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

No. 13999.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 25, 1931.

*161W. E. Myres, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Pat Jackson, for the state, testified that he and the appellant agreed upon an exchange by which Jackson received five gallons of whisky in consideration for groceries delivered to the appellant. Jackson was under indictment. From his testimony we quote: “And the grand jury indicted me for the possession of this liquor that I got on this fifth day of October, which is the same liquor that I got from Willis West. I am now under indictment for it. It has never been dismissed so far as I know. I suppose it is still pending.”

Howard Jackson testified for the state that at Griffith’s house he received from the appellant two cases of whisky which the witness conveyed and delivered to Pat Jackson. Ed Mitchell, a state’s witness, assisted in putting the whisky in Jackson’s ear. Mitchell testified that the appellant transported the whisky to Griffith’s store.

 Appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that each of the witnesses was an accomplice witness. Pat Jackson was under indictment for possessing the identical whisky with the,possession of which the appellant was charged and in this case convicted. A cotransporter, possessor, or purchaser of whisky is exempted from the operation of the accomplice statute. See article 670, P. C. But Jackson being indicted for the same offense growing out of the same act, that is, the possession of the whisky obtained from the appellant, was by reason of the indictment an accomplice witness. While the indictment was pending, Pat Jackson was not a competent witness for the appellant. His testimony was available to the state, but, unless the state saw fit to dismiss the prosecution against him, his testimony was qualified by the accomplice witness statutes, article S2, P. G., and article 711, C. O. P. See, also, Durham v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 25, 7 S.W.(2d) 92. While it is possible that the acts of Howard Jackson and Ed Mitchell might classify them as principals, they were obviously co-transporters or possessors with the appellant, and by reason of article 670, P. C., we think they were not, under the facts, shown to be accomplice witnesses. See Bailey v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 432, 284 S. W. 574; Odell v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 646, 290 S. W. 164.

The failure of the court to instruct the jury that the indictment of Pat Jackson for the same offense characterized him as an accomplice witness as a matter of law, and that his uncorroborated testimony would not justify a conviction, necessitates a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
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 report of Nacel
Energy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September
30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Schaftlein, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, another 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/ Mark
      SchaftleinMark
    SchaftleinChief Executive Officer
      andPrincipal Accounting
      Officer





November 22, 2010
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL 12, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L.
Cash, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Associates 12, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2008



|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                                                                         
|Dean L. Cash                                                                                             
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer of ATEL Associates 12, LLC (Managing Member)

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.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:(1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-92144) of Millennium Cell Inc.,(2) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-101061) of Millennium Cell Inc.,(3) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-103104) of Millennium Cell Inc.,(4) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-105582) of Millennium Cell Inc.,(5) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-108768) of Millennium Cell Inc.,(6) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-112519) of Millennium Cell Inc.,(7) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-120301) of Millennium Cell Inc.,(8) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-126418) of Millennium Cell Inc., and(9) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-47086) pertaining to the Amended andRestated 2000 Stock Option Plan of Millennium Cell Inc;of our report dated March 12, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofMillennium Cell Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2006, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-141049 and 2-76939of Smith International, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated June 28, 2007, appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 11-K of Greybull Retirement Plan for the year ended December 31, 2006.DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPHouston, Texas
#### WOODS v. TOPLETZ et al.

No. 3704.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

June 16, 1938.

Lyle Saxon and J. E. Burkholder, both of Dallas, for appellant.

Geo. T. Burgess, S. W. Marshall, and Herbert W. Whisenant, all of Dallas, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant having filed no briefs upon this appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.2d 811.

Dismissed.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3459 

To clarify the treatment of two or more employers as joint employers under 

the National Labor Relations Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 

Mr. KLINE (for himself, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. WALBERG, Ms. FOXX, 

Mr. ROKITA, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. SALMON, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. 

HECK of Nevada, Mr. MESSER, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. 

BISHOP of Michigan, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. CURBELO of 

Florida, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mrs. HARTZLER, 

Mr. SMITH of Missouri, Mr. HARDY, and Mr. KNIGHT) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To clarify the treatment of two or more employers as joint 

employers under the National Labor Relations Act. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Local Busi5 ness Opportunity Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3459 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF JOINT EMPLOYERS. 

2 Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

3 U.S.C. 152(2)) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 

5 two or more employers may be considered joint employers 

6 for purposes of this Act only if each shares and exercises 

7 control over essential terms and conditions of employment 

8 and such control over these matters is actual, direct, and 

9 immediate.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
WAIVER OF IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT OF FEHB

I, ____________________________________________________________, was discharged from military service on 

_______________________and I qualify for transitional TRICARE until ___________________. 

Employees: I understand that, pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA), I have a right to reinstatement of my Federal Employees Health Benefits 

(FEHB) coverage on the day I am restored to my civilian position under the provisions of 5 CFR part 

353 or similar authority. However, I hereby clearly and unequivocally waive my FEHB coverage until 

______________________. 

You may select any date between the date you are restored to your civilian position and the date after 

your transitional TRICARE ends. 

Annuitants: I understand that pursuant to the USERRA, I have a right to reinstatement of my FEHB 

coverage on the day I am separated from the uniformed services. However, I clearly and 

unequivocally waive my FEHB coverage until _________________________________. 

You may select any date between the day you are separated from the uniformed services and the day 

after your transitional TRICARE ends. 

I fully understand that until my FEHB enrollment is reinstated, I will not be eligible for any health 

benefits that would have been available to me under an FEHB plan. This waiver will terminate 

 upon my death. 

Signature: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

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

Employees and annuitants who later decide to revoke the waiver must complete this section. . 

I revoke my waiver of FEHB coverage and invoke my right to immediate FEHB coverage. 

Signature: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________
# Official Journal C 160A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.160.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 160A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 556 June 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.160.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 160A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 556 June 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2012/C 160A/01 | Recruitment to the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Medicines Agency

2012/C 160A/01

Recruitment to the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |
| 46 | |
| 53 | |
| 55 | |
| 59 | |
| 69 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 70 | (EL) |
| 71 | (ES) |
| 74 | (HU) |
| 75 | (NL) |
| 76 | |
| 77 | (RO) |
| 84 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 86 | |
| 90 | (EN) |
| 101 | |
| 110 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 114 | |
| 121 | (BG) |
| 122 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | (PT) |
| 140 | |
| 144 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 146 | (CS/DA) |
| 160 | |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

46

53

55

59

69

(DE/EN/FR)

70

(EL)

71

(ES)

74

(HU)

75

(NL)

76

77

(RO)

84

(DE/EN/FR)

86

90

(EN)

101

110

(DE/EN/FR)

114

121

(BG)

122

134

136

(PT)

140

144

(DE/EN/FR)

146

(CS/DA)

160

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Civil Service Federal Employees Federal Employees Federal Employees

Retirement Group Life Health Benefits Retirement

System Insurance Program System

United States

Office of Personnel Management

Retirement and Insurance Service

Benefits Administration Letter

Number: 98-406 Date: May 26, 1998 

Subject: 1998 Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program Open Season: 

 Open Season Materials

The purpose of this letter is to give you advance notice of a change in the distribution of the 1999

Guide to Federal Employees Health Benefits Plans for Federal Civilian Employees (RI 70-

1), and the 1999 Guide to Federal Employees Health Benefits Plans for Certain Temporary

Employees – those eligible to enroll under 5 U.S.C. 8906a (RI 70-8).

Very shortly, you will receive our annual distribution call letter asking you to let us know your

agency’s population so we may calculate the number of Guides you’ll need for this year’s open

season. In view of the fact that the RI 70-1 and RI 70-8 are available on our web site at

http://www.opm.gov/insure, and since more and more agencies and employees are accessing

them from the Internet, we have decided to reduce the number of printed RI 70-1 and RI 70-8

Guides that will be shipped to agencies to 50% of an agency’s eligible population, instead of the

current 60%. Please keep this in mind when you respond to the distribution call letter.

It has also come to our attention that some agencies are receiving much larger quantities of closed

fee-for-service plan brochures than they need to distribute and may be simply throwing the excess

away after open season. Remember, only employees who meet the criteria for eligibility may

enroll in these plans. Please don’t order more of these brochures than you project you will need.

Abby L. Block, Chief

Insurance Policy

and Information Division
#### MEJIA v. STATE.

No. 16736.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 18, 1934.

H. G. Williams, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder ; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without'a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 77 8- CR Jose fa t OLG UI N , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 227th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-4381 Honora ble Phili p A. Kazen, Jr., J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 24, 2010 DI SMI SSED T h e t ri al cour

t’s cer tification in this appeal states the c ase “ is a plea- barg ain ca se, and the defe ndant has NO rig ht of appe al.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismiss ed if a cer tification that shows the defe ndant has a rig ht of appea l has not been ma de par t of the re cord unde r these r ules.” T EX . R. A PP . P
. 25.2(d). On F e br ua ry 17 , 2 01 0, we or de re d th at th is a pp e a l w ou ld be dis mis se d p ur su ant t o Ru le 25 .2 (d ) u nle ss appellant f

iled an ame nded trial court cer tification showing that he had the r ight of appea l by Marc h04
- 09
- 00 77 8- CR

- 2- 12, 2010. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 2 5. 2( d) ; 37 .1 ; se e als o D an ie ls v . S tate , 1 1 0 S. W. 3 d

1 7 4 , 1 7 7 ( T e x. Ap p . — S an Antonio 2003, no pet.). N o such ame nded trial c ourt ce rtification has be en filed. Th e re fo re , Ru le 25 .2 (d ) r e qu ir e s th is c ourt to di sm is s th is a

pp e a l. A c c or din g ly , th is a pp e a l is dismiss ed.

PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
[No. 18537-1-III.

Division Three.

December 21, 2000.]

#### George J. Lawler, *Appellant,*v. James D. Hensley, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 96-2-04814-8, Gregory D. Sypolt, J., entered March 19, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Sweeney and Kato, JJ.
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 Consolidation Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pamela Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.








Registrant

Consolidation Services, Inc.Date: May 17, 2011

By: /s/ Pamela J. ThompsonPamela J. ThompsonChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### HARTSFIELD v. STATE.

No. 17801.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 11, 1935.

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

HAWKINS, Judge..

Conviction is for robbery; punishment assessed at twenty-five years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without bills of exception or statement of facts. In such condition nothing’is presented for re-’ view.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### PERKINS et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.

No. 1266.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 10, 1932.

M. L. Bennett, of Normangee, for appellants.

A. B. Geppert, of Teague, and Seale & Seale, of Centerville, for appellees.

BARCTJS, J.

Appellees have filed their motion to have the judgment of the trial court affirmed on certificate. It appears that the judgment was rendered April 9, 1931; that the appeal bond was filed and approved April 28, 1931. The term of this court to which said appeal was returnable expired the first Monday in October, 1931. The law is well settled that this court cannot affirm on certificate a judgment of the trial court after the term to which it was appealable has expired. Farmers’ & Merchants’ Lumber Co. v. Fidelity & Union Casualty Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S.W. (2d) 754 and authorities there cited.

Since it appears that this court does not have jurisdiction of the motion to affirm on certificate, same is dismissed.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer required by

Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Greg West, Chief Executive Officer of Benitec Biopharma Limited (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30, 2016, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 13.1 (the Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 28, 2016



/s/ Greg WestGreg WestChief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 20-F to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Benitec Biopharma Limited under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
20-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

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.
**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 of Grand Monarch Holdings, Inc. a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending
      September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      “Report”), I, Tad M. Ballantyne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/
                Tad M. Ballantyne*Tad
                M. BallantyneChief
                Executive OfficerDate:
                November 11, 2008