alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCWC-20-0000728

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

________________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF LC, AC, IC, AND DG

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-20-0000728; FC-S NOS. 20-1-0022, 20-1-0023,

20-1-0024 and 20-1-0025)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/Appellant Mother’s application for writ of 

certiorari filed on January 13, 2022, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 7, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-20-0000728

07-MAR-2022

07:52 AM

Dkt. 15 ODAC
#### ALLAN, M. v. ALLAN, Y.

525 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/18/2017

January Term, 2015 No. 02230

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
#### Harry W. Hecht, *et ux.,*and Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund v. Millard H. Hall, *et ux.*

154 So. 926.

Decision Filed May 14, 1934.

*Ira C. Haycock,*for Appellants, Hecht and Wife;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Marvin C. McIntosh,*Assistant, for Trustees Internal Improvement Fund; *Morton B. Adams,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

— The decree herein appealed from is affirmed upon the principles stated in Hecht v. Shaw, filed November 16, 1933.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Ellis and Brown, J. J., and Thomas, Circuit Judge, concur.

Davis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., disqualified.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002/SEC RULE
                                   13a-14(b)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Immune Response Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), which this written statement
accompanies, I, Michael K. Green, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

Dated: May 13, 2005                                /s/ Michael K. Green
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Michael K. Green
                                                   Vice President, Finance and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8497 

To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from the 

Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2020 

Mr. SMITH of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from the Small Business Administration, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing SBA As5 sistance from Going to China Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AFFILIATION WITH THE PEOPLE’S 

7 REPUBLIC OF CHINA. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(a) of the Small Busi9 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8497 IH

1 ‘‘(10) PROHIBITION ON AFFILIATION WITH THE

2 PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.—For purposes of 

3 this Act, a small business concern may not— 

4 ‘‘(A) be headquartered in the People’s Re5 public of China; or 

6 ‘‘(B) have more than 25 percent of the vot7 ing stock of the small business concern owned 

8 by affiliates that are citizens of the People’s Re9 public of China.’’. 

10 (b) REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE.—The Adminis11 trator of the Small Business Administration shall amend 

12 the regulations and guidance of the Administration, in13 cluding sections 120.100, 120.110, and 121.105 of title 

14 13, Code of Federal Regulations, to carry out the amend15 ment made by this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### COM. v. HARTMAN, C.

343 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/26/2017

CP-23-CR-0008202-2014 (Delaware)

Affirmed
Exhibit 4.6


 





 


SUBJECT TO THE CANADA
BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT No. PS5- Shares MDC PARTNERS INC. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ***SPECIMEN*** Is the registered holder of
NUMBER OF SHARES SERIES 5 CONVERTIBLE PREFERENCE SHARES OF MDC PARTNERS INC. The class or series of shares represented by this
Certificate has rights, privileges, restrictions or conditions attached thereto and the Corporation will furnish to the holder,
on demand and without charge, a full copy of the text of, (i) The rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attached to
the said shares and to each class authorized to be issued and to each series insofar as the same have been fixed by the directors,
and (ii) The authority of the directors to fix the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions of subsequent series, if applicable.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officer(s) this ________ day
of _______________, _______________. MDC PARTNERS INC. CST TRUST COMPANY




 






     


     


    





FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
hereby assign and transfer unto SHARES represented by the within Certificate. DATED _____________, ____________. In the presence
of
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-51035 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CARRIE LASHAY HOOPER, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-121-4
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Carrie Lashay Hooper has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and United State s v . Flores , 632 F.3d 229 ( 5th Cir. 2011). Hooper has not filed a response. We have revie w e d c o u nsel’s brief and the relevant portio n s o f the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r l e ave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 16, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-51035 Document: 00511573737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2011No. 10-51035

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 10-51035 Document: 00511573737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         391,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  425,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               954,000
<PP&E>                                         429,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,774,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,397,000
<BONDS>                                        454,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (7,612,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,774,000
<SALES>                                      1,300,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,300,000
<CGS>                                          512,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  512,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               992,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                244,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (249,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (249,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Carlos AGUILERA-TORRES, also known as Ramirez-Huertos, also known as German Ramirez-Huertos, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50505 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 2, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane D. Kirstein, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Kristin L. Davidson, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

