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

No. 15445.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1932.

McGaw, Mitchell & Erisman, of Bongview (Fred Erisman, of Longview, of counsel), for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted for driving a car upon the public streets in the city of Long-view, Tex., at a time when appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Punishment was assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

Appellant filed an application for suspended sentence. It was alleged in the indictment that the offense was committed on January 11, 1931, but the case was not tried until about a year later, in February, 1932. No evidence was introduced as to appellant’s conduct between the return of the indictment and the trial.

In (his amended motion for new trial, appellant set up misconduct of the jury in that after retirement they received other evidence. Article 753, subd. 7, C. O. P. Only two jurors testified upon the hearing of the motion- for new trial. From their evidence it appears the jurors without difficulty reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of driving a car at the time and place charged in the indictment at a time when he was intoxicated. Upon the issue of suspended sentence they were divided six and six. One juror, Mr. Dean, asked if any one knew what the conduct of appellant had been since the indictment was returned against him. Mr. Heitt, another juror, replied that he knew what appellant’s conduct had been; that he was* at his (Heitt’s) house Sunday a week ago *101trying to get the juror Heitt to pull his car out of the ditch, and was so drunk at the time he did not know where his ear was. Immediately after this statement was made, the jury brought in the verdict of guilty deelin-ing to recommend a suspension of the sentence. A reversal must be ordered upon the undisputed facts shown by the evidence heard upon the motion for new trial. There are so many cases upon the subject it is scarcely necessary to cite them. Subdivision 7, art. 753, O. O. P., provides that a new trial shall be granted where the jury, after retiring to deliberate on their verdict, receives other testimony. It has been held that information given by one of the jurors is “other evidence” within the meaning of the statute, and that, where one of the jurors after retirement gave information to the jury which is damaging to accused, a reversal will follow. Moore v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 47 S.W.(2d) 619; Durbin v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 177, 36 S.W.(2d) 730; Spangenberg v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 36 S.W.(2d) 1023. A new trial should have been granted on the evidence presented upon hearing of the motion for new trial and the expense and delay incident to an appeal avoided.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7**  **600**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. ERICK ROMAN, a/k/a Erick Javier Sierra, a/k/a Malian

- T, a/k/a King Malian

- T , Defendant

- Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8 : 09

- cr - 00 598

- AW

- 1 ; 8 :12

- cv - 0 1234

- AW )

Submitted : February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges
.
Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Erick Roman , Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem , Assistant United States Attorney, Molly Elizabeth Thebes, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt , Maryland ; Lara Mar ie Peirce, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Erick Roman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debata ble or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is d ebatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a cert ificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<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 Annual Report of National Energy Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Bob G. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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.

                                       By: /s/ BOB G. ALEXANDER
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Bob G. Alexander
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

March  30, 2004

*     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.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60789

GEORGE HUFF,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

FLUOR DRILLING SERVICES, INC.; HARTFORD 

INSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S 

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR,

Respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board

(94-3957)

February 9, 1998

Before Davis, Wiener, and Parker, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Huff was injured on October 4, 1982, while working in the

course and scope of his employment for the Fluor Drilling Services,

Inc. (“Fluor”) under circumstances entitling him to compensation

under the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act. Fluor

paid temporary total disability compensation from October 5, 1982

through January 7, 1985, the date of maximum medical improvement.
Huff subsequently filed a claim for continuing and additional

benefits. On October 11, 1988, Huff and Fluor consented to the

claim being decided on a stipulated record in lieu of a formal

hearing and on June 23, 1989, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

issued a decision and order denying benefits. Huff appealed to the

Benefits Review Board which issued its decision in May 1992 which

affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated and remanded the

matter to the ALJ. On June 7, 1994, the ALJ issued his decision

and order after remand which again denied benefits to Huff. Huff

filed a notice of appeal to the Benefits Review Board on September

9, 1994. The parties timely filed briefs, but the Benefits Review

Board failed to take any action on this matter. On September 12,

1996, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 104-134, the

Benefits Review Board entered an order that this case was

“Considered Affirmed.” Huff then timely filed his petition for

review with this court.

After considering the briefs and relevant portions of the

record, we conclude that the findings of fact made by the ALJ are

supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions of law

arrived at the ALJ are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the

petition for review is

DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trimol Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to            Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 periods covered in the Report.

