alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES v. STROM et al.

No. H.T.A. 507.

First Division.

June 5, 1929.

United States Attorney, for the United States.

Winn. & Grigsby, of Juneau, for defendants.

HILL, District Judge.

On the 30th day of April, 1929, the above-entitled matter came on by consent for hearing in chambers upon the *116application of the defendants, under the provisions of section 2366, chapter 29, title 15, C.L.A. 1913, for a dismissal of proceedings against them. The affidavits filed by them show that on the 18th day of January, 1929, at Juneau, in the First Judicial Division of the Territory of Alaska, the defendants were held to answer on a charge of conspiracy to violate a law of the United States; that on April 1, 1929, a grand jury was impaneled at Juneau, which was discharged on the 15th day of April, 1929, and the charge against defendants was not presented to said grand jury, and no indictment was returned by said grand jury against either of said defendants, and said action against them was not continued to' another term of the District Court. The United States, by affidavit, admits the allegations of petitioners' affidavits as to matters designated, and alleges that defendants were held to answer during the September, 1928, term of the District Court of the United States for the First Judicial Division of the Territory of Alaska, which term is still pending. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendants.

The contention of the defendants is that the true meaning of section 2366, supra, is that defendants held to answer must be indicted at the next grand jury convened in the division in which defendants were held to answer after they were so held to answer. Section 2366 is intended to protect defendants in their constitutional right to a speedy trial, and has its counterpart in several states. Examination of laws of various states intended to reach the same end shows that in some the provision is that the action must be dismissed if indictment is not found by the end of the second term. In one instance it is the end of the third term. California, Oregon, and Utah have each had the same provision contained in section 2366. Examination of authorities fails to show that any of these acts have been held unconstitutional because they deny to defendants the right of a speedy trial. The language of this section is plain, and this court has no authority to alter its provisions. If, by reason of the provision and practices regard*117ing length of terms of court in Alaska, the law allows an undue delay, the remedy must be sought in the Legislature.

The section invoked provides: “When a person has been held to answer for a crime, if an indictment be not found against him at the next term of the court at which he is held to answer, the court must order the prosecution to be dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary be shown.”

Until the next term has passed, the defendants’ motion is premature. State v. Endsley, 19 Utah, 478, 57 P. 430.

The motion of the defendants to dismiss the prosecution against them is denied.
Jermaine Leon YOUNG v. STATE

CR-15-1462

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

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 Aethlon Medical, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter and nine months ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James A. Joyce,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be
retained by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                   /S/ JAMES A. JOYCE
                                   --------------------
                                   JAMES A. JOYCE
                                   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

February 17, 2004
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I, Michael E. Boxer, Chief Financial Officer of Mariner Health Care, Inc.
(the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended September 30, 2004 (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 Company. Date: November 5, 2004 /S/ Michael E. BoxerMichael E. BoxerChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certifications**
I, Martin A. Durant, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Carmike Cinemas, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 

 

  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
March 30, 2004   /s/ Martin A. Durant    Martin A. Durant  Senior Vice President - Finance,  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Case: 2:18-cv-00963-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 2:18-cv-00963-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 2:18-cv-00963-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 2:18-cv-00963-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 2:18-cv-00963-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 2:18-cv-00963-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 2:18-cv-00963-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/28/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 7
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Applied Innovation Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-62646, 33-94582, 333-68608, 333-67259 and 333-4432) on Form S-8 of Applied
Innovation Inc. of our reports dated February 5, 2002, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Applied Innovation Inc. and subsidiary as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows and the related financial statement
schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001,
which reports appear in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of
Applied Innovation Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Columbus, Ohio
March 22, 2002
#### Horace Mann Insurance Company v Litherland,

No. 90138;

*Leave to Appeal Denied September 10, 1991:*

Court of Appeals No. 116234.
Filed 5/11/06 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2006 ND 91

City of Minot, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Robert Gene Hellebust, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20050372

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Gary H. Lee, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Paul M. Probst, Probst Law Firm, Northland Professional Bldg., 600 22nd Avenue NW, Minot, N.D. 58703-0986, for defendant and appellant; on brief.

Mark A. Flagstad, Assistant State’s Attorney, 315 3rd Street SE, Minot, N.D. 58701-3998, for plaintiff and appellee; on brief.

City of Minot v. Hellebust

No. 20050372

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Robert Gene Hellebust appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence.  Hellebust argues insufficient evidence existed to sustain his conviction and the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant his motion for acquittal.