*394Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Carlos Aguilera-Torres appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for attempted illegal reentry. He contends that the district court erred in finding that he obstructed justice and failed to accept responsibility when he gave a false name at rearraignment.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Aguilera-Torres obstructed justice by willfully. providing materially false information to the court. *See United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008); *United States v. McDonald,*964 F.2d 390, 392-93 (5th Cir. 1992); U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 & comment. (n.4(F) & n.6). Contrary to his argument, his identity was material. *See United States v. Montano-Silva,*15 F.3d 52, 53 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s implicit finding that he willfully provided false testimony was plausible in light of the record. *See Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d at 208. The district court’s implicit findings that Aguil-era-Torres’s false rearraignment testimony demonstrated that he had not accepted responsibility for his offense and that his was not one of the extraordinary cases in which the reduction should apply were not without foundation. *See id.*at 211; U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 *&*comment. (n.l(A), n.3, & n.4).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32

Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 on Form 10-K of Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. (the Company) for
the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, does hereby certify, to the best of such officers
knowledge and belief, 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.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Jason A. Breaux 
|Name:                |  | Jason A. Breaux        
|Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                |  | March 24, 2017         
|                    
|/s/ Mike L. Wilhelms
|Name:                |  | Mike L. Wilhelms       
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                |  | March 24, 2017
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Harold Blomquist, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Simtek Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: August 12, 2005

                                          /s/Harold Blomquist
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Harold Blomquist
                                          Chief Executive Officer and President
Voter Registration

Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 420 

Early Voting:8 164 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

121,223 97,344 (80.3% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

96,701 (99.3% of 

returned)

643 (0.7% of returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Does not conduct all-mail elections15

No permanent absentee voting list16

EAVS Jurisdictions

1 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

646,093 

Registration Forms Received2*

1,079,008 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

91,667 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Alaska



5.0%

7.0%

7.2%

11.8%

68.9%

In-Person

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Mail, Email, Fax

Online

Other

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

157,220

43.5%

Mail Voters 

92,471

25.6%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

82,451

22.8%

Other Mode 

29,258

8.1%

Voters Participating By Mode5

1 1 1 1

0 0

DRE with

VVPAT

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner Hand

Count

DRE w/o

VVPAT

Electronic

Poll

Books

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14 Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout6 

67.8%
#### HORNER, R. v. HORNER, C.

1618 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/22/2017

2394 of 2010, G.D. (Fayette)

Affirmed
Opinion issued October 13 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 16
- 00343
- CR

——————————— JAMES ARTHUR JORDAN , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1303251

MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 5, 2016, appellant James Arthur Jordan fil ed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s October 10, 2012 judgment adjudicating guilt and sentencing appellant to six years’ incarceration for the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. W e dismiss the appeal

.2

In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal is due within thirty days after sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court enters an appealable order. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 26.2(a)(1). The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 26.2(a)( 2). The time for filing a notice of appeal may be further extended if, within fifteen days of deadline for filing the notice of appeal, appellant files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. The trial court’s j udgment adjudicating guilt and sentencing appellant to six years’ imprisonment for the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon was signed on October 10 , 20 1 2. Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on April 5 , 2016, almost three

- and

- a - half years aft er the judgment was signed , is untimely. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 26.2. This Court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by Rule 26.3. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If an appeal is n ot timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we have no basis for jurisdiction over this appeal. See Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at3

522. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. T EX
. R. A PP . P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                          4,660
<SECURITIES>                      764
<RECEIVABLES>                     248
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 25,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0
<BONDS>                           714
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                          351
<OTHER-SE>                     22,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   25,264
<SALES>                         1,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,916
<CGS>                             436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  990
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1,465
<INCOME-TAX>                     (656)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             2,121
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                    2,121
<EPS-BASIC>                     .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .54


</TABLE>
#### COM. v. JONES, G.

63 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

CP-51-CR-0607981-1979 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed