papers in such cause such as the information, complaint, judgment, capias and commitment therein, we think this testimony, taken in conjunction with appellant’s admission that he was the same man who was convicted of drunken driving in the Tom Green County Court case, was sufficient to establish such fact, and we are unable to see any error shown in the matter of the proof of such cause.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 248

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 8, 1994

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

AUGUST 10 (legislative day, AUGUST 8), 1994

Committee discharged

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of eulogies, encomiums, and funeral services for the late President of the United States,

Richard M. Nixon.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the eulogies and encomiums for the late

3 President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, as ex4 pressed in the House of Representatives and the Senate,

5 together with the text of the funeral services for the late

6 President in Yorba Linda, California, shall be printed as

7 a House document, with illustrations and suitable binding.

8 The document shall be prepared under the direction of the

9 Joint Committee on Printing.
2

HCON 248 CDS

1 SEC. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall

2 be printed the lesser of—

3 (1) 32,500 copies of the document, of which

4 22,150 copies shall be for the use of the House of

5 Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be for the

6 use of the Senate; or

7 (2) such number of copies of the document as

8 does not exceed a total production and printing cost

9 of $500,000, with distribution to be allocated in the

10 same proportion as described in paragraph (1).

Passed the House of Representatives August 3,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Registrant



|                                       |  |               
|-------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Name                                   |  | Jurisdiction  
|iPass (U.K.) Limited                   |  | United Kingdom
|iPass France SAS                       |  | France        
|iPass Deutschland GmbH                 |  | Germany       
|iPass Holdings PTY LTD                 |  | Australia     
|iPass Asia Pte LTD.                    |  | Singapore     
|iPass Japan Kabushiki Kaisha           |  | Japan         
|iPass India Private Limited            |  | India         
|iPass Ltd.                             |  | Israel        
|GoRemote Internet Communications, Inc. |  | Delaware      
|GoRemote International Corporation     |  | Delaware      
|Safe3w, Inc.                           |  | Delaware      
|Mobile Automation, Inc.                |  | Delaware      
|Worldwide Axcelerant Group             |  | Delaware      
|Axcelerant, Inc.                       |  | Delaware
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 Secured Digital Applications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kelvin Choon-Huat Ng, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/  Kelvin Choon-Huat Ng

Kelvin Choon-Huat Ng
Chief Accounting Officer
November 19, 2008

                                       25
Order filed September 25, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00655-CV

____________

KEVIN MATTHEW HALL, Appellant

V.

REBECCA MACCORKLE HALL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-63670

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due June 23, 2014. When no brief was filed, the 

court ordered appellant to file the brief by August 8, 2014. On August 7, 2014, appellant 

requested and was granted an extension of time to file the brief until September 8, 2014.

No brief or further motion for extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before October 13, 2014, the 

court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 13  Certification Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code)  Pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United Sates Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Gruma, S.A. de C.V. (the Company), does hereby
certify, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Form 20-F) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Jairo SeniseDated: June 30,
  2006
  
  Jairo SeniseChief Executive Officer/s/ Juan Antonio
  Quiroga GarcíaDated: June 30,
  2006
  
  Juan Antonio Quiroga
  GarcíaChief Corporate Officer
  A signed original 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.
Case 4:22-cr-00091-P Document 17 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 18
Case 4:22-cr-00091-P Document 17 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 19
Case 4:22-cr-00091-P Document 17 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 20
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public Limited
Company (the "Company") for the period ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Charles E. Moran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (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/ Charles E. Moran
                                                       -------------------------
Dated: September 15, 2003                              Charles E. Moran
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Delegation of Authority. 

# SUMMARY:

The Commission has delegated authority to the Associate Director of Planning and Information to share certain non-public information with the United Kingdom Directorate for Trade and Industry and the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 26, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maneesha Mithal, Attorney, Division of Planning and Information, 202 326-2771, mmithal@ftc.gov.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1961, 26 FR 6191, that the Commission has delegated to the Associate Director for Planning and Information the authority to disclose to the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading and the United Kingdom Directorate for Trade and Industry information regarding consumer protection investigations involving U.K. businesses or consumers.