 

No purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

 

|   | /s/ Jack Braverman |
|--------|--------------------|

|   | Jack Braverman |
|--------|----------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | TRIMOL GROUP, INC. |
|--------|--------------------|

 

 

 

May 19, 2009

 

 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Trimol Group, Inc. and will be retained by Trimol Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.] 

 

36
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 3(a)(2)

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                      AMENDED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               SYMIX SYSTEMS, INC.


          THE UNDERSIGNED, being the President and Secretary, respectively, of
Symix Systems, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify that
at a meeting of the shareholders of the Company duly called for such purpose,
held on July 8, l996, at which a quorum of the shareholders of the Company was
represented in person or by proxy, the following resolution was adopted to amend
the Amended Articles of Incorporation of the Company by the affirmative vote of
the holders of shares of the Company entitling them to exercise at least two-
thirds of the voting power of the Company at such meeting.

               RESOLVED, that the first paragraph of Article FOURTH of
          the Amended Articles of Incorporation of the Company be
          amended to read in its entirety as follows:
          
               FOURTH:  the authorized number of shares of the
          Corporation shall be 21,000,000, of which 20,000,000 shares
          shall be common shares, each without par value, and
          l,000,000 shares shall be preferred shares, each without par
          value.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the President and
Secretary, respectively, of Symix Systems, Inc., acting for and on behalf of
said Company, have hereunto subscribed their names this 8th day of July, 1996.



By:  /s/ Stephen A. Sasser              By:  /s/ Lawrence W. DeLeon
    -------------------------              --------------------------- 
     Stephen A. Sasser                       Lawrence W. DeLeon
     President                               Secretary





                                      50
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00298-CR

KEVIN DANE NORRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1799027)

July 18, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
EXHIBIT 10.20

                    INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR FY 98
                          FOR EXECUTIVE LEVEL EMPLOYEES

Each executive will have the opportunity to earn incentive compensation as a
function of revenue and operating income attainment. The formula based program
will allow each participant to earn incentive compensation which ranges between
20-24% of base salary.

Fifty (50%) percent of the incentive pay will be distributed as earned on a
quarterly basis, consistent with Numerex's reporting cycles, with the remaining
50% being dependent on full year attainment.

Incentive compensation under this program is based entirely on revenue growth
and bottom line performance. This type of sharp focus is essential in a
multi-divisional corporation, as it clearly communicates our corporate goals to
each executive.

Operating company executives will earn incentive compensation as a function of
their respective operating company's performance, not Numerex performance.
Numerex executives will be paid based on Numerex's overall performance.

Both the quarterly and annual formulas provide for no bonus payment until 87.5%
of plan is attained. From 87.5% to 100%, bonuses are also calculated in a linear
fashion. The formula-based approach allows for increased incentive compensation
for over achievement.


The approach also permits the development of a negative balance in the
"incentive compensation" account, should quarterly performance fail to achieve
minimum performance. Negative balances will be carried forward and netted before
any subsequent payment is made.
EXHIBIT
10.11




[State
Inspections of Texas, Inc. Letterhead]


 

March 31,
2005







Mr. Rich
Parlontieri

President,
CEO

Speedemissions,
Inc.

1029
Peachtree Parkway North

Suite
310

Peachtree
City, GA 30269





		RE:	Outstanding
      Indebtedness of Speedemissions, Inc.






Dear
Rich:




This
letter confirms that State Inspections of Texas, Inc. (the “Company”) has agreed
to extend the maturity date under the $120,000 Secured Promissory Note dated
November 15, 2004 (the “Note”), until November 15, 2005. By execution of this
letter, the Company does not waive any of its rights under any other related
transaction documents.







