alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MAY TERM, 1739.

#### Benjamin Tasker’s Lessee *against*Thomas Whittington.

THIS was an ejectment for *The Manor of the Lord*Proprietary, in *Talbot*County.

At the trial of the cause it appeared, by the special verdict found, that in the year 1666, a manor was reserved for the Lord Proprietary; that the lessor of the plaintiff, as agent to the Lord Proprietary, • was empowered lawfully to lease the manor of the .Lord Proprietary, and made the demise in the declaration mentioned, in order to try the title of the land in dispute for the benefit of the Lord Proprietary. That a survey was made of a tract of land called *Huxberry,*the 18th November, 1663, for *Joseph*Winslow, and a patent issued thereon dated the 29th *July, 1664;*that it did not appear that any of the heirs of the grantee, or any who had the estate, were living; that the defendant had the possession of the part for which he took defence, and which was included in the manor, for thirty years.

The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff.

Lib. E. J. No. *5.*fol. 273.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Paul K. Laikind, Chief Executive Officer of Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to my knowledge:



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                  
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/PAUL K. LAIKINDPaul K. Laikind, Ph.D., Chief Executive
Officer

I, John W. Beck, Chief Financial Officer of Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:



|                     |  |     |  |                                                             
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/JOHN W. BECKJohn W. Beck, C.P.A., Chief Financial
Officer

A signed original of these certifications has been provided to Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

These
certifications are being furnished solely to accompany this annual report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc., whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
#### KINDLE v. STATE.

No. 21981.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1942.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. 1

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of ' chickens, punishment being assessed at 5 days in the county jail.

Judgment of conviction was entered upon appellant’s plea of guilty.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.3



BORDERS
GROUP, INC.

STATEMENT
OF EDWARD W. WILHELM,SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
BORDERS GROUP, INC.PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward W. Wilhelm,
certify that the Form 10-Q, dated April 27, 2003, of Borders Group, Inc. fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Borders Group, Inc.

Date: June 11, 2003

/s/ EDWARD W. WILHELM
-----------------------------------------------
Edward W. Wilhelm
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Borders Group, Inc.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Borders Group,
Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-41445 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO DIAZ-MATA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-00-CR-415-1

-------------------- October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Diaz-Mata has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). DiazMata has filed a response. Our independent review of the brief, the record, and his response discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,705,316
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         479,997
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,100,627  
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 14,506,391
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      10,494,659
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        10,662,973
<LOANS>                                    112,342,658
<ALLOWANCE>                                    728,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             150,416,378
<DEPOSITS>                                 116,799,929
<SHORT-TERM>                                10,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,156,952
<LONG-TERM>                                          0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,250,356
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,709,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             150,416,378
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,467,686
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              657,392
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                76,865
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,201,943
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,684,339
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,885,130
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,316,813
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   10,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,592,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,158,876
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,158,876
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   725,876
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59 <F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.04
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,170,511
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               718,547
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              728,547
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           728,547
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>  Restated for adoption of SFAS 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 48497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19916]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the 
Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held 
on Thursday, September 13, 2012, at the offices of Chicanos por la 
Causa, 1242 E. Washington Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85034. The 
meeting will convene at 1:30 p.m. and is scheduled to adjourn at 
approximately 3:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee 
to discuss its draft report on equity in school financing.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the Western Regional Office by October 13, 
2012. The mailing address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles St., Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 
90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so to 
atrevino@usccr.gov. Persons that desire additional information should 
contact Angelica Trevino, Administrative Assistant, Western Regional 
Office, at (213) 894-3437.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this state 
advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above 
email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, August 9, 2012.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2012-19916 Filed 8-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### BIRCHAM v. BUCHANAN, Warden.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 1, 1952.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Dismissed March 10, 1952.

•See 72 S.Ct. 629.

*935Rodes Myers, Bowling Green, Robert Zollinger, Louisville, for appellant.

A. Scott Hamilton, Louisville, for appel-lee.

SIMS, Justice.

On Jan. 16, 1952, this court entered an order affirming the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, Criminal Branch, First Division, wherein it refused to grant Earl D. Bircham a writ of coram nobis. Birch-am v. Commonwealth, Ky., 245 S.W.2d 932. The following day Bircham filed his petition in the Lyon Circuit Court asking a writ of habeas corpus against Jess Buchanan, Warden of the Eddyville Penitentiary, to prevent the warden from executing him on Jan. 18th and to cause him to produce Bircham’s living body in court for a hearing on the writ. Hon. Ira D. Smith, Judge of the Lyon Circuit Court, upon a hearing refused to grant the writ, and the record was produced to this court January 17th on appeal. The judgment was affirmed by an order entered on that day which recited the opinion would follow as soon as it could be prepared.

The petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is quite long and sets out what counsel for appellant deem to be many prejudicial errors made during the trial. This court has consistently held habeas corpus does not lie to correct errors occurring on the trial and is available only when the judgment is void. Smith v. Buchanan, 291 Ky. 44, 163 S.W.2d 5, 145 A.L.R. 813; Sharpe v. Commonwealth, 292 Ky. 86, 165 S.W.2d 993; Elliott v. Commonwealth, 292 Ky. 614, 167 S.W.2d 703; Anderson v. Buchanan, 292 Ky. 810, 168 S.W.2d 48. A habeas corpus proceeding to release from prison one convicted of a crime is a collateral attack on the judgment and lies only where the judgment under which the prisoner is held is void. Hageman v. Kirkpatrick, 283 Ky. 798, 143 S.W.2d 506; Sexton v. Buchanan, 292 Ky. 716, 168 S.W.2d 19.