This delegation does not apply competition-related investigations. Disclosures shall be made only to the extent consistent with limitations on disclosure, including section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), section 21 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b-2, and Commission Rule 4.10(d), 16 CFR 4.10(d) and with the Commission's enforcement policies and other important interests. When the subject matter of the information to be shared raises significant policy concerns, staff shall consult with the Commission before disclosing such information.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28692 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
#### Ex parte KING.

No. 25226.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1951.

Grady L. Fox, Amarillo, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was arrested by the Chief of Police of the City of Borger, Hutchinson County, Texas, by virtue of an executive warrant issued by the Governor of Texas upon a requisition from the Governor of the State of Oklahoma.

Upon appellant’s application, writ of habeas corpus was issued by Honorable W. E. Gee, Judge of the 108th Judicial District of Potter County, and upon a hearing was remanded to the custody of the officer to be delivered to the agent of the demanding state. From this order, this appeal was perfected.

Upon the hearing, it was shown that appellant was charged in the State of Oklahoma by affidavit and preliminary information with the offense of abandonment and neglect of his minor child, the date of the offense being alleged as “on the 25th day of September, A.D. 1950.”

It was further shown by the testimony, without dispute, that appellant was not in the State of Oklahoma on September 25, 1950, and had not been in that state for several months prior thereto.

Appellant testified on the hearing that he moved to Texas in August of 1949 since which time he had not at any time returned to Oklahoma. He further testified that at the time he left Oklahoma he was not in arrears in the payments required to be *807made by him for the support of the child alleged to have been abandoned and neglected under the terms of the divorce decree obtained by his wife in 1943.

This testimony was not controverted by the state.

Though the charge of neglect and failure to support a child is of a continuous nature, the state having alleged the offense to have been committed on the specific date of September 25, 1950, and it being undisputed that appellant was not then, and had not been for several months prior thereto, in the State of Oklahoma, appellant could not be said to have fled from the State of Oklahoma and is not therefore a fugitive from justice. See Ex parte Hogue, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 495, 17 S.W.2d 1047; Ex parte Barrow, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 155, 211 S.W.2d 753.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and appellant is ordered discharged.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<PAGE>



                                                                    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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board of
the Corporation, certifies that:

         (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 Corporation.





/s/ THOMAS E. NOONAN
-----------------------------
Thomas E. Noonan
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer

March 15, 2004
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2015-A Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
  Date:  June 23, 2017 By: /s/ Mark KaczynskiMark KaczynskiPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of theservicing function)
 9
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 8point3 Energy Partners LP (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended November 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (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 Partnership. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: March 6, 2017 |   | By:    | /s/ BRYAN SCHUMAKER                                                                                                                                    |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   |   | Bryan Schumaker                                                                                                                                        |
|                |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer

of 8point3 General Partner, LLC 

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. AR NULFO RIC ARDO M AR TINEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30256

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-02062-TOR -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Thom a s O. R ic e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 16, 2015 * * B e fore : HUG, FAR

R IS, an d C ANB Y, C irc uit Judge s . Arnulfo Ric ardo M artine z a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the c onvic tion a nd 80-m o nth se nte nc e for posse ssion with inte nt to distributea

c ontrolle d s ubsta

nc e , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1). Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), M artine z ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f 

# FIL ED SEP 18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).sta

ting tha t the re are n o grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra wa s c ounse l of re c ord. W e hav e provide d M artine z the opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . M artine z ha s wa ive d his right to a ppe a l his c o nvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . B e c a use the re c ord disc lose s no a rgua b le issue a s to theva lidity of the a ppe a l wa ive rs, we dism iss thea ppe a l. Se e Unite d State

s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l is G RANT E D . DISM I SSE D .

2