Sincerely,

 

 

/s/ Debra
Price








Debra Price










Agreed
and Accepted this

31st day
of March, 2005







By: 
/s/ Richard Parlontieri






Name:
Rich Parlontieri

Title:
President and CEO
Exhibit 32

D&E Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries

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 for the
period ended September 30, 2009 of D&E Communications, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James W. Morozzi, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ James W. Morozzi
|Name:                |  | James W. Morozzi       
|Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                |  | November 9, 2009       



1



---

D&E Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries

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 for the period ended September 30, 2009 of D&E Communications, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Morell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Thomas E. Morell
|Name:                |  | Thomas E. Morell       
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                |  | November 9, 2009       



2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1813 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide credit toward computation 

of years of service for nonregular service retired pay for completion 

of remotely delivered military education or training. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 

Ms. BALDWIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide credit 

toward computation of years of service for nonregular 

service retired pay for completion of remotely delivered 

military education or training. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Retirement 

5 Credit for Distance Learning Act’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1813 IS

1 SEC. 2. CREDIT TOWARD COMPUTATION OF YEARS OF 

2 SERVICE FOR NONREGULAR SERVICE RE3 TIRED PAY UPON COMPLETION OF RE4 MOTELY DELIVERED MILITARY EDUCATION 

5 OR TRAINING. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 12732(a)(2) of title 10, 

7 United States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the fol9 lowing new subparagraph: 

10 ‘‘(F) Such points (but not more than 10 

11 points) as the Secretary concerned determines 

12 to be appropriate for successful completion of a 

13 course of instruction using electronically deliv14 ered methodologies to accomplish military edu15 cation or training, unless the education or 

16 training is performed while in a status for 

17 which credit is provided under another subpara18 graph of this paragraph.’’; and 

19 (2) by striking ‘‘and (E)’’ in the last sentence 

20 and inserting ‘‘(E), and (F)’’. 

21 (b) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS PER SERVICE

22 YEAR.—Section 12733(3) of such title is amended by 

23 striking ‘‘or (D)’’ and inserting ‘‘(D), or (F)’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. 20273.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1939.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor in dry area for purpose of sale. The punishment assessed is confinement in the. county jail for a term of thirty days and a fine of $100.

We need consider only the suffi- - ciency of the evidence to support the conviction. The facts as disclosed by the record fail to show that McCulloch County is dry area as charged in the information. Consequently the conviction cannot stand.

The state has undertaken to supplement the statement of facts by t,wo ex parte affidavits to the effect that appellant’s attorney agreed that McCulloch County was dry area. These affidavits are not part of the record; they were not filed in the court below or in this court, but if they had been, the same could not be considered by us. Bigham v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 453, 37 S.W. 753; McConnell v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 409, 212 S.W. 498.

For the error discussed, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of VSI Liquidation Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of Ed Strickland,
the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Joe M. Young, the
Acting Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to and for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ ED STRICKLAND                       /s/ JOE M. YOUNG
----------------------------------      ----------------------------------
ED STRICKLAND                           JOE M. YOUNG
President and                           Acting Financial Officer
Chief Executive Officer                 September 29, 2003
September 29, 2003
Exhibit 99



                              Intellectual Property

The trade names  "BeautyBuys",  "NetCigar",  and  "Cigargold.com" for which U.S.
trademark applications have been filed.

THE COMPANY OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES ARE LICENSED TO USE THE FOLLOWING TRADEMARKS:

Suarez Gran Reserve       Breton Legend   Breton Corojo Vintage   Nativos
Corojo 2000               Andulleros      Alimerante              MikeDitka
Don Otilio

THE COMPANY OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES OWN THE ADDITIONAL DOMAIN NAMES:

REGISTERED TO SYNERGY BRANDS INC.:

SYBR.COM                ADD2CART.COM
SYNERGYBRANDS.COM       SALEBYNET.COM
BEAUTYBONUS.COM**       DEALBYNET.COM
SALONCOUNTER.COM**      DEALBUYNET.COM
FRAGANCESALON.COM**     BEAUTYBUYS.COM**
GLOBALSALON.COM**       BEAUTYBUY.COM**
FRAGRANCESALON.COM**    CIGARGOLD.COM
SALONBUY.COM**

REGISTERED TO NETCIGAR.COM, INC.:

NETCIGAR.COM
COROJO2000.COM

** Denotes  ownership by BeautyBuys  regardless of which entity  registered  the
domain name.

     The Company  also is studying the  advantages  and  marketing  potential of
establishing  private  label sales in the health and beauty  aids and  cosmetics
business  areas to take  advantage  of certain  inroads  to these type  consumer
products the Company has  historically  located and developed.  The Company also
has  entered  multiple  licensing  and  production   agreements   regarding  the
establishment of internet sites for sale of the Company's products.  The Company
has trademarked its websites on the internet.

                                      EX-99