alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas *v.*State.

Opinion delivered March 10, 1930.

' *Walter J. Hebert,*for appellant.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney G-eneral, and *Robert F. Smith,*Assistant, for appellee.

*317Per Curiam.

Richard Thomas prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against him for the crime of pandering, in violation of the provisions of § 2705 of Crawford <fc Moses’ Digest. The State has confessed error on the ground that the trial court erred in refusing to sustain the motion of appellant in arrest of judgment.

The section of the digest under which the indictment was found provides, in substance, that any person who shall knowingly receive any money without consideration from the proceeds of the earnings of any woman engaged in prostitution shall be deemed guilty of a felony. The indictment left out the words “without consideration.” It will be observed that the exception in the statute, “without consideration,” is so incorporated in the enacting clause that one cannot be read without the other, and the exception becomes one of the essential ingredients of the offense. In other words, the exception is contained in the clause of the statute creating the offense, and it is so interwoven with the definition of the crime as to constitute a material part thereof. If the State were not required to negative the exception in the statute, it would not be required to prove that the person appropriating the money from the proceeds of the earnings of any woman engaged in prostitution must do so without consideration. This would make an offense not created by the statute.

The rule is well settled in this State that when an exception contained in a statute defines an offense and constitutes a part thereof, an indictment for such crime must negative the exception; hut when the statute contains a proviso exempting a class therein referred to from the operation of the statute, the indictment need not negative the proviso; for the reason that the accused in such a case must make the exemption a ground of defense. McI*ntire*v. *State,*151 Ark. 458, 230 S. W. 619; *Hodgkiss*v. *State,*156 Ark. 340, 246 S. W. 506; and *Tumbelson*v. *State,*159 Ark. 266, 251 S. W. 868.

The indictment in this case does not allege .that the appellant received or appropriated money from the earn*318ings of the woman engaged in prostitution without consideration. As we have already seen, the offense lies in receiving such money without consideration. It follows that the judgment must be reversed; and, inasmuch as the appellant has not been put in jeopardy,- the cause will be remanded for further proceedings according to law.
# The Attorney General of Texas
May 1, 1980

Honorable James B.Bond, Chancellor Opinion No. Mw-176 Texas A&MUniversity System College Station, Texas 77943 Re: Validity of an appropriations rider decreasing the general revenue appropriation to the Texas Agricultural Extension Service to offset increases infederal funds. Dear Mr.Bond: You have requested our opinion regarding the validity of an appropriations rider decreasing the general revenue appropriation to the Texas Agricultural Extension Service to offset increases ln federal funds. The rider provides:

In the event that the Texas Agricultural Extension Service receives Federal funds in excess of that estimated above, the General Revenue appropriation shall bereduced byan amount equal to the excess. 1979General Appropriations Act, at IV-56. You srggest that the rider is void (1)as an attempt to amend general law; and (21as conflicting with federal law. The Texas Agricultural Extension Service was created by House Concurrent Resolution No. 2,Acts 1915,34th Leg., at 273, which authorized Texas A&MCollege

... to receive the grants of money appropriated under said [federal] Act, and to authorize and conduct agricultural extension work which shall be carried on in connection with the A.&M. College of Texas in accordance with the terms and conditions expressed intheAct of Congress aforesaid A rider is valid so long as it merely limits or restricts the expenditure of appropriated funds. Attorney General Opinions H-351(1974);M-1199(1972); V-1254,V-1253(1951). In our opinion, the rider at issue here &es not in any

p. 559Honorable James B.Bond - Page Two (NWw-176)

way attempt to amend House Concurrent Resolution No.2. Its effect is merely tolimit or restrict the expenditure ofappropriated funds. Although Congress could easily have conditioned a state’s receipt offunds under the Smith-Lever Act, 7 U.S.C. S341, et seq., rpon that state’s maintainlng its funding at previous levels, Congress has not done so. The only expression of Congressional intent in this regard has appeared in the conferees’ reports for various Smith-Lever Act appropriations. See, e.g., Cong. Rec. H-9673 (October 24, 1979). A mere expression of the conferees’ intent 1snot sufficient to thwart the clear intent of the Texas Legislature in adopting the rider under discussion. We hold therefore that an appropriations rider which decreases the general revenue appropriation to the Texas Agricultural Extension Service to offset increases in federal funds isnot invalid SUMMARY An appropriations rider which decreases the general revenue appropriation to the Texas Agricultural Extension Service to offset increases in federal funds is not invalid as an attempt to amend general law orasConfRcting with federal law.