[¶2]We hold ample evidence existed to support the district court’s denial of the motion for acquittal and the conviction.  We therefore affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).  

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring
ALD

- 240 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 15

- 3910

___________ EDWIN IKECHUKWU EJIKEME,

Appellant

v. DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, and his associates including his replac ement if any; ESPERANTE S. TOVI, FBI agent with pseudo name Anulika

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 15

- cv - 00008) District Judge David S. Cercon e

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 28, 2016 Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 6, 2016 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Pro se appellant Edwin Ejikeme appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint as
frivolous. We will affirm.
I. Eji keme initiated this action in 2015 against Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, and Esperante S. Tovi, an alleged FBI agent operating under the pseudonym Anulika. In his complaint, Ejikeme sets a forth a variety of fantastical allegations against these
De fendants, including allegations that they attempted to infect him with HIV, placed him on domestic and international spy satellites, and falsely informed the managers of Family Dollar and Bottom Dollar that Ejiekeme was stealing merchandise from these stor es. On November 9, 2015, after granting Ejikeme in forma pauperis status, the District Court dismissed his complaint as frivolous. Ejikeme filed a timely notice of appeal from this order on November 20, 2015.
II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of
discretion. See Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “authorizes the dismissal of a[n IFP] co mplaint as factually frivolous if a court determines that the contentions are clearly baseless.”
Deutsch v. United States , 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 (3d Cir. 1995). Here, Ejikeme’s allegations appear to arise from some type of imagined campaign by the FBI to inf ect him with HIV and otherwise harass and annoy him by stealing various personal items and smearing his3

reputation at local discount stores. The District Court properly dismissed these claims as
frivolous. 1 Denton , 504 U.S. at 33 (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.”). Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the Distr ict Court.

1 We have reviewed Ejikeme’s argument in support of appeal, which contains similarly fantastical allegations against Mueller

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Forrest Edwin BATEMAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-30302.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 19, 2004.

Frank Noonan, Esq., USPO — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Nancy Bergeson, Esq., FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Forrest Edwin Bateman appeals his 111 month sentence following a guilty plea conviction for armed bank robbery and use of a firearm during a federal crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Bateman contends that the district court erred by not granting him an additional one-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b)(2). We disagree because the district court did not err by finding Bateman did not timely notify the government of his intention to plead guilty. *See United States v. Narramore,*36 F.3d 845, 846-47 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that defendant who pled guilty one week before the scheduled trial date and after the government had begun to seriously prepare for trial was not entitled to the additional one-point adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under 3El.l(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ronald PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4759

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4535-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-4535-DR), dated April 11, 2020, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on January 7, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy J. Dragani, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Tammy L. Littrell as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2022-02241 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 72 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention relating to ‘‘Requirement for Persons To Wear Masks While 

on Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2022 

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. MAST, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. 

BIGGS, Mrs. BOEBERT, Mr. PERRY, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. POSEY, Mr. 

PFLUGER, Mr. MASSIE, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. HUIZENGA, Mr. 

LOUDERMILK, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. NORMAN, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. 

GOOD of Virginia, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Ms. TENNEY, 

and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relating to 

‘‘Requirement for Persons To Wear Masks While on 

Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Cen4 ters for Disease Control and Prevention relating to ‘‘Re5 quirement for Persons To Wear Masks While on ConveyVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:38 Feb 18, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ72.IH HJ72

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 72 IH 

1 ances and at Transportation Hubs’’ (86 Fed. Reg. 8025 

2 (February 3, 2021); determined through a letter of opin3 ion from the Government Accountability Office dated De4 cember 14, 2021, and printed in the Congressional Record 

5 on December 15, 2021, on pages S9206–S9208, that the 

6 order is a rule under the Congressional Review Act), and 

7 such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Shawn HILLERY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-36

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0574 Directorate ID : 20 08 - SW - 22 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 407 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 464 Helicopters in the US Regi stry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent separation of the tailboom and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 82,850 to replace a tailboom, which is under warranty per Bell ASB 407 - 07 - 80, dated 8 - 2 7 - 07 Labor per Helicopter ( .5 to annotate the helicopter records, 1.5 to prepare the inspection area and do the magnification inspection, and 2.5 work-hour s to do the 100 - hour TIS inspection x 

### $ 8 5 /work -hour based on 6 repetitive inspection s the first y ear) $ 1,445

Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 1,445 Total US Fleet Cost $ 670,480 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD s ignificant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Sharon Miles
Kevin Dewayne LANE v. STATE

CR-15-1310

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00059-CR

JACK LAMAR TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (0908137D)

April 11, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM