alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reginald CARRELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18782.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Feb. 10, 1965.

Decided March 18, 1965.

Mr. William H. Clarke, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. David F. Grim-aldi, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court) was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. David N. Ellenhorn, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Joseph A. Lowther, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Fahy, Burger and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, with others, was convicted of rape. He did not appeal within the time specified in Rule 37(a) (2), Fed.R. Crim.P. Others tried with him did appeal, one obtaining a reversal. Franklin et al. v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 330 F.2d 205 (1964). Prior to that decision, but some thirteen months after he had been sentenced, appellant on February 14,1964 filed in the District Court a Motion for leave to file an appeal after the 10 days specified in the Rule had expired. He claimed in substance that his trial counsel had failed to follow his instruction to file an appeal, a failure of which appellant says he had been unaware. The motion was denied. On appeal this court remanded to the District Court:

> “with directions to cause the production of petitioner in open court at a hearing, at which the court will require the attendance of petitioner’s trial counsel and shall hear him, as well as petitioner, and any other competent evidence that may be offered relevant to the purpose of this remand. Upon the conclusion of *538such hearing, at which the Government as well as the petitioner maybe represented by counsel, the District Court will make findings of fact and conclusions of law and thereupon enter a new final order on petitioner’s motion for extension of time, based upon the record as supplemented by said findings and conclusions.”

Carrell v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 335 F.2d 686, 687 (1964).

On this remand the District Court immediately held a hearing at which appellant’s trial counsel was present but in the posture of a witness and not as counsel. Carrell was not represented and it is this absence of representation which is the basis of his complaint here.

 The issue in the hearing was whether Carrell could show a basis for some relief. We suggest no failure whatever in trial counsel’s conduct but a hearing to determine whether failure to take a timely appeal is to be excused is so critical to the basic right of appeal that one who is without counsel and urges the claim must be offered the assistance of counsel.

Remanded for further proceedings.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ALLAN WAYNE MATHERLY, JR.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 348 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1856 

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to certain tort claims 

arising out of the criminal misconduct of confidential informants, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2017 

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to 

certain tort claims arising out of the criminal misconduct 

of confidential informants, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Justice for Victims 

5 of Confidential Informant Crime Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TORT CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE CRIMINAL MIS7 CONDUCT OF A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2401(b) of title 28, 

9 United States Code, is amended— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1856 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘A tort claim’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)’’; and 

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

4 ‘‘(2) In the case of a claim arising out of the 

5 conduct of an employee of the Government with re6 spect to the criminal misconduct of a Government 

7 informant, paragraph (1) shall be applied by sub8 stituting ‘three years and six months’ for ‘two 

9 years’.’’. 

10 (b) RETROACTIVE EFFECT.—The amendments made 

11 by this section shall apply with respect to any claim that— 

12 (1) accrued on or after May 1, 1981; and 

13 (2) in the case of a claim that accrued before 

14 the date of enactment of this Act, is presented not 

15 later than one year after that date. 

16 (c) PRECLUSION OF CERTAIN DEFENSES OR BARS.— 

17 The Government may not assert a defense or a bar, based 

18 on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel, to 

19 a claim that— 

20 (1) accrued before the date of enactment of this 

21 Act; and 

22 (2) to which the amendments made by this sec23 tion apply. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant 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 the Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel S. Rayat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  PHYTOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date:  August 13, 2007By:/s/ Harmel S. RayatHarmel S. Rayat
Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              6,879
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       4,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                         2,039
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   42,857
<PP&E>                                             16,314
<DEPRECIATION>                                      2,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     76,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              23,878
<BONDS>                                            25,681
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             1
<COMMON>                                               12
<OTHER-SE>                                         14,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       76,880
<SALES>                                             1,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    2,525
<CGS>                                               6,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       6,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1,224
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  2,413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (9,615)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (9,615)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (9,615)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.80)


</TABLE>
No. 82-5970.

#### Macon *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered July 30, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01065
- CR
ARTHUR FRANKLIN MILL ER, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296
- 81265
- 2013



### O RDER Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck On July 3, 2018, this Court abated this appeal to allow the trial court to transmit a supplemental clerk’s record containing supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, which we received on July 23, 2018. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this appeal.
We ORDER a ppellant to file a supplemental brief or waiver of further briefing by August 20, 2018

. We further ORDER t he State to file its brief or waiver of further briefing by September 10, 2018

. See Robinson v. State , 790 S.W.2d 334, 335

– 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsConference Proceedings Prepared by NRC Staff or Contractors

# Transactions of the Twenty-Eighth Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting (NUREG/CP-0171)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Preface

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CP-0171 (PDF 4.53 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**October 2000

**Compiled by:** Susan Monteleone, Meeting Coordinator

S. Nesmith, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Preface

This report contains summaries of papers on reactor safety research to be presented at the 28th Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting at the Bethesda Marriott Hotel in Bethesda, Maryland, October 23-25, 2000. They briefly describe the programs and results of nuclear safety research sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC. Also included are summaries of invited papers concerning nuclear safety issues from U.S. government laboratories, the electric utilities, the nuclear industry, and from foreign governments and industry. The abstracts have been compiled here to provide a basis for meaningful discussion of information exchanged during the course of the meeting, and are in the order of their presentation on each day of the meeting.

