alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[71 C.2d 1235; 78 Cal.Rptr. 169, 455 P.2d 105]

[Crim. No. 13126.

In Bank.

June 18, 1969.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UHLAN ERIC CRISP, Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel L. Dintzer, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Elizabeth Miller, John C. Hamilton and Gary J. Freedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

TRAYNOR, C. J.

In May 1962 a court sitting without a jury found defendant guilty of possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500). Before sentencing, the court found that “defendaiit is addicted or by reason of repeated use of narcotics, is in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics,” adjourned the criminal proceedings, and committed defendant for treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 6541.1 In November 1966 the court reinstated the criminal proceedings and sentenced defendant to imprisonment for the term prescribed by law. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed because- a confession obtained in violation of the rules subsequently announced in *Escobedo*v. *Illinois*(1964) 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758] and *People*v. *Dorado**1236(1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361] was introduced at his trial. Since we have held that those rules apply to all eases not final before *Escobedo*was decided on June 22, 1964 *(People*v. *Rollins*(1967) 65 Cal.2d 681, 691 [56 Cal.Rptr. 293, 423 P.2d 221]; *In re Lopez*(1965) 62 Cal.2d 368, 372 [32 Cal.Rptr. 188, 398 P.2d 380]; *In re Shipp*(1965) 62 Cal.2d 547, 549 [43 Cal.Rptr. 3, 399 P.2d 571]), defendant concludes that the judgment must be reversed. The Attorney General contends that cases such as this one, which was tried before *Escobedo*but in which entry of judgment was postponed owing to a commitment to the narcotics rehabilitation facility, should be treated as an exception to the rule of the *Lopez*case. We answered this contention adversely.to the Attorney General in *People*v. *Kellum,*Crim. 13271, *ante,*page 352 [78 Cal.Rptr. 501, 455 P.2d 429]

The judgment is reserved.

McCbmb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J. concurred.

1

Penal Code section 6451, added by Statutes 1961, chapter 850, section 2, page 2225, was repealed by Statutes 1965, chapter 1226, section 1, page 3062, and substantially reenacted and recodified as Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 by Statutes 1965, chapter 1226, section 2, page 3066.
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Market  Integrity,  Inc., on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned,  Daniel L. Hodges, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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.


Date: November 19, 2004

/s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
RYDER SCOTT COMPANY                                           Fax (713) 651-0849
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
1100 Louisiana  Suite 3800   Houston, Texas 77002-5218  Telephone (713) 651-9191







                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING FIRM



      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 for Geodyne Energy Income Limited
Partnership I-B.


                                          //s// Ryder Scott Company
                                                 Petroleum Engineers

                                          RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                          PETROLEUM ENGINEERS




Houston, Texas
January 19, 1999
###### **EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

#### **Section 1350Certificate of ChiefFinancial Officer**

               In connection with theQuarterly Report of Summus, Inc. (USA)  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theQuarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Donald T. Locke, the Chief Financial Officer ofthe 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 complieswith the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

| Date:          November 12, 2004      | /s/ Donald T.    Locke                                      Donald T. Locke    Chief FinancialOfficer |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Subject: Relationship between W126 annual values and the 3-year average 8-hour standard

From: Jeffrey Herrick ORD/NCEA/NCEA-RTP/EMAG

To: Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172)

Memo to Docket

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the relationship between annual W126 values 

and the 3-year averages of the annual values in counties that meet the level of the current 3-year 

average 0.075 secondary standard in 2009. 

The scatter plot below shows the county-level comparison of the highest annual W126 values 

from 2007 to 2009 plotted against the 3-year average of the 4th highest maximum 8-hr average. 

(The annual values are the highest among all monitors in the county in each year. The 3-year 

average is the highest average among all monitors in the county.) The data shown is from all 

counties that meet the level of the current 3-year average 0.075 secondary standard in 2009. 

The upper level of the of the annual W126 values recommended by the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee was 15 ppm-hrs. In 2009, 130 counties that met the level of the current 

secondary standard (0.075) had annual W126 levels above 15 ppm–hours. Thirty-one of these 

areas had annual W126 levels above 20 ppm-hours. 

Notes on data source and handling:

For this comparison, 2007-2009 monitoring data were obtained from EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS). Annual and three-year average W126 values were computed for each monitor in 

accordance with the data handling procedures in the proposed 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix P 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/fr/20100119.pdf). 
Comparison of counties that meet the 3-yr average 0.075 level of 8-hr standard

and annual maximum W126 in those counties in 2007-2009.

4th Highest Max. 8-hr Average (ppm). 3-year average

0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

HIghest 3-month 12-hr W126, 3-year max

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

*note some black dots may contain several over-lapping data points

15

130 counties > 15 ppmhours

0.075
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.24


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. : 2012JIYINDAIZIDI12100178


 


Borrower
: Hebei Xuhua Trade Co., Ltd.


Lender :
CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


Signing
Date : March 6, 2012


Loan Amount
: RMB150,000,000


 


Length of
maturity : From March 6, 2012 to March 6, 2013


Use of Loan
: Vehicle Purchase


Loan Interest : 7.872%


Date of
Draft :March 6, 2012


Withdrawal
Amount : RMB150,000,000


Payment Method : The interest should be repaid by monthly. The
principal shall be fully repaid at the maturity date of the loan.


Repayment
Date :March 6, 2012


 


Loan Guarantee : Guaranty of Pledge, Guaranty
of Mortgage


 


- Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd entered into The Maximum
Pledge Contract with the lender, with the contract no. 2012JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI12140160.


 


- Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd
entered into The Maximum Mortgage Contract with the lender, with the contract no. 2012JIYINZUIBAOZIDI12120243.
# South Carolina Guard helps rescue injured hiker, two others

/ Published Aug. 30, 2021

GREENVILLE, S.C. - South Carolina Army National Guard Soldiers and civilians with the South Carolina Helicopter Aquatic Rescue Team (SC-HART) rescued an injured hiker and two others Aug. 20 near Raven Cliff Falls in Caesar’s Head State Park.

The SC-HART includes professional rescuers from the State Urban Search and Rescue Task Force (SC-TF1) and pilots and crew members from the South Carolina National Guard. They carry out helicopter rescues using the UH-60 Black Hawk and LUH-72 Lakota helicopters. 

Initially, Cedar Mountain Fire Rescue was called to assist the hikers Aug. 19, but inclement weather, difficult terrain and oncoming darkness prevented a rescue.

“We got the call around 9 p.m. the previous night requesting our assistance,” said U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 4 Frank Wallace, South Carolina National Guard pilot for SC-HART. “We determined that, due to our crew, the terrain and the weather, we would not be able to conduct the rescue at that time. But the next morning, we took off at sunrise and met up with the other members of the team in Greenville.”

The team arrived on-site and realized it was going to be a challenging rescue.

“The winds were coming off the mountain tops creating a turbulence and there was also some morning fog to deal with,” said Wallace. “The terrain had a lot of trees covering the slope, and there was what looked like a sheer drop-off near the rescue site. We surveyed the area from the air and came up with a plan to put the (medics) on the ground safely.”

Wallace said the foliage was so thick it was difficult to see the hikers.

“The only way we really knew exactly where they were is we saw an orange rope they had put up in a tree, and they started shaking the tree,” said Wallace.

After reaching the site, it took the SC-HART team about 45 minutes to complete the rescue. By 10 a.m., the injured hiker and two others had been hoisted from the heavily wooded, off-trail location near the falls.

This is the second rescue SC-HART was involved with this month. The rescue team also rescued two injured kayakers from the Chattooga River, Aug. 1.

“This rescue was in really difficult terrain also,” said Wallace. “It was up in the same general area and had triple vegetation. It would have been difficult to find them if the grid coordinates they gave us weren’t so accurate.”

SC-HART trains regularly to stay up-to-date with equipment, tactics and medical treatment.

“All this week, we’ve been conducting training for just these types of events,” said Wallace. “We have a strong team that works and trains well together. Everybody knows their job and does it when called upon. We have a willingness to go out there and do this. If people need help, everyone on this team has the mindset that we want to do whatever it is that needs to be done.”
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7454
In Re: ALANI OLUSEGUN ARAWOLE, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-283-L, CA-00-66-L) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alani Olusegun Arawole, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alani Olusegun Arawole petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The district court entered an order on February 24, 2003, denying relief as to three of Arawole’s claims and appointing counsel for the remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, b ecause the district court has recently taken significant action in Arawole’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### AUGUSTUS F. CADY, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*WILLIAM ANSON, Defendant in Error.

ERROR TO THE MOTIOIPAIi COURT OE THE CITY OE WATERTOWN.

The records and proceedings of justices of the peace, when jurisdiction is clear, are to he liberally construed.

Appeals are favored, and mere technical defects or omissions are to be disregarded as far as possible without obstructing the course of justice.

Anson, the defendant in error, sued Cady, the plaintiff in error, before a justice of the peace of the city of Watertown, in an action of trover, and obtained judgment for $100. Cady appealed to the Municipal Court of said city, when the plaintiff below moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that there was no affidavit of the defendant or any person for him, that his appeal is made in good faith, &c. The affidavit is as follows, after the venue:

*“*Augustus F. Cady, of said city and county, 'being duly sworn upon oath says, that in the case of *William Anson vs'. Augustus F.*Oady, tried before Thomas M. Knox, Esq., the appeal is made in good faith, and not for the purpose of delay.”

This motion was sustained and the appeal dismissed. The objection to the affidavit was understood to be, that it did not appear that the affiant was the Augustus F. Cady who was the defendant in the suit.

Williams, for the plaintiff in error.

*Hall,*for the defendant in error.

*By the Court,*

Smith, J.

There can be no doubt that the affidavit for appeal in this case, is sufficient. The records and proceedings before justices of the peace, are to be liberally construed when his jurisdiction is clear, and appeals are to be favored. If the technical criticism here contended for, should prevail, there would be an end to the administration of justice before these tribunals.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
' . REF II;>J;Af ~Ji8 9 

Special Assistant 

W. F. FRIEDMAN 

Room 19232E 

c/Ll.eutenarit I. T. McDONALD 

,> 't- - - ·-

pproved for Release by NSA on 12-16-2014 pursuant to E.O. 

3526 
I ,,-.. 

'C'I.':', 

ID : A&jj-S--9 

"119"· 

OUTLINE FOR CRYPI'OLOGIC STUDIES . I Organization 

A. Name 

B. Subordination 

C. Location 

D. Internal structure 

II Scale of Effort 

A. Number and location of intercept stations. 

B. Personnel strength 

c. Financial expenditures 

D. Volume of traffic intercepted 

E. Training 

F. Electronic countermeasures 

III Cryptologic Targets 

A. Intercept Targets 

B. Plain language effort and successes 

C. Traffic analysis effort and successes 

D. Cryptanalytic effort and successes 

E. Interception and analysis of other electronic signals 

IV Security 

A. Transmission 

B. Physical 

C. Personnel 

1. Foreign Personnel 

D. Cryptographic 

E. Electronic 

V Collaboration With Other Countries 

VII Other Cryptologic Information 

A. Cryptologic inventions 

B. Production of cryptologic devices 

C. Eq_uipment 

D. Publications on cryptologic matters 

E. Censorship of mails, telephones and 

purposes. 

telegraph for cryptologic 

i)IIII ·:,Biographic Data (National and International) r- ;,·= ;~~~ ,, . 

Mo :::0rc~, n {'\"'' v •"-}• V ! I ' · ' - · : • ~ .. • • -- ........ '· 'u..... l 
I C>.rganization 

A. Bame 

B. Subordination 

c. Location 

D. Internal structure 

II Scale o't Etf'ort 

A. Number and locat10ll of intercept stations. 

B. Personnel strength 

C. Ftnanc1aJ expenditures 

D. Volume of trattlc intercepted 

E. Train11Jg 

F. Electronic countermeasures 

llI Cryptologic Targets 

A. Intercept c:l'argets 

B. PJ.af.n language ettort ond succeasea 

c. . 'h"affic analysis effort and successes 

D. 0r3Ptanalytic ef'tort and successes 

f· · .... 

E. Interception and analysis of other ele~ signals 

IV Security 

A. 'l'.ransmiaalon 

B. Physical 

c. Personnel 

· l. Foreign Personnel 

· D. Cryptographic 

E. Electronic 

V Coll&boration With Other Countr1ea 

:11 

VJI ~ Ceyptologic IDtormatlon 

A. · .Cryptol.oglc lnventlou 

B~ Production .of cryptologic devices 

J!. E.lulpment . 

1 D. Publications on cryptologic matters 

/ E. Censorship of mails I telephones and telegraph ·tor cryptologic 

. purposes. 

VIII BS.°"hic Data (National and International) 

' :~. ' 

• l • •. -. I 

. , 

.I 

·/
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 309 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 309

   To give Federal courts additional discretion to determine whether 
     pretrial detention is appropriate for defendants charged with 
          nonviolent drug offenses in Federal criminal cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2021

    Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Coons) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To give Federal courts additional discretion to determine whether 
     pretrial detention is appropriate for defendants charged with 
          nonviolent drug offenses in Federal criminal cases.

    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 ``Smarter Pretrial Detention for Drug 
Charges Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. RELEASE CONDITIONS AND DETENTION IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES.

    Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(42 U.S.C. 14135a)'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``(34 U.S.C. 40702)''; and
            (2) in subsection (e)(3)--
                    (A) by striking subparagraph (A); and
                    (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), 
                and (E) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), 
                respectively.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          38,629
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                       842
<INVENTORY>                                      5,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,763
<PP&E>                                         455,953
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,296
<BONDS>                                        234,766
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   406,119
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               362,531
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  309,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,593
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,371
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,222
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (27,007)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,785)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.91)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7447

GREGORY VAN COLLINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina

Department of Corrections; CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1430-2-17)

Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 20, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Van Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Van Collins appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Collins v. Catoe, No. CA-00-1430-2-17

(D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.32


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. : GLSR-JK-201209-1


 


Borrower
: Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd.


Lender : Hebei Shengrong Kaiyuan Auto Parts Co., Ltd.


  


Signing Date : September 24, 2012


Loan Amount
: RMB20,000,000


 


Length of
maturity : From September 24, 2012 to September 23, 2013


Use of Loan
: Working Capital


Loan Interest : 6.60%


Date of Draft :September 24, 2012


Withdrawal Amount : RMB20,000,000


Payment Method : The principal shall be fully repaid with interest
at the maturity date of the loan.


.


Repayment
Date :September 23, 2013