alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William G. HINKLE and Kenneth HINKLE *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5535

459 S. W. 2d 542

Opinion delivered October 19, 1970

[Rehearing denied December 7, 1970.]

*W. Dent Gitchel,*for appellants.

*257
      *Joe*Purcell, Attorney General; *Sam Gibson,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellants William G. Hinkle and Kenneth Hinkle were convicted of robbery allegedly committed upon Mr. and Mrs. Leeland Sartin on January 8, 1967. The jury in finding them guilty assessed their punishment at 15 years in the penitentiary. For reversal appellants rely only upon one *point.*— i. *e.,*the State failed to sustain its burden of proving appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The testimony of Officers R. D. Bentley and A. O. Evans of the Little Rock Police Department shows that a robbery was committed at No. 39 Robinwood in Little Rock on January 8, 1967. Mrs. Gladys Sartin testified that the Sartins were having dinner around 5:00 P.M. when she noticed someone outside. When her husband went to answer the door, the two defendants came in, one had a shotgun and the other a pistol. The pistol was placed at her temple and the shotgun in her husband’s stomach. Within two or three minutes the defendants blindfolded, gagged and tied the Sartins with wire and tape.

Mr. Leeland Sartin testified that approximately 5:30 P.M. on January 8, 1967, while he and his wife were eating dinner, the appellants rang his doorbell. He then gave the same description of the guns and the tying up that his wife gave. Mr. Sartin testified that jewelry taken was worth $7,000 or $8,000, a fur coat was worth about $5,000 and, according to his best estimate, $200 or $300 in cash was taken from his billfold.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Sartin identified the appellants in the courtroom as being the two men who robbed them, and both testified about the articles taken in the robbery. Under these circumstances we hold there was ample evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.

Affirmed.
#### Lawrence Joseph WALKER *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-157

506 S.W. 2d 537

Opinion delivered March 11, 1974

*Robert A. Newcomb,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Richard Mattison,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Geokge Rose Smith, Justice.

The trial judge, hearing the case without a jury, found the appellant guilty of robbery and assault with intent to commit rape, both committed with a firearm. There was also proof of two prior felony convictions. This appeal is only from the court’s finding that the accused was guilty of assault with intent to commit rape. For reversal it is argued that the State failed to prove any overt act that was actually directed toward the accomplishment of the crime of rape.

The prosecutrix, Nancy Westmoreland, and her escort, Richard Parker, had given Walker a ride shortly before midnight after Walker had helped them extricate their car from a muddy parking place near the Barton Coliseum in Little Rock. When the three reached Walker’s destination he held a pistol to Nancy’s head and, by threatening to kill her, forced the couple to walk over to an alley. There he took Richard’s *155money and, using a four-letter word, announced his intention to have intercourse with the girl. Upon her refusal he threatened her with his pistol and ordered .her to remove her clothes. When she continued her resistance he slapped her and hit her in the face with his fist. Nancy, however, fought back so vigorously that Walker discontinued is attack and soon drove away in Richard’s car — a theft which led to his apprehension by the police.

There is no merit in the appellant’s argument that “since he did not attempt to remove any of the woman’s clothes, nor attempt to touch any of the private parts of her body, he did not commit the crime of assault with intent to. rape.” The gravamen of the offense was stated in *Tyra*v. *State,*120 Ark. 179, 179 S.W. 167 (1915): “The assailant must have done some act which is not merely one of preparation or solicitation, but is one which is intended to overcome the will of the female for the purpose of having sexual, intercourse with her forcibly and against her will. It is not necessary, however, that this attempt be persisted in to the uttermost, but it is sufficient if it was actually begun, without reference to the reason which causes the assailant to desist.” Here the State offered proof to show that Walker stated his purpose, ordered the prosecutrix at gunpoint to remove her clothes, and struck her in the face when she refused to submit. Both the assault and the accompanying intent were established just as clearly as would have been the case had Walker attempted to remove the woman’s clothing.

Pursuant to the holding in *Anders*v. *California,*386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel has asked that he be permitted to withdraw from the case, on the ground that the appeal is frivolous. That motion is granted.

Affirmed.
```
<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-32.2
<SEQUENCE>5
<FILENAME>hybridexhbit321-033104.txt
<DESCRIPTION>CERTIFICATION OF CFO PER SECTION 906
<TEXT>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                 Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350

      The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 of Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc.(the "Company")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                            /s/  Mark Clancy
                                            ---------------------------------
                                                 Mark Clancy
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 October 29, 2004

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

</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-54-1

Za Darrick J. Brooks 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 139) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 5 of the superseding

indictment, and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The

court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: January 26, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:17-cr-00054-JLG Doc #: 147 Filed: 01/26/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 518
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. §§1350)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §§1350),
the undersigned, James Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of
Capital Group One, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended May 31, 2001 of the Company (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|                       |  |                                                               
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 4, 2003 |  | By: /s/ James StewartJames Stewart
    Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00134]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NINDS Contract Technical 
Evaluation.
    Date: January 18, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Marilyn Moore-Hoon, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-9087, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acc1c3c3dec9c1cddeecc1cdc5c082c2c5c482cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3dedcdcc1d6ded2c1f3ded2dadf9ddddadb9dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 4, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-00134 Filed 1-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Numbers 333-45288, 333-86155, 333-86159, 333-63036)
pertaining to the LJL BioSystems, Inc. 1994 Equity Incentive Plan, the LJL
BioSystems, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan, the LJL BioSystems, Inc. 1998 Directors' Stock
Option Plan, the 1995 Stock Option Plan, the 1995 Non-Employee Directors' Stock
Option Plan and the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Molecular Devices
Corporation of our report dated January 25, 2000, except as to Note 11, which is
as of February 2, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of LJL BioSystems, Inc. and its subsidiary for the year ended December
31, 1999, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
March 28, 2002
2021 AFSAM

Bianchi Battle

CT5120

SHOOTER TIME ROST # TEAM_ID STATE/COUNTRY

ALL-GUARD (BRAVO) 1

. 6:29:84

1 316 ) SSG DEMENT, JERRY D DM MO

2 120 ) SGT GOLDADE, TYLER R AF ND

3 125 ) SFC BAUTISTA, MICHAEL R AG ID

4 132 ) SSG VARGAS, ERIK J AI CA

2. USAR BLACK 6:52:02

1 159 ) SSG MORRIS, SEAN D BA USAR

2 157 ) MAJ CONNERS, THOMAS J BA USAR

3 156 ) SFC GODEL, JASON W BA USAR

4 158 ) SGT HUGHES, DEVIN E BA USAR

ALL-GUARD (CHARLIE) 3

. 7:13:82

1 108 ) MSG GREGSON, JACOB J AC UT

2 121 ) SSGT ROOK, GAVIN W AF ND

3 138 ) TSGT DANIEL, SCOTTY W AJ AR

4 114 ) SGT GRIFFETH, ALEXANDRA I AD VA

4. USAR GOLD 8:19:26

1 163 ) CW3 KNOTE, ANDY T BB USAR

2 160 ) CPT BROTHERSTON, CURTIS G BB USAR

3 162 ) MAJ URICK, GRANT M BB USAR

4 161 ) MAJ CAMPBELL, JESSE D BB USAR

AFSAM HONORS 5. 9:02:44

1 167 ) SGM MININO, ANTHONY A BC USAR

2 165 ) MSG BURDETTE, RODERICK II BC USAR

3 166 ) CSM BALL, MICHAEL E BC USAR

4 164 ) SSG ABEYTA, PATRICK M BC USAR

6. ALL-GUARD ALPHA

1 100 ) SFC SWANSON, BRANDON N AA WI

2 117 ) CPT MILLER, GARRETT E AE AR

3 119 ) SFC NOE, JOSEPH T AE AR

4 118 ) MSGT WATTERS, NATHAN A AE AR

Thursday, September 2, 2021 Page 1 of 1 Time printed: 18:34:01
Case 1:00-cr-00090-SSB     Document 104      Filed 11/08/2007     Page 1 of 1
FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 05/04/99 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 98-4230

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 97-3799-CIV-DAVIS

RALPH RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States;

DORIS MEISSNER, Commission, Immigration and Naturalization Service;

ROBERT WALLIS, Acting District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service; UNITED

STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; and 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 4, 1999)

Before CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

B Y T H E C O U R T :

The United States Supreme Court narrowly has restricted the circumstances in which a

court of appeals can recall a mandate in a case. Calderon v. Thompson, 118 S. Ct. 1489, 1498

(1998). In view of what the Supreme Court instructs in Calderon, we deny the Petitioner
-2-

Richardson’s “Application to Withdraw this Court’s Mandate and Stay or Summarily Reverse its

Decision in light of Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, et al.”

Since Richardson has filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, we would

welcome, however, an opportunity to revisit our decision in Richardson v. Reno, 162 F.3d 1338

(1998), in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination

Committee, 119 S. Ct. 936 (1999) (“AADC”), if the Supreme Court should vacate our decision

and remand for further proceedings in this case, which would automatically recall the mandate. 

Unless and until that happens, this Court lacks the authority to decide whether INA § 1252(b)(9) 

precludes jurisdiction, independently of INA § 1252(g), or any other issues arising in the wake

of the AADC decision. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and 1252(g). See American-Arab, 119 S. Ct. at

943; Richardson, 162 F.3d at 1345-46, 1354, 1358 n.99, 1373-74, 1377.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-942]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Johnson Matthey, Inc., has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 14, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 14, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 2, 2021, Johnson Matthey, Inc., 2003 Nolte Drive West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1742, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled Substance
Drug Code
ScheduleGamma Hydroxybutyric Acid
2010
IMarihuana
7360
ITetrahydrocannabinols
7370
INoroxymorphone
9145
IDifenoxin
9168
IAmphetamine
1100
IIMethamphetamine
1105
IILisdexamfetamine
1205
IIMethylphenidate
1724
IINabilone
7379
II4-Anilino-N-Phenethyl-4-Piperidine (ANPP)
8333
IINorfentanyl
8366
IICocaine
9041
IICodeine
9050
IIDihydrocodeine
9120
IIOxycodone
9143
IIHydromorphone
9150
IIDiphenoxylate
9170
IIEcgonine
9180
IIHydrocodone
9193
IILevorphanol
9220
IIMeperidine
9230
IIMethadone
9250
IIMethadone intermediate
9254
IIMorphine
9300
IIThebaine
9333
IIOpium tincture
9630
IIOxymorphone
9652
IINoroxymorphone
9668
IIAlfentanil
9737
IIRemifentanil
9739
IISufentanil
9740
IITapentadol
9780
IIFentanyl
9801
II
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for the internal use intermediates or for sale to its customers. In reference to drug codes 7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. The company plans to bulk manufacture for either internal usage as intermediates or to sale to customers as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API). No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. Brian S. Besser, Acting Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-00326 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David H. Brown, the Chief Executive Officer of Valley Community Bancshares,
Inc. (the Company), hereby 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 Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002 (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.                                                                           

|                 |    |  |     |  |                |                                                     
|---------------- | -- |  | --- |  | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|October 31, 2002 | By |  | /s/ |  | David H. Brown
|                 |    |  |     | 
|                 |    |  |     |  |                | David H. Brown
President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

            CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Kensey Nash Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
W. Kaufmann, 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.

Date: September 29, 2003
                                          By: /s/ JOSEPH W. KAUFMANN
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Joseph W. Kaufmann
                                            Chief Executive Officer
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Appellant

v.

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of

Commerce for Intellectual Property and

Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

Intervenor

______________________

2020

- 1991 , 2020

- 2023

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,783, 95/002,189, 95/002,204

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding s are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 4 2 (b). Case: 20-1991 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 08/17/2022H ONEYWELL I NTERNATIONAL I NC

. V

. V IDAL 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

August 17, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 17, 2022 Case: 20-1991 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 08/17/2022
No. 1032.

#### Childs *v.*Frazee.

November Term, 1880.

At the hearing of the former appeal in this case (No. 843, March 24th, 1880, unreported,) this court did not consider the merits, but simply adjudged that there was error in this case in ordering a re-sale before the balance due by the purchaser at the first sale upon the cash portion of her bid was ascertained.

2. A purchaser of property sold under decree of foreclosure is liable for interest on the unpaid portion of the amount that was required by the order of sale to be paid in cash.

3. A purchaser of land under a decree of foreclosure having failed to comply, a re-sale was ordered, and pending appeal from this order, the land was re-sold and was purchased by the mortgagee, who took titles and receipted to the sheriff for the amount *613of bis bid, less the costs which he paid in cash; but upon the hearing of the appeal the order for re-sale was set aside as premature. *Held,*that this receipt of the mortgagee could not be claimed by the first purchaser as a credit upon the amount due on her unpaid bid.

April 25th, 1881.

*Baushett & Lynch,*for appellants. *W. A. Clarh,*contra.

4. Costs in an equity cause are in the discretion of the Circuit Court, and there appears in this case no abuse of that discretion.

5. A re-sale was again ordered to be made by the sheriff; whether the sheriff or the master was the proper officer to make this re-sale is a question which the purchaser at the first sale ma}^ raise only when sued for a deficiencyit cannot be made by her an objection to the order of sale. OPINION by

McIyee, A. J.,