An asterisk [*] in place of a page number in the Contents indicates no submission in time for inclusion in these Transactions.

An abbreviated agenda is printed on the inside of the back cover. Blank note pages are also provided.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### Loren N. Libby et al. *vs.*Fred S. Sherburne.

York County.

Decided October 6, 1922.

Bill in equity to redeem a mortgage given to the defendant by the plaintiff’s decedent, Adah A. Harmon. There is no dispute as to the right of the plaintiff to redeem, but only as to the amount due. The conditions are unusual in that the defendant refused to accept the plaintiff’s tender because, as the defendant contends, the amount of it was greater than the sum due on the mortgage.

The real controversy relates only incidentally to the mortgage. Before the mortgage was given the defendant had received from Mrs. Harmon a conveyance of the standing timber on the land suitable for sawing, together with the right to cut and remove it within eight years. After the period had expired to wit, Aug. 30, 1915, the mortgage having in the meantime been given, the defend*596ant’s right to cut and remove timber was in writing extended “from year to year for the sum of $25 per year so long as said Sherburne may want it to remain on said land.”

*Willard & Ford,*for plaintiffs.

*Mathews & Stevens and Lucius B. Sweet,*for defendant.

The defendant made no yearly payments as provided by the extension agreement unless he made such payments, Mrs. Harmon consenting, by crediting twenty-five- dollars per year upon her mortgage. Mr. Sherburne says that he gave Mrs. Harmon such credit and that this was done by her agreement.

It seems to be assumed by both parties that if payment was not made as above the defendant’s right to cut the timber has lapsed. This was the issue of fact. Upon this issue the Justice who heard the parties and their witnesses found in favor of the plaintiff. He found “that there was no agreement between the said. Adah A. Harmon and the defendant to apply yearly payments mentioned in said agreement, upon the mortgage declared upon in the plaintiff’s bill; that no such application was ever made of any yearly payments by the defendant upon said mortgage.” The findings of a single justice on issues of fact in an equity case have the force of a jury’s verdict. The appellant “must show the decree appealed from to be clearly wrong Otherwise it will be affirmed.” *Hahnel*v. *Gardiner,*119 Maine, 308 and cases cited. A careful reading of the evidence fails to show that the decree in this case is clearly wrong. Appeal dismissed. Decree below affirmed.
**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 Globix Corporation (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Peter K. Stevenson, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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






Date: August
                    15, 2005
                  By:
                  /s/ Peter
                    K. StevensonPeter
                      K. Stevenson
                    Chief
                      Executive Officer
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00223-CR

Carlos FAZ,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10674

The Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On May 13, 2015, appellant’s retained appellate attorney George Scharmen filed a 

motion to withdraw stating Robert F. Gebbia had been retained; however, a notice of appearance 

filed by Mr. Gebbia in the trial court stated he had not been retained for purposes of appeal. On 

June 2, 2015, this court ordered Mr. Gebbia to file a response to the motion to withdraw. On 

June 11, 2015, Mr. Gebbia filed a response stating he had been retained to represent appellant on 

appeal. The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the clerk of this court is directed to update 

this court’s records to reflect Mr. Gebbia as appellant’s retained attorney for purposes of this 

appeal.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Submergence and High Temperature Steam Testing of Class lE Electrical Cables (NUREG/CR-5655)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-5655 (PDF - 2.97 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**April 1991 **Date Published:**May 1991 

**Prepared by:** M. J. Jacobus, G. F. Fuehrer*

Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

 NRC FIN A1818

*Science and Engineering Associates Albuquerque, NM 87110

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report describes the results of high temperature steam testing and submergence testing of 12 different cable products that are representative of typical cables used inside containments of U.S. light water reactors. Both tests were performed after the cables were exposed to simultaneous thermal and radiation aging, followed by exposure to loss-of-coolant accident simulations. The results of the high temperature steam test indicate the approximate thermal failure thresholds for each cable type. The results of the submergence test indicate that a number of cable types can withstand submergence at elevated temperature, even after exposure to a loss-of-coolant accident simulation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (NUREG-1930)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, John D. Huddleston, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacifica Bancorp, Inc.; 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and we 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identifiedfor the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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 17, 2005 

 

/s/ John D. Huddleston 

----
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of XELR8 Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Pougnet,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                 The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ *John D. Pougnet*   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| John D. Pougnet         |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| March 28, 2008     |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of VitaCube Systems Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Earnest Mathis, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                 The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                 The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ *Earnest Mathis, Jr.* |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Earnest Mathis, Jr.       |
| Chief Executive Officer   |
|                      |
| March 4, 2005             |