The petition further sets out that the first indictment returned charged appellant with killing John Shepherd instead of John Tennyson. This mistake was discovered before trial and a second indictment was returned charging him with killing John Tennyson and appellant was tried on this second indictment. It is averred in the petition no order of court was made showing this second indictment was returned in open court and no judgment sentencing Bircham to death was entered on the verdict. Appellant is mistaken, the record shows the .indictment was duly returned in open court and the judgment sentencing him to deattf was regularly entered on the verdict. /

Judge Smith properly r&used to grant the writ of habeas corpu^and the judgment is affirmed. ** ■*
#### LAYNE v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 15, 1951.

Gardner & Gardner, West Liberty, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., W. Owen Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Jack Layne pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking into a storehouse. His punishment was fixed at three years in prison. This appeal is prosecuted on the ground that Layne understood and believed that he would receive a two yeár sentence upon his plea' of guilty. As agreed, the Commonwealth’s Attorney recommended a two year sentence for Layne, but the jury fixed his punishment at three years.

We were confronted with a similar situation in the case of Hayes v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky. 108, 203 S.W.2d 1. In that, case we pointed out that a jury is not bound by an agreement made between an accused and a prosecutor; and, further, that the sole power of fixing punishment within tfie limits prescribed by law lies with the jury. In the Hayes case the members of the jury had remained silent when asked whether or not they would abide by the recommendation of the Commonwealth’s Attorney. But, even in that case, we affirmed the judgment based upon the verdict of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.
#### ALLGOOD v. STATE.

No. 25401.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 24, 1951.

*884Durward H. Dyche, Denton, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

This prosecution originated in the justice court where a jury found appellant guilty of a misdemeanor and assessed his punishment at a fine of $25.00. From this judgment appeal was prosecuted to the county court where a trial before the court resulted in a conviction and a fine of $50.00.

This appeal is prosecuted from the county court conviction.

The fine imposed in the county court not exceeding $100, this Court is without jurisdiction to enter any order herein other than to dismiss the appeal. See Art. 53, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Docket Number FAA-2014-0192
U.S. EPA FACT SHEET

The EPA Proposes to Redesignate Truckee Meadows to Attainment for the 

Coarse Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard

September 18, 2015

Summary

• The EPA is proposing to approve Nevada’s plan for the Truckee Meadows area, also 

referred to as the Reno planning area, to maintain the inhalable coarse particulate matter 

24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (PM10 NAAQS). These particles are 

commonly referred to as PM10 because they have a diameter of ten micrometers or less.

• The EPA is also proposing to approve Nevada’s request to redesignate Truckee Meadows 

to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. 

Background

• Today’s actions represent a milestone in air quality improvement in Nevada 

accomplished primarily through the actions of the Washoe County District Board of 

Health, whose regulations and programs have significantly reduced PM10. 

• In 2011 The EPA previously determined that Truckee Meadows had attained the PM10

NAAQS. Complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the area shows it has continued to attain the PM10 NAAQS since that time. 

• The EPA is concerned about PM10 because these particles pass through the throat and 

nose and enter the lungs. Reducing PM10 levels is essential because, once inhaled, these 

particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.

• PM10 is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. In the 

Truckee Meadows area it is predominately comprised of “primary particulates,” such as 

particles from soil or dust, residential wood burning, and diesel.

Next Steps

• Today’s proposed actions will be published in the Federal Register in approximately two 

weeks and include a 30-day period for public comment. 

• After the close of the comment period, the EPA will evaluate the comments and respond 

to them in subsequent rulemaking action.

For More Information: 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/nv.html#washoe
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,664)
<INVENTORY>                                     44,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,478
<PP&E>                                          23,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,623)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 142,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   142,831
<SALES>                                        185,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               185,741
<CGS>                                          164,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  164,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    701
<INCOME-TAX>                                       266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                435
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6358

DAVID ERNEST MALINZAK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00320-WO-LPA)

Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 26, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Ernest Malinzak, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Porter Babb, Sr., Special Deputy 

Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Ernest Malinzak seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Malinzak’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that 

§ 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four 

commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Malinzak has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Tarrant County

1307A West Abram, Suite 100

Arlington, Texas 76013

Telephone: 817-226-2100

Facsimile: 817-226-2101

Dallas County

Johnson English Law Center

12222 Merit Drive

Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75251

E-Mail: Scheduling@walker-mediation.com

E-Mail: FirmEmail@walker-lawfirm.com

Website: walkerlawfirmandmediation.com

October 26, 2022 

Clerk Via E-File

In The United States District Court

Northern District of Texas 

Fort Worth Division

RE: CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-00359-O; Tony Jones vs. City of Fort Worth, 

Eulises Gonzalez, and Gilberto Gonzalez 

Dear Clerk: 

The parties submitted this dispute to me, for mediation, in hopes of bringing this matter 

to resolution on October 21, 2022. 

Unfortunately, the above-referenced matter was not able to be resolved, at that time. I 

will, however, continue to work with the parties in hopes of bringing this matter to resolution. 

 Thank you for allowing me to assist the Court, in this matter, and the parties. 

If I can assist the Court, with regard to other matters pending before the Court, as a 

mediator, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address. 

 Sincerely,

 /s/ Kevin E. Walker

 Kevin E. Walker 

KEW/me

WALKER MEDIATION 

Case 4:22-cv-00359-O Document 24 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 257
cc: Mr. Warren V. Norred Via E-Service

NORRED LAW, PLLC

515 East Border 

Arlington, Texas 76010 

cc: Ms. Lynn M. Winter Via E-Service

Mr. Harvey L. Frye Jr.

CITY OF FORT WORTH

Office of the City Attorney

200 Texas Street

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

Case 4:22-cv-00359-O Document 24 Filed 10/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 258