alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 91-6003.

#### Wozniski *v.*Clymer, Deputy Commissioner, Eastern Region, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Report of Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc., an Ohio
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Steven C. Potts, Chief Financial 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; 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/ Steven C. Potts
-----------------------
Steven C. Potts
Chief Financial Officer
June 4, 2003
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Sharol Martin, Appellant

No. 06-12-00187-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 24807). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect 

conviction of a second-degree felony with punishment enhanced to the penalty range of a firstdegree felony. We also modify the judgment to reflect that the statute of the offense is Section 

15.02 of the Texas Penal Code, rather than Section 481.112 of the Texas Health and Safety 

Code. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Sharol Martin, has adequately indicated her inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 28, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60422

Conference Calendar

__________________

WENDELL A. DUNCAN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VICTOR SMITH, PERCY MILES,

SILVESTER HOWARD,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 95-CV-96-S-O

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 18, 1995) 

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wendell A. Duncan appeals the district court's dismissal

without prejudice of his civil rights action for failure to

prosecute.

A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. McCullough

v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Such a
No. 95-60422

-2-

dismissal is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. However,

the scope of the district court's discretion is narrow when the

Rule 41(b) dismissal is with prejudice or when a statute of

limitations would bar reprosecution of a suit dismissed without

prejudice under Rule 41(b). Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d

1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992). Here, the district court

specified that the dismissal was without prejudice. 

Because the dismissal by the district court was without

prejudice and no statute of limitations bars the refiling of his

claim, Duncan has not suffered prejudicial harm resulting from

the dismissal. See McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127. "In such

circumstances trial courts must be allowed leeway in the

difficult task of keeping their dockets moving." Id. The

dismissal without prejudice of Duncan's complaint does not

constitute an abuse of discretion. 

AFFIRMED.

Duncan's "Motion to Show the Court How the Lower Courts are

Aiding the Defendants" is DENIED.
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-QSB
Million Dollar Saloon, Inc.
File No. 0-27006

          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 Million  Dollar  Saloon,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Nick
Mehmeti,  Chief  Executive and 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.


Date: August 18, 2008                          By:       /s/ Nick Mehmeti
      ---------------                          --------------------------------
                                                                   Nick Mehmeti
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                        Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Million Dollar  Saloon,  Inc. and will be retained by Million Dollar
Saloon,  Inc. to be furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, John P. McLaughlin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Corgentech Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2006



/s/    JOHN P.
MCLAUGHLIN John P. McLaughlin Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
On petitioners’ motion to determine jurisdiction filed March 8,

judicial review dismissed September 5, 1990

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Terry L. Turcotte, Claimant. CATLIN ABEL SCHOOL and EBI Companies, *Petitioners, v.*Terry L. TURCOTTE, *Respondent.*

(WCB 87-09629; CA A63055)

797 P2d 395

Patrie J. Doherty and Rankin, Vavrosky, Doherty, Mac-Coil & Mersereau, Portland, for motion.

David C. Force and Vick & Gutzler, Salem, *contra.*

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*341PER CURIAM

Employer has moved for a determination of whether we have jurisdiction to review a November 14,1989, order. We hold that we do not have jurisdiction.

After the Board issued its order, claimant requested reconsideration of the attorney fee portion of that order. The Board issued an order on reconsideration on December 8, 1989, in which it withdrew the November 14 order, assessed an additional $300 in attorney fees and republished the rest of the original order.

The order on reconsideration states that it was mailed to all parties on December 8, 1989. By the time that employer filed a petition for judicial review of the November 14 order, on December 13, 1989, that order had been withdrawn.

Because employer never filed a petition for judicial review of the December 8 order, as required by ORS 656.295,1 there is nothing over which we have jurisdiction.2*Armstrong v. SAIF, supra*n 2.

Judicial review dismissed.

1

 ORS 656.295(8) provides, in part:

> “An order of the board is final unless within 30 days after the date of mailing of copies of such order to the parties, one of the parties appeals to the Court of Appeals for judicial review pursuant to ORS 656.298.”

Employer never received a copy of the order on reconsideration, but it was mailed.

2

 Because petitioners have not shown that their failure to receive the order was caused by the Board, the order cannot be considered a nullity on due process grounds. *Armstrong v. SAIF,*58 Or App 602, 604, 649 P2d 818, *rev den*293 Or 801 (1982).
#### Milwaukee County, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission, Defendant: Town of Buffalo, Respondent.

*November 6*

December *3, 1940.*

*253For the appellant there was a brief by *Herbert J. Steffes,*district attorney, *O. L. O’Boyle,*corporation counsel, and *Henry S. Reuss,*assistant corporation counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Reuss.*

*K. J. Callahan*of Montello, for the respondent.

*254Fritz, J.

The order of the circuit court, dismissing the action brought by plaintiff in that court, must be affirmed. The only review authorized by statute of a determination made by the Industrial Commission in proceedings under sec. 49.03 (8a), Stats., is by the “appeal” from such a determination which is authorized under and by virtue of the provisions in par. (c) of sec. 49.03 (8a), Stats. But these provisions do not authorize the maintenance of an “action to review” such a determination; and for the reasons stated in *Milwaukee County v. Industrial Comm.*228 Wis. 94, 98, 279 N. W. 655, the word “appeal,” as used by the legislature in sec. 49.03 (8a) (c), Stats., does not include an action to review. As a proceeding before the Industrial Commission under sec. 49.03 (8a), and a review of its determination therein, under sec. 49.03 (8a) (c), are wholly statutory, the jurisdiction of the circuit court to review such a determination can be invoked only upon the taking of an appeal therefrom in the manner prescribed by the statute. Although we concluded in *Milwaukee County v. Industrial Comm., supra,*and also in *Holland v. Cedar Grove,*230 Wis. 177, 282 N. W. 111, 282 N. W. 448, that the circuit court had acquired jurisdiction in the action brought to review a similar determination by the Industrial Commission, our conclusion was based upon and due to solely the fact that the defendant had entered a general appearance in the circuit court action and had proceeded with the trial without making any objection to the method by which the plaintiff sought to have a review of the commission’s determination. There can be no such conclusion, however, in the case at bar inasmuch as there has been but a special appearance by the town of Buffalo for the sole purpose of its motion for the dismissal of the action upon the grounds stated above.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Video: Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III at National Committee on U.S.- China Relations
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Video: Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III at National Committee on U.S.- China Relations</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By Adm. Samuel J. Locklear, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command</b> <span class="date">/ Published May 21, 2013</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
January 27, 1987

No. 86-894.

#### Heldstab *v.*City of Milwaukee.

Appeal from Ct. App. Wis. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 50473

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Julian Rivera,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:18

- CR

- 283

- 14

Before **Jolly, Willett,**  and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Julian Rivera appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He argues that the written judgment conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence because the written judgme nt contains 19 discretionary conditions of supervised release that were

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 17, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50473 Document: 00516361129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2022No. 21

- 50473

2 not orally pronounced at sentencing. Specifically, he challenges the eighth mandatory condition, the ninth mandatory condition , and all 17 standard conditions in the written judgment.

T he district court failed to give Rivera adequate notice at sentencing that it was imposing th e challenged conditions , and they must be excised from the written judgment to the extent they conflict with the district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence. See United States v. Diggles , 957 F.3d 551, 5 57

- 59 (5th Cir. 2020 ) (en banc ) ; United States v. Mudd , 685 F.3d 473, 480 (5th Cir. 2012)

. The Government disputes whether the eighth and ninth mandatory conditions must be stricken despite our c onclusion that the district court did not pronounce them at sentencing

. T he eighth mandatory condition need not be excised because it is consistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement of a special assessment, the statute mandating t he special asse ssment, and the district

court ’ s intent that Rivera be required to pay the special assessment

. See Mudd , 685 F.3d at 480

. The ninth mandatory condition and the 17 standard conditions must be excised. See Diggles , 957 F.3d at 5 57

- 59 ; Mudd , 685 F.3d

at 480

. Accordingly, we **VACATE** in part and **REMAND** for the district court to amend the written judgment in accordance with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-50473 Document: 00516361129 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2022
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1295 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1295

 To amend the Peace Corps Act to allow former volunteers and officers 
and employees to use the seal, emblem, or name of Peace Corps on death 
                    announcements and grave stones.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2017

Mr. Sires (for himself and Mr. Young of Iowa) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Peace Corps Act to allow former volunteers and officers 
and employees to use the seal, emblem, or name of Peace Corps on death 
                    announcements and grave stones.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Respect for Peace Corps Volunteers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF OFFICIAL SEAL, EMBLEM, AND NAME OF THE PEACE CORPS.

    Subsection (b) of section 19 of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 
2518) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the 
        end the following: ``, except that the official seal or emblem 
        and the name `Peace Corps' may be used on any death 
        announcement, gravestone, plaque, or other grave marker of any 
        person who served as a volunteer or as an officer or employee 
        of the Peace Corps under such rules as may be prescribed by the 
        Director''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), in the first sentence, by inserting 
        ``or in accordance with the exception specified in paragraph 
        (1),'' before ``shall be fined''.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Dunford: U.S. Forces Busy Implementing Defense Strategy Worldwide

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
No. 90-824.

#### Delgado et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 12

                                   AT&T Corp.
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                             (Dollars in Millions)
                                  (Unaudited)
                        For the years ended December 31,

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       2001    2000     1999      1998     1997
                                       ----   ------   -------   ------   ------
<S>                                    <C>    <C>      <C>       <C>      <C>
Income from continuing operations
  before income taxes                    --   $2,414   $10,781   $8,151   $6,888
Add distributions of less
  than 50% owned affiliates              --       12        73       61        4
Add fixed charges, excluding
  capitalized interest and
  dividend requirements on
  subsidiary preferred stock and
  interest on trust preferred            --    3,203     1,709      479      534
  securities
Total earnings from continuing
  operations before income taxes
  and fixed charges                      --   $5,629   $12,563   $8,691   $7,426
Fixed Charges:
Total interest expense                   --   $2,964   $ 1,503   $  293   $  304
Capitalized interest                     --      177       143      106      100
Interest portion of rental
  expense                                --      239       206      186      230
Dividend requirements on
  subsidiary preferred stock and
  interest on trust preferred
  securities                             --      353       179       --       --
Total fixed charges                      --   $3,733   $ 2,031   $  585   $  634

Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges                               (a)      1.5       6.2     14.9     11.7
</TABLE>

(a) AT&T's loss for the year ended December 31, 2001 was inadequate to cover
fixed charges, dividend requirements on subsidiary preferred stock and interest
on trust preferred securities in the amount of $1.6 billion.