alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrence Platt, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 907]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court, dated November 18, 2002 *(People v Platt,*299 AD2d 496 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 15, 2000, on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Ordered that the appellant is granted leave to serve and file a brief on the issues of whether the court erred in discharging a juror over defense counsel’s objection and in failing to give the appellant’s counsel an opportunity to be heard in connection with notes sent by jurors for clarification of a charge; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to County Law § 722 the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the application: Mark Diamond, Esq., Murray Hill Station, EO. Box 1805, New York, N.Y. 10016, and it is further,

Ordered that assigned counsel shall prosecute the application expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 670.1 *et*seq.) and written directions; and it is further,

Ordered that the application is held in abeyance in the interim. Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Amit S. Dang, President, Chief Executive Officer, 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: October 21, 2010/s/ Amit S. DangAmit S. DangPresident, Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer, Director

 

 

 

----
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		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Emergency Management Feels the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives during Training

By Senior Airman Helena Owens Andersen Air Force Base Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1388 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1388

      To enact House Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
 (establishing the Office of Congressional Ethics) into permanent law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2017

Mr. O'Halleran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To enact House Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
 (establishing the Office of Congressional Ethics) into permanent law.

    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 ``Clean Legislating and Ethical 
Accountability Now Act'' or the ``CLEAN Act''.

SEC. 2. ENACTING HOUSE RESOLUTION 895 INTO PERMANENT LAW.

    House Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, is hereby enacted 
into permanent law, except that--
            (1) the Office of Congressional Ethics shall be treated as 
        a standing committee of the House for purposes of section 
        202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 
        4301(i));
            (2) references to the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct shall be construed as references to the Committee on 
        Ethics;
            (3) the second sentence of section 1(b)(6)(A) shall not 
        apply;
            (4) members subject to section 1(b)(6)(B) may be 
        reappointed for a second additional term;
            (5) any individual who is the subject of a preliminary 
        review or second-phase review by the board shall be informed of 
        the right to be represented by counsel and invoking that right 
        should not be held negatively against them;
            (6) the Office may not take any action that would deny any 
        person any right or protection provided under the Constitution 
        of the United States; and
            (7) the Office of Congressional Ethics shall have the same 
        subpoena power as a standing committee of the House of 
        Representatives has under clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules 
        of the House of Representatives and all references to the 
        committee or to the chair of the committee in such clause shall 
        be deemed to be references to the Office of Congressional 
        Ethics or to the cochairmen of the board for purposes of this 
        paragraph.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10181 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

KEVIN KENARD HOWARD, also known as Kevin Howard , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 495

- 2

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Kenard
Howard has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Howard has filed several response s

. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider his claims

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 27, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10181 Document: 00514530661 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2018No. 17

- 10181

2 without prejudice to collateral review. See Unit ed States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein , as well as Howard ’ s response s . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolou s issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-10181 Document: 00514530661 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2018
NovaGold Resources Inc.: Exhibit 4.6 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






CONSENT OF SEAN ENNIS 

In connection with NovaGold Resources Inc.’s take-over bid
circular dated January 18, 2011 (the “Offer and Circular”) and registration
statement on Form F-8 originally dated January 18, 2011, and any amendments
thereto and any registration statements filed pursuant to Rule 429 under the
United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and any documents incorporated
by reference therein (the “Registration Statement”), I, Sean Ennis, hereby
consent to references to my name and to my involvement in the preparation of a
technical report entitled “Technical Report, Rock Creek and Big Hurrah Project”
dated February 21, 2008 (the “Technical Report”) in the Registration Statement
and the Offer and Circular, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference
of information derived from the Technical Report in the Registration Statement
and the Offer and Circular. 

DATED: January 18, 2011 

/s/ Sean Ennis 
Name: Sean Ennis
Exhibit
32.1







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





I, Joseph
Wagner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of XA,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB/A fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of XA, Inc.





By:/s/ Joseph
Wagner


Joseph
Wagner


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)





September
11, 2008
EXHIBIT 31.2Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATIONS     I, John Kallas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P.(the “Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committee ofPartnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 asignificant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007   /s/ JOHN KALLAS John Kallas  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of CCC
Order entered December 9, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 01041 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 01042 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 01043 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 01044 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.W., Z.J.W., J.Q. W., J.W., AND M.I.B. On Appeal from the 302n d Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. DF - 10 - 13224 - U; DF - 13 - 18933 - U; DF - 14 - 10757 - U; DF - 13 - 18931 - U 

### O RDER The State’s December 7, 2015 motion to extend the time for filing a brief is GRANTED , and the time is extended until De cember 18, 2015.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Louann Fernald, Respondent, v Robert K. Vinci, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 860]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Eutnam County (Hochberg, S.M.), dated September 19, 2003, which denied his motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum and directed the production of the subpoenaed items.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

In this postjudgment child support proceeding brought by the mother for downward modification of her child support obligation, the father moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum demanding, inter alia, production of his financial records. The Family Court denied the father’s motion and directed production of the subpoenaed items. We reverse. The subpoena duces tecum lacked specificity and was overbroad insofar as it failed to specify the documents sought with “reasonable particularity” (CPLR 3120 [2]; *Matter of Ehmer,*272 AD2d 540 [2000]). Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoena should have been granted.

In light of our determination, we need not address the father’s remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
### Soap Salts Registration Review Focus Meeting with Neudorff

Meeting Summary

Thursday May 9, 2013; 11 am

– 12 pm (Eastern time); S

‐ 9100

EPA Invitees:

Pesticide Re

‐ evaluation Division: Monica Wait, Tracy Perry, Patty Parrott

Environmental Fate and Effects Division: Bill Eckel, Stephen Carey, Mark Corbin

Neudorff Invitees:

Walter Talarek (registration manager)

Anda Beach (Neudorff), phone

Discussion Topics:

 EPA provided an overview of the next steps in the registration review process for soap

salts following the close of the 60

‐ day public comment period on the preliminary risk

assessments on May 20, 2013.

 EPA provided an overview of the soap salts preliminary ecological risk assessment and

background on how the endangered species assessments will be conducted. EPA

highlighted places in the existing ecological risk assessment where there are

uncertainties with regard to soap salts products that lead to conservative assumptions.

The uncertainties may be able to be refined with additional soap salts product

information and/or clearer product labels resulting in lower risk estimates or

conclusions of no risk.

 Neudorff provided an overview of some of their products, focusing on 4 products in

particular that EPA identified as having the potential for very high application rates (EPA

reg # 67702

‐ 12, 67702

‐ 7, 67702

‐ 8, and 67702

‐ 34). Neudorff provided many specifics on

these products including the chemical composition, container size, whether the product

is sold into the residential or commercial market or both, typical treatment type

(broadcast or spot treatment), and application rate.

 Neudorff provided some other comments on the preliminary ecological risk assessment

such as the inability of the GENEEC model to accurately represent the typical small scale

soap salts application. Neudorff also stated they could provide information on which

“typical end

‐ use product” was used as the test substance in submitted exotoxicity data.

 EPA stated that usage data could help to further refine the risk assessment by

characterizing the extent and geographical distribution of soap salts use. Neudorff agreed to compile a package of product information, as discussed, and any

other comments on the risk assessment and submit it to the soap salts registration

review docket by way of the Chemical Review Manager. EPA will consider and

incorporate this information when preparing the final ecological risk assessment for

registration review.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bryan La Rose, Respondent, v James Campbell, as Sheriff of Albany County, et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 457]

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), entered March 7, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner, who is currently in the custody of respondent Commissioner of Mental Health pursuant to his plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease to two counts of sodomy in the first degree, seeks a writ asserting that the proceeding in which he originally entered his plea was defective. At the outset, we note that although respondents vigorously argue that habeas corpus is not available to challenge the entry of petitioner’s plea because he had the remedy of a direct appeal or motion to withdraw *(see, e.g., People ex rel. Whitehead v Jones,*184 AD2d 801) and petitioner maintains that such a remedy is available *(see, e.g., People ex rel. Thorpe v Von Holden,*63 NY2d 546), we do not find it necessary to resolve this question because we find that petitioner’s underlying allegations of impropriety lack merit.

Specifically, petitioner alleges that County Court erred in the original plea proceeding by allowing only one psychiatrist to testify when evidence from two qualified psychiatric examiners is called for in CPL 330.20 (2). However, the procedures for taking and entering a plea of not guilty for reason of mental disease or defect is actually governed by CPL 220.15. CPL 330.20 specifically refers to *postjudgment*procedures to be followed subsequent to such a plea *(see,*CPL 220.15 [6]). Significantly, our review of the record reveals that County Court sufficiently followed the procedures called for in CPL 220.15 when petitioner’s plea was taken. Petitioner’s remaining contentions are similarly unpersuasive and, accordingly, we find no error in the denial of the writ.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Infogrames, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Bruno Bonnell, Chief Executive 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; 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/ BRUNO BONNELL
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Name: Bruno Bonnell
                                        Title: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 14, 2003


                                    Page 34
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2148

TERESA A. EGGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLENN HENSLEY; REBECCA S. JEFFERIES; SANDRA GREENE, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and HARVEY PEELER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-3886-7-13) Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: January 28, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.* On appeal, Eggers has abandoned her state law claims and those claims the district court found barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. 2 Suzanne E. Coe, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin W. Sturm, EDWARDS, BALLARD, BISHOP, STURM, CLARK & KEIM, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Teresa A. Eggers appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) and South Carolina state law. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * See Eggers v. Cherokee County, No. CA-96-3886-7-13 (D.S.C. June 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

|Dated: November 9, 2007 | /s/ DEBORAH DUNSIREDeborah Dunsire
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---



QuickLinks