alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                              UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,
Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

         (1)      the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
                  December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: October 17, 2003                    /s/ Michael G. Long
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: Michael G. Long
                                                 Chief Financial and Accounting
                                                 Officer
--

. REF ID~61 • .. sr~-HQ.1!4 • _ • f.::~<r?N!t:lll 1i:tfdfi lNfOftMAllJM 

!<.'Office Memorandum • uNrTEo sTATEs GOVERNMENT 

TO 

'FROM t . . ~ 

81'.l'BJBC't: 

c/s 

l/JSS't . ' 

- - : JI, 

-. -

DATE,: 1.4 September JSSJ 

-· 

... 

.,._• I 

:Sa'leaae oi Crn>tograph!c !ntol'lation to ti. u.r. 

·,. 1.- Certain ~t \he -l"El!l!8.l'b b.1' Col. Gree~ C6ul.d be ..PHfied am gplained 1 ., • 1n mwe d&ttail.J howwer, I do concur with the lut sentence o~ paragraph 2 ot .. 'bia mmorattdm.. 

I, I racoDl!iElld~ therefore, approw.1 of the inclosure. 

... ' 

: 

' . 'W1ttnH F. MIDM&lf 

_Special. .baietant 

.... 'ncii - .· .. . ~ .. _ • Ottice Meo tran P/P to S/ASST/O/s • _ _ . _ . ... ... • nh subj .. a1xmt. ~c··-- E~- . ..• . . - ~ t..=• ' '.sq: -~ol: .. - .... :_~.,; .: t". I ~· ...,~ 

Declassified and approved for 

elease by NSA on 06-11-2014 

Dursuantto E .0. 13526
FILED

June 10, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DECEMBER SESSION, 1996

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) No. 03C01-9602-CC-00066

Appellee )

) McMINN COUNTY

vs. )

) Hon. R. STEVEN BEBB, Judge

GUSSIE WILLIS VANN, )

) (Felony Murder - Death Penalty;

Appellant ) Incest)

SEPARATE CONCURRING

I concur in the result reached by the majority in affirming all convictions

and the appellant's sentence of death. I write separately only to address the

issue of whether the indictment for incest is fatally defective for failing to include

the requisite mens rea. I agree that the indictment is valid, but for reasons other

than those articulated by the majority. The majority relies upon State v. Marshall,

870 S.W.2d 532, 537 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). In Marshall, this court held that

the mens rea is an essential element of an offense and, therefore, must be

included in the indictment. Id. at 537. This court further held that, if the mens

rea is implicit in the allegations contained in the indictment, the indictment is

adequate. Id. at 538. The majority applies this rationale, concluding that the

mental state of "knowingly" is "necessarily implied by the allegations in the

indictment." 

However, as noted by the majority, the legislature did not include the

requisite mental state in the definition of the offense of incest, permitting the

application of any one of three mental states set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-

11-301(c). I would simply adhere to this court's position in State v. Dison, No.

03C01-9602-CC-00051 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Jan. 31, 1997), in which

we held that, under these circumstances, the accused's culpable mental state is
2

not an essential element of the offense and need not be alleged in the

indictment.

____________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed March 12, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00024-CV

JOHN FOX, Appellant

V.

MECHANTEK CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-14424

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Before the Court is the parties’ March 7, 2019 agreed motion to dismiss this appeal due to 

settlement. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

190024F.P05

/Ken Molberg/

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOHN FOX, Appellant

No. 05-19-00024-CV V.

MECHANTEK CORPORATION, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-14424.

Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, 

Justices Whitehill and Reichek 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 12th day of March, 2019.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 12, 2022

No. 04-20-00267-CV

Joe Jesse PONCE III,

Appellant

v.

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-04768

Mary C. Brown, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a 

motion for rehearing. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due on or before September 14, 

2022. No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 12th day of September, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHARLES A. POINDEXTER, II, ) DOC #R767273, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D18-1857 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) )
Opinion filed March 22, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen M. Walker, Judge. Charles A. Poindexter, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
# C_2014095EN.01001001.xml

| 1.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 March 2014

(2014/C 95/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3788 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,42 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4659 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82820 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9483 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2194 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2550 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,442 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,18 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1719 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4592 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9693 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4941 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5225 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6973 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5952 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7366 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 465,98 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,5875 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5754 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6475 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 663,17 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4976 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,726 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,7800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,709 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1276 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,0147 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,5784 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3788

JPY

Japanese yen

142,42

DKK

Danish krone

7,4659

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82820

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9483

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2194

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2550

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,442

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,18

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1719

RON

Romanian leu

4,4592

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9693

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4941

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5225

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6973

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5952

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7366

KRW

South Korean won

1 465,98

ZAR

South African rand

14,5875

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5754

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6475

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 663,17

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4976

PHP

Philippine peso

61,726

RUB

Russian rouble

48,7800

THB

Thai baht

44,709

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1276

MXN

Mexican peso

18,0147

INR

Indian rupee

82,5784

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 U.S. BANK NATIONAL 

3 ASSOCIATION,

4 Plaintiff-Appellee,

5 v. NO. 35,415

6 RONALD HAYNES,

7 Defendant-Appellant, 

8 and 

9 LESLEY HAYNES and 

10 NEW MEXICO MORTGAGE

11 FINANCE AUTHORITY,

12 Defendants. 

13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

14 Nan G. Nash, District Judge

15 McCarthy & Holthus LLP

16 Karen Howden Weaver

17 Joshua T. Chappell

18 Albuquerque, NM 

19 for Appellee 

20 Ronald Haynes
2

1 Albuquerque, NM 

2 Pro Se Appellant

3 Lesley Haynes

4 Albuquerque, NM

5 Pro Se Defendant

6 Weinstein & Riley, P.S.

7 Jason Collis Bousliman

8 Albuquerque, NM

9 for Defendant N.M. Mortg. Fin. Auth. 

10 MEMORANDUM OPINION

11 VIGIL, Chief Judge.

12 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

13 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

14 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

15 {2} AFFIRMED.

16 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 _______________________________

18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
3

1 WE CONCUR:

2 ___________________________________

3 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

4 _________________________________

5 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
TIMOTHY J. FINN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3210

___________________________/

Opinion filed November 10, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
ARTURO ORTIZ,

Appellant,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0315

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 18, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

George S. Reynolds, III, Judge.

Appellant Arturo Ortiz, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jamie M. Braun, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
_JB ~ 

. WT\!J '11 

\ 

.;1"3A TIME FILE 

PRIORITY 

Received at the War Department Message Center 

Room 3441 Munitions Bldg., Washington, D. C. 

U-4-C 

JA NUARY 5 1942 

5: 27 p Ji,f. 

From FORT SHAFTER 

Cot>ie1furnished a1 noted: 

• 

Action Copy 

To CHIEF SIGNAL CFFICER 

NO 1545 JANUARY FIFTH 

DOES URAD FIVE THREE ZERO DECEMBER SEVENTH INCLUDE 

ENGLISH CLEAR TEXT ENDING IN STOP OR IN STOP 

FOLLOWED BY PROPER NAME QUERY MOST OF THIS IS 

PRESS REPORTS TO KOSHIS FROM TOKYO 

POWELL 

lA\pproved for Release by NSA on 11-12-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352§ 

•l'DIFOAll-l'UD.-'•••"All IALll •oo• co .. INC .. NUlliAl,t '•LL•.•·'· 

- ----·---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00322-CV 

CHERIE ALLEN AND MARY JONES APPELLANTS

V.

CITY OF FORT WORTH, TARRANT 

COUNTY, FORT WORTH 

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, TARRANT REGIONAL 

WATER DISTRICT, TARRANT 

COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, 

AND TARRANT COUNTY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT

APPELLEES 

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

FROM THE 236TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 236-B39393-09

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On October 7, 2016, and October 26, 2016, we notified appellant Mary 

Jones in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would 

dismiss her appeal unless the $205 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

42.3(c). Appellant Mary Jones has not paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant Mary Jones failed to comply with a requirement of the 

rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 

2015,

2 we dismiss the appeal of Mary Jones. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 

43.2(f).

This case shall hereafter be styled “Cherie Allen v. City of Fort Worth, 

Tarrant County, Fort Worth Independent School District, Tarrant Regional Water 

District, Tarrant County Hospital District, and Tarrant County College District.”

Appellant Mary Jones shall pay all costs of her appeal, for which let 

execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 23, 2016

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’

fees).
I , " 

... : 

0 

REF ID:A4148911 -:-

0 

( 

I I 

.... 

June .12, 1919. 

Colonel George Fabyan, 

Chica.go~ Illinois. 

De~r Colonel Fabyan: 

In accordance.with your request, I have. 

spent the day in the cipher_laboratory and have gone into the 

principles underlying the attack on the A. T. & T. cipher machine. 

As you are aware of the. restrictions placed upon those 

who were in ~he Military Intelligence Service of the Government, 

it would not be consistent for me to go into details as to my 

knowledge cf anything perta-ining to this service. However, I 

feel ~t liberty to state that I think the mechanical principles 

by means of which solution can be accomplished are clearly 

understood by the members of the cipher department of Riverbank, 

an1 that I am of the opinion that the cipher is not invulnerable , as- now used, under, normal condi tiona·. FUrther, al though Z- am ~ntirely ignorant of the extent to which this system has been 

and is being employed, I believe that it is the duty ol Riverbank 

to iinform the War Department of its findings ·in re'opect to the 

vulnerability of the system, for-it is impossible to say how 

important such knowledge may be to the Government. I • 

Respectfully yours, 

, ' 

' \ .. · 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
Re the "Winda Kes~age11 - Important. 

It is apparent~ that the original. distributiori copy or the 

: "Winds Message, n f wtlich as known to have been in exist.eric1 

'as· late as Dec. 15, .1941, is still in existence. It is 

tiled in a Na'YY' 'Dep&rtmant safe with other ultra-secret . papers pertaining to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. 

However, it is also apparent that all other copies or the 

"Winds Message" were collected and destroyed. This distinction mie;ht be very important. ~ 

~ . 

. ... . ' 

The witness wbo acknowledged the Winds Execute 

wu 'Gerieral 11.anball.· He ducribed it ·and etated he · bad ·diecusaed it with Adll1ral Stark at a Joint-Board 

aMting. The Winds Bxilcute waa ,:Leo aclmowledged by 

an Admiral. who was on mt7 in. the Bavy Dei>s.r;tment 

during Oecmber, 1941. ICrame:r recalled the Winds 

tBucute and ducribed it l.o tbe Court., thus verif71ng ·earlier test1mo117. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-07-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352a 
REF ID:A488829 

Message referred to in -Section ll (page 9) ot the· Rd> erta 

!Report: -

· "Japanese .Ambassador w11l deliver to State Department i what amounts to an ultimatum at one p .m. December 

i seventh. Significance of this time not known but be 

~ on the alert. Not1t7 naval authorities concerned." ,.. 

~ 

l'l'he foregoing is from manor.y, is second or third hand, and I - . 

tcannot be confirmed, but it i.a believed to be substantial.l.J' 

icorrect. 

~ 

~ 

I 

' . . /)
Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                              AS ENACTED UNDER
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                ---------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IGI, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Domenic N. Golato, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, state and certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION] 1350, as
enacted under [SECTION] 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company as of September 30, 2003 (the end of the period covered by the
Report).


Date:    November 12, 2003


                                       /s/ Domenic N. Golato
                                       ---------------------
                                       Domenic N. Golato
                                       Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000352715
<NAME> BIOSONICS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,543
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,000
<INVENTORY>                                    177,743
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,653
<PP&E>                                         229,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                 218,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,592,003
<BONDS>                                        187,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,567
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,313,828)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,993
<SALES>                                          7,705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,239
<CGS>                                              993
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      993
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               534,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (528,996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (528,996)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In re Graham. In re McDonald.

*September 10*

*September 24, 1889.*

Habeas corpus: *Jurisdiction: Excessive sentence.*

1. On *habeas corpus*only jurisdictional defects are inquired into.

2. A judgment sentencing a person to imprisonment for a longer term than the statute warrants is merely erroneous, and not void for want of jurisdiction.

Applications for writs of *Habeas Corpus,*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

For the petitioners there was a brief by *Cola da O'Keefe,*and oral argument by *Rublee A. Cole.*

*451Cole, C. J.

The petitioners were charged on an information, in substance, of wilfully and feloniously making an assault upon one Eobert McDonald, and putting him in bodily fear and danger of life, and feloniously robbing him of $200 in money,— such-petitioners being each armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a loaded revolver, him, the said Eobert McDonald, did wound and strike and rob, etc. The petitioners were convicted of the offense as charged, and *Graham*ivas sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the period of thirteen years, and *McDonald,*for the period of fourteen jmars. The information was doubtless based upon sec. 4375, E. S., which seems to apply to the offense of which they were charged. The judgments were doubtless intended to be under that section. The section provides that the guilty party *“*shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, not more than *ten*years, nor less than three years.” The sentence is in excess of the period fixed by statute, and writs of *habeas corpus*are applied for upon that ground.

"We deny the writs for the reason that the error in the judgments does not render them void, or the imprisonment under them illegal, in that sense which entitles them to be discharged on a writ of *habeas corpus.*The judgments are doubtless erroneous, and would be reversed on writ of error. *Fitzgerald v. State,*4 Wis. 395; *Haney v. State,*5 Wis. 529; *Benedict v. State,*12 Wis. 314; *Peglow v. State,*12 Wis. 534. But the judgments are not void. *State ex rel. Welch v. Sloan,*65 Wis. 647. The court had jurisdiction of the persons, and subject matter or offense, but made a mistake in the judgment. For mere error, no matter how flagrant, the remedy is not by *habeas corpus.*The law is well settled in this court that on *habeas corpus*only jurisdictional defects are inquired into. The writ does not raise questions of errors in law or irregularities in the proceedings. *In re Crandall,*34 Wis. 177; *In re Pierce,*44 Wis. *452444. On the petitions presented the writs would be unavailing if granted. They are therefore denied. *In re Semler,*41 Wis. 517; *Wright v. Wright, ante,*p. 439.

*By the*Gourt.— Writs denied.