alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*James Winningham, Also Known as Jose Perez, Defendant.

Court of General Sessions, New York County,

May 21, 1958.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Harry Aid*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*James Winningham,*defendant in person.

Thomas Dickens, J.

Defendant’s *coram nobis*application contains a challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction, because he was not represented by counsel at any time during the prosecution of the indictment.

*651The record of the case discloses, however, a consistent course of conduct indicating an unequivocal waiver of this right.

In it I find that on the day of arraignment and plea, and also two weeks later, on the day of sentence, when the court offered to assign counsel in his behalf, defendant flatly refused the offer in each instance. And, it is to be noticed that despite the intervening period from arraignment day to sentence day, during which he had reasonable time for reflection as to a change of mind, defendant, nevertheless, adhered on sentence day to his original refusal of counsel made on arraignment day.

Judging from all that appears in the record, I am of the firm conviction that defendant had acted with understanding and comprehension when he refused the court's offers to have counsel assigned to him. (Cf. *People*v. *Conroy,*1 A D 2d 513.)

In effect then, having voluntarily abandoned the right to counsel, defendant has no reason to make complaint at this late date that he was denied the opportunity to avail himself of his constitutional right. Phrased differently, his attitude betokened a willing surrender of the right to appear by counsel. (See *People*v. *Church,*2 A D 2d 930; *People*v. *Mulligan,*286 App. Div. 1130.) Also, see interesting discussion, pro and con, in Eli Frank on Coram Nobis (p. 38, § 3.01 [g] *et seq.*and Ann. Cumulative Supp., p. 9, n. 51).

Besides, defendant did not comply with the rule requiring new facts to be set forth in a renewal application of a similar motion when already denied. (See *People*v. *Bardall,*150 N. Y. S. 2d 758.) I particularly refer to my denial on July 9, 1957, of a similar motion heretofore made by defendant.

Motion denied.

The District Attorney is directed to enter an order in conformance with the decision herein and to forward a certified copy to defendant.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22836]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4797-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Minnesota; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4797-DR), dated June 28, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 13, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of June 28, 2024.

    Martin and Murray Counties for Individual Assistance (already 
designated for Public Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-22836 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### CLEVENGER v. STATE.

No. 15529.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1932.

*609Denman & Fowler, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Dayidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tlie State.

CALHOUN, J.

The offense, aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

COURTNEY LAMAR SLADE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 206 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of July, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
---

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Ian McBean, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Auror Capital Corp. (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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
      period ended April 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                    



|Dated: June 16, 2009 | By:
      /s/ Ian McBean                                
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Ian McBean                                              
|                     | President, Secretary, Treasurer, Chief
      Executive  
|                     | Officer and Chief Financial Officer                     
|                     | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Accounting
|                     | Officer and Principal Financial Officer)                





A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Auror Capital
Corp. and will be retained by Auror Capital Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3170 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow without penalty 

any 529 plan distributions used for student loans payments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2015 

Mr. NUGENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow without penalty any 529 plan distributions used for student 

loans payments. 

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 ‘‘Student Debt Repay5 ment Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS FROM QUALIFIED TUI7 TION PLANS NOT SUBJECT TO PENALTY TAX. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 529(c)(6) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3170 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—’’ before 

2 ‘‘The tax’’ and moving the text 2 ems to the right; 

3 and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(B) STUDENT LOANS.— 

6 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) 

7 shall not apply to any payment or distribu8 tion in any taxable year which is includible 

9 in gross income and is used to pay prin10 cipal or interest on indebtedness incurred 

11 solely to pay qualified higher education ex12 penses of the designated beneficiary or 

13 member of the family of the designated 

14 beneficiary which are attributable to edu15 cation furnished during a period during 

16 which the beneficiary or family member 

17 was a student at the institution providing 

18 such education. 

19 ‘‘(ii) REFINANCED LOANS.—For pur20 poses of clause (i), the term ‘indebtedness’ 

21 includes indebtedness used to refinance in22 debtedness described in clause (i).’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3170 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to payments made in taxable 

3 years beginning after December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



     We consent to the  incorporation by reference in  Post-Effective  Amendment
No. 1 to Registration  Statement No. 33-5467 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
No.  33-39987  on Form S-8,  Registration  Statement  No.  33-56728 on Form S-8,
Registration  Statement No.  333-57289 on Form S-8,  Registration  Statement No.
333-39726  on Form  S-8,  Registration  Statement  No.  333-33746  on Form  S-3,
Registration  Statement No.  333-80291 on Form S-3,  Registration  Statement No.
33-61309 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 33-62009 on Form S-3 of our
report dated September 12, 2002,  appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Possis Medical, Inc. for the year ended July 31, 2002.




Deloitte & Touche LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
October 25, 2002
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF LONG NGUYEN PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Redfield
Ventures, Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-KA for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date:
February 9, 2015



|/s/ Mauricio Gonzalez       
|----------------------------
|Mauricio Gonzalez           
|Chief Executive Officer and 
|Principal Accounting Officer
#### Lawrence GONZALES, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 20326.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1939.

H. H. Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing marihuana, punishment assessed at three years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant files his affidavit advising this court that he does not further desire to prosecute his appeal and at his request the same is dismissed.
# • RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 47 Identification and Usting of HazardousWaste; Technical Correction 53 FR 27162-27163 July 19, 1988 (HSWA Cluster II)
Note: This is a technical correction to the March 24, 1986,51 FR 10174 addressed by Revision Checklist23. States already authorized for Revision Checklist23's provisions should adoptthesetechnical corrections as soon as possible. States not yet authorized for Revision Checklist 23's provisions are encouraged to adoptthese technical corrections at the same timethe requirements addressed by Revision Checklist 23 are adopted. STATE ANALOG IS: FEDERAL ANALOGOUS MORE BROADFEDERAL RCRA STATE EQUIV- STRIN- ER IN REQUIREMENT CITATION CITATION ALENT GENT SCOPE PART 261 -IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WAC 173-303
SUBPART A - GENERAL 

# • SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS add commentto end of paragraph 261.5(e) 070(8)(a)(iii) 

# x change 262.34(d) (comment) reference to 262.34(a) 261.5(f)(2) 070(8)(a)(ii) 

### & 

# x (iii)



# • July 19, 1988 - Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 363A14

11 June 2015

SANDHILL AMUSEMENTS, INC. and GIFT SURPLUS, LLC

v.

SHERIFF OF ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, HANS J. MILLER,

1 in 

his official capacity; and DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE FOURTH 

PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ERNIE 

LEE, in his official capacity 

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 762 S.E.2d 666 (2014), affirming in part, 

vacating in part, and dismissing in part an appeal from orders entered on 4 November

2013 by Judge Jack Jenkins in Superior Court, Onslow County. Heard in the 

Supreme Court on 21 April 2015.

Daughtry, Woodard, Lawrence & Starling, by Kelly K. Daughtry and Luther D. 

Starling, for plaintiff-appellee Sandhill Amusements, Inc.

Hyler & Lopez, P.A., by Stephen P. Agan and George B. Hyler, Jr., for plaintiffappellee Gift Surplus, LLC.

Turrentine Law Firm, PLLC, by S.C. Kitchen, and Lesley F. Moxley, Onslow 

County Attorney, for defendant-appellant Sheriff Hans J. Miller.

Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., General Counsel for North Carolina Sheriffs’ 

Association, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

 

1 Pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 38, Hans J. Miller, who took office as Sheriff of Onslow 

County on December 1, 2014, replaced former defendant Ed Brown.
SANDHILL AMUSEMENTS, INC. V SHERIFF OF ONSLOW CNTY., N.C.

Opinion of the Court

-2-

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of 

Appeals is reversed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further 

remand to the Superior Court, Onslow County, for further proceedings not 

inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
FOR PUBLICATION



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

U

NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

R

ANDLY I RVIN B EGAY , AKA Randly Begay, Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 10080

D.C. No. 3:13

- cr

- 08073

- NVW

- 1

ORDER

Filed October 27, 2021

ORDER

THOMAS , Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35

- 3. The three

- judge panel opinion is vacated.

Judge Bade did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
**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**

|   | 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                for the periods presented therein. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                August 7, 2008 | /s/                Noah Gottdiener       |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                |                                     |
|                                | NOAH                GOTTDIENER           |
|                                | Chairman                of the Board and |
|                                | Chief                Executive Officer   |

----
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 (GREY WOLF LOGO)
    
    Press Release
 Contact:
David W. Wehlmann
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
 
 Amex Symbol GW
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: HOUSTON, TEXAS  SEPTEMBER 25, 2007, GREY WOLF, INC. ANNOUNCES TWO NEW
RIGS AND THE INCREASE OF ITS COMMON STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM
      
 GREY WOLF, INC.   




---



##### 



GREY WOLF, INC.  PRESS RELEASE  SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
     
 GREY WOLF, INC.   
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 AmREIT (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, H. Kerr Taylor, President and
Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my
capacity as an officer of the Company that, to my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
 applicable, 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: May
 12, 2010 | /s/ H. Kerr
 Taylor |                                       
|                    |                     | H. Kerr
 Taylor                       
|                    |                     | President
 and Chief Executive Officer

37

---
#### PEARSON v. STATE.

No. 18787.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1937.

Greenwood & Reeves, of Palestine, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

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

The indictment is in proper form. No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### BUERGER v. MOLTZ et al.

No. 8656.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 4, 1931.

Dibrell & Campbell, of Seguin, for plaintiff in error.

Knetsch, Stevenson & Knetsch, of Seguin, for defendants in error.

SMITH, J.

The jury found that H. A. Buerger,entered into a contract with W. H. Moltz and Manuel Gibbons whereby he agreed to pay them $250 each if they would procure for him an oil and gas lease upon a certain tract of land in Guadalupe county, and that Moltz and Gibbons procured said lease upon the stipulated terms, as they had contracted to do. Judgment was rendered accordingly in their favor, and Buerger has prosecuted writ of error.

During the trial of the case, defendants in error were permitted to prove, over plaintiff in error’s objections, that the latter had resold the lease for $2,499, and he complains that this testimony was immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in the case, and was prejudicial to his cause. Undoubtedly the testimony had no propfer bearing upon the essential issues in the case, and was therefore irrelevant and immaterial, as contended by plaintiff in error. We are of the further opinion that it was prejudicial to' plaintiff in error, and was calculated to influence the jury towards resolving the submitted and sharply contested issues against him. This theory is strengthened by the fact that defendants in error’s counsel, in his argument to the jury, stressed the fact, disclosed in said testimony, that plaintiff in error had resold the lease at a large profit over the purchase price at which defendants in error had procured it for him, to wit, $830. Plaintiff in error strenuously objected to both the testimony and the argument, but his objections to both were overruled, and testimony and argument went to the jury with the full force of legal evidence, emphasized by the trial court’s refusal to exclude either. We conclude the • action of the court in admitting said testimony, and in refusing to interfere with said argument based thereon, constituted reversible error. We sustain plaintiff in error’s first, second, fourth, and fifth assignments, in which this matter is presented. For like reasons, we also sustain plaintiff in error’s third assignment of error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.