Attorney General ofTexas JOHN W.FAINTER, JR. First Assistant Attorney General TEDL.HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared byRick Gilpin Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE C. Robert Heath, Chairman Susan Garrison Rick GiIpin Charles Maddox Bruce Youngblood

p. 560
In the matterof:


### AERO TECH, LLC. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) FAA Docket No. CP-Judge Douglas M. Rawald Case No. 2015WA910115



# _______________) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME COMES NOW, the Respondent 

### AERO TECH, LLC., by and through its undersigned Attorney of record and hereby moves foran extension oftime within which to submit the Joint Report as required in the 

### INITIAL PROCEDURAL ORDER dated May 11, 2016, and as grounds therefore would show: 1. The Respondent and FAA have communicated regarding the Initial Procedural Orderand a Joint Report has been prepared and submitted to the FAA. 2. Undersigned attorney for the Respondent has not heard back from the attorney from FAA. 3. Undersigned would represent that there doesn't appear to be any disagreement between the Respondent and the FAA in getting this matter heard and/or the procedure or processfor Discoveryto befinalized. 4. Respondent would request an extension of 2 weeks through and including August 81h, 2016 in which to submitthe Joint Report. 

# RECEIVED JUL 2 72016 HEARING DOCKET 1Respectfully**Submi~::P.--......**

Ste n Doerr, Esq. Res ents Coun Doerr 

### &Knudson, P.A. 212 

### W. First Street Portales, NM 88130 (T) 575-359-1289 (F) 575-359-1898

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify thata copy ofthe foregoing pleading was served on

### thi~.,day of

# Jr 2016, by mailing to the following: Kyle Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel Attn. Patricia L. Baysinger Enforcement Division, Western Team 222West

## th Avenue Box 14 Anchorage, AK99513-7587



### 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Premiere Global Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned David E. Trine, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.

|                 |                               
|---------------- | ------------------------------
|November 9, 2009 | /s/ David E. Trine            
|                 |                               
|                 | David E. Trine                
|                 | Chief Financial Officer       
|                 | Premiere Global Services, Inc.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00031-CV

M. E. D., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. C-08-0142-CPS, HONORABLE JAY WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

M.E.D. appeals from the trial court’s decree terminating his parental rights to his

minor child, Z.B.D. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. In support of its petition to terminate M.E.D.’s

parental rights, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) alleged

that M.E.D. failed to support Z.B.D. in accordance with M.E.D.’s ability during the period of

one year ending within six months of the date the Department filed its petition to terminate

M.E.D.’s rights, see id. § 161.001(1)(F), and that M.E.D. constructively abandoned Z.B.D., see id.

§ 161.001(1)(N). The Department also alleged that termination of M.E.D.’s parental rights was in

Z.B.D.’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(2). Following a termination hearing, the trial court found

by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for terminating M.E.D.’s parental rights

existed and that termination was in Z.B.D.’s best interest.
On appeal, M.E.D.’s court-appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief informing

this Court that she has made a diligent review of the appellate record and can find no arguable

grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief

meetsthe requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective &

Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied)(applyingAnders

procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). Counsel provided M.E.D. with a copy of

the Anders brief along with a notice advising M.E.D. of his right to examine the appellate record

and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on M.E.D.’s

behalf, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. We agree that the appeal

is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decree terminating M.E.D.’s

parental rights and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record.

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Affirmed

Filed: April 24, 2014

2
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 Annual Report of NT Holding Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Chun Ka Tsun, Chief Executive 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:

1. The Report 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:  May 17, 2007

/s/    Chun Ka Tsun
Chun Ka Tsun,
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
this annual report on Form 10K, that:

     -    the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     -    the information contained in the report fairly presents, on all
          material respects, the Company's financial condition and results of
          operations.


/s/ John J. Remaley
-------------------------------------
John J. Remaley, Chief Executive
Officer

Dated: March 24, 2006


                                       50
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

JAYME LAURENT, Administrator of the 

Estate of Robert Linkous,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

TROY DILTZ, et al., 

 Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:17-cv-343 

Judge Walter H. Rice 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DROP 

DEFENDANTS TROY DILTZ, 

SCOTT SHORT, MATTHEW BLAIR, 

BRIAN CARR, AND CITY OF 

HUBER HEIGHTS

Plaintiff respectfully requests, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 21, that this Court drop 

Defendants Troy Diltz, Scott Short, Matthew Blair, Brian Carr, and the City of Huber Heights as 

defendants in this case, with prejudice. 

This motion is unopposed. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Jennifer L. Branch 

Trial Attorney for Plaintiff 

Alphonse A. Gerhardstein (0032053) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

GERHARDSTEIN & BRANCH CO. LPA 

441 Vine St., Suite 3400 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

(513) 621-9100 

(513) 345-5543 fax 

jbranch@gbfirm.com 

agerhardstein@gbfirm.com 

 

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 50 Filed: 05/02/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 584
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on May 2, 2019, a copy of the foregoing pleading was filed 

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an 

appearance by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing 

through the Court’s system. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading and the Notice 

of Electronic Filing has been served by ordinary U.S. mail upon all parties for whom counsel has 

not yet entered an appearance electronically. 

 

 s/ Jennifer Branch 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case: 3:17-cv-00343-WHR-SLO Doc #: 50 Filed: 05/02/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 585
EXHIBIT 32

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 Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

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



|            |  |  |  |                                         |  |                    
|----------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|            |  |  |  | Southwest Bank,                        
|            |  |  |  | Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|            |  |  | 
|May 5, 2017 |  |  |  | By                                      |  | /S/ NANCY G.
WILLIS
|            |  |  |  |                                         |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|            |  |  |  |                                         |  | Vice President
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
 
The Board of Directors
US Facilities Corporation
 
  We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (No. 33-
41086 and No. 33-46841), both on Form S-8, of US Facilities Corporation of our
report dated February 6, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
US Facilities Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994,
and the related consolidated income statements, statements of stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1995, and all related schedules, which report appears in the
December 31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K of US Facilities Corporation and
subsidiaries.
 
  Our report refers to the adoption of the Financial Accounting Standards
Board's Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 115, "Accounting for
Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities."
 
                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
March 26, 1996
#### Willie Earl CAMPBELL v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 85-172

705 S.W.2d 422

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 3, 1986

*310
      *Cross, Kearney & McKissic,*by: *Gene E. McKissic,*for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Joel O. Huggins,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Willie Earl Campbell was found guilty by a jury of burglary, possession of a prohibited weapon, terroristic threatening and the offense of felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as a habitual offender with four prior felony convictions to consecutive sentences totaling 62 years imprisonment.

Appellant’s trial attorney Gene McKissic has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders*v. *California,*386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there is no merit to an appeal of appellant’s convictions and asking to be relieved as counsel. When an attorney concludes that an appeal is meritless, he is required to comply with our Rule 11 (h) which provides in pertinent part:

> A request to withdraw on grounds that the appeal is wholly without merit shall be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, together with a list of all objections made by the appellant and overruled by the court and of all motions and requests made by the appellant and denied by the court, accompanied by a statement as to the reason counsel considers that the points thus raised would not arguably support the appeal.

Counsel has not complied with the rule. Appellant has submitted a brief, but it does not contain a list of all objections, motions and requests made by appellant and denied by the court or a statement as to the reason the points would not arguably support *311an appeal. The argument portion of the brief is in fact five sentences long and ignores the issues raised in the trial court and the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the four convictions.

It is also disturbing that the Attorney General concurs that the appellant has abstracted all objections, motions and requests denied by the court and concludes that the appellant has discussed the points “sufficiently” to apprise this Court of the lack of merit when in truth the appellant has not done so.

As appellant has failed to comply with Rule 11 (h), he is instructed to submit a brief in compliance with the rule within thirty days. The Attorney General shall then file a brief in response if necessary.

Motion to be relieved as counsel denied.

Purtle, J., not participating.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      AND**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Eugene Science, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seung
      Kwon Noh, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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 21, 2006
            /s/    Seung
                Kwon NohSeung
                Kwon NohPresident
                & Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)




This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)
      under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall
      not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.