alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Enrique RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 447, Docket 29380.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued April 26, 1965.

Decided June 11, 1965.

Malcolm A. Moore, New York City (Anthony F. Marra, Legal Aid Society, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

R. Harcourt Dodds, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New *943York (Jack D. Samuels, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and FRIENDLY and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174 (1958) by the illegal sale of a narcotic drug. He raises three issues on this appeal: (A) that there was insufficient evidence of his possession of the drugs to justify conviction; (B) that the eleven-month delay between the transaction of July 3, 1962, and the arrest on June 4, 1963, deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and (C) that the trial court erred in admitting the transcript of an interrogation by the Assistant United States Attorney because the taking of such a transcript after an unnecessary delay in arraignment violated Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957), and because such interrogation in the absence of counsel deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964).

(A) The evidence of defendant’s possession of the illicit narcotics was ample. See United States v. Davis, 328 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1964). Moreover, defendant arranged the sale and the price for the sale of the narcotics and received the money. According to the inferences reasonably drawn from government testimony, defendant had “a working relationship” with his supplier Rojas “which would enable him to assure delivery.” United States v. Hernandez, 290 F.2d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 1961).

(B) Defendant’s contention that the eleven-month delay between the time of the alleged offense and the time of his arrest deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is without merit absent any “showing that the delay * * * was prejudicial or part of a deliberate, purposeful and oppressive design for delay.” United States v. Wilson, 342 F.2d 782, 783 (2d Cir. 1965).

(C) We do not reach the question relating to Escobedo since the introduction of the transcript of questions asked by the Assistant United States Attorney and defendant’s answers was actually induced by defense counsel’s tactics and cannot therefore now be made the subject of protest.

Defense counsel introduced the subject of defendant’s prior statements and defendant testified concerning the general content of those prior statements, implying that they proved his innocence. It was not error for the prosecution to introduce in rebuttal the statements themselves in order that the trier of fact might evaluate the defendant’s testimony. See United States v. Graham, 102 F.2d 436 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 643, 59 S.Ct. 1041, 83 L.Ed. 1524 (1939).

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Bernard S. Williams v. Patrice Nicole Paul

Appellate case number: 01-20-00729-CV

Trial court case number: 15-2168-F425

Trial court: 425th District Court of Williamson County

On January 4, 2021, appellant, Bernard S. Williams, filed his appellant’s brief. Appellee, 

Patrice Nicole Paul, had a briefing deadline of February 3, 2021 in which to file her brief, but no 

brief has been filed. On March 23, 2021, we notified appellee that we would set the case for 

submission without an appellee’s brief unless appellee filed (1) a motion to extend time to file its 

brief or (2) its brief accompanied by a motion to extend time. Appellee has neither filed a motion 

to extend time or her appellee’s brief. Accordingly, the case is hereby set at issue. 

The time for filing the APPELLEE’S brief has expired. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

Further, appellee’s deadline for responding to the notice issued by this Court on March 23, 2021, 

requiring appellee to file either a brief or a motion to extend time to file its brief, has expired. 

Accordingly, this case is now at issue and ready to be set for submission.

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Sherry Radack________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___July 22, 2021___
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Trakesia CARTER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105057

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 20, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018

Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Gwenda R. Robinson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Trakesia Carter appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting her of four counts of first-degree assault; three counts of kidnapping; one count of first-degree robbery; one count of first-degree burglary; eight counts of armed criminal action, and sentencing her to 60 years. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court committed no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23-1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-02105 and 333-02107 on Form S-8; 333-47137, 333-47139, and 333-45281 on 
Form S-3 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No.
33-21930-99 on Form S-8 on MCN Energy Group Inc., of our reports dated
February 25, 1999, appearing in and incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of MCN Energy Group Inc for the year ended
December 31, 1998.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 
-------------------------
Detroit, Michigan
March 11, 1999
#### Stanley Fulk *v.*State Compensation Commissioner *et al.*

(No. 7385)

Submitted September 20, 1932.

Decided September 27, 1932.

*Melville Stewart*and *Joseph B. Hearst,*for appellant.

*H. B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *R. Dennis Steed,*Assistant Attorney General] for respondents.

Hatoher, President:

The petitioner seeks here recognition of his claim for compensation, it having been rejected by the commissioner.

While at work in a glass factory, claimant felt a pain start in his right eye. He did not know of any injury to his eye but mentioned the pain to fellow workmen. The pain continued, redness ensued, and that evening he mentioned his condition to the safety director of the factory. A day or so afterwards claimant was examined by Dr. G. H. Tráugh (an *556eye specialist) who found a slight corneal abrasion (scratch) and considerable inflammation (iritis). The abrasion healed rapidly but the inflammation persisted, resulting in almost total loss of vision in that eye.

It is proven without controversy that minute particles of glass constantly attach to a workman's clothing and body in the work at which claimant was engaged. It is not denied that the pain in his eye commenced while he was at work. The scratch was just such an injury as a particle of glass would produce. It seems reasonable that the pain was coincident with the scratch and that the latter was received in the course of the employment.

Specialists say that the scratch, in itself, did not impair the vision, and Dr. H. V. Thomas said, “it is felt that infectious origin must be considered. ’ ’ No bodily infection was found or predisposing factor of any kind except the scratch. Dr. Traugh testified: “It was the iritis that caused his loss of vision. The scratch on the cornea caused the iritis — • that is the only thing we have to go on. I don’t know of any other possible cause in his particular case.”

Evidence should be construed liberally in favor of the claimant. *Pripich*v. *Comp. Commr.,*decided this term. Under such construction it is clear that his condition is due to an industrial accident, and the ruling of the commissioner is reversed.

*Puling reversed.*
EXHIBIT 99.2


                       CITIBANK CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST I

                          SERVICING OFFICER CERTIFICATE

                  The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Citibank
(South Dakota), National Association, as Servicer (the "Bank"), pursuant to a
Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 29, 1991, as Amended and
Restated as of October 5, 2001 (as amended and supplemented, the "Agreement"),
among the Bank, as Seller and Servicer, Citibank (Nevada), National Association,
as Seller, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly Bankers Trust
Company), as Trustee (the "Trustee"), does hereby certify that:

                  1. The Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the
Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective
meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

                  2. The undersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly
authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to
the Trustee.

                  3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the
calendar year ended December 31, 2002 and of its performance under the Agreement
was conducted under my supervision.

                  4. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my
knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the
Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance of such
obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5
below.

                  5. The following is a description of each default in the
performance of the Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the Agreement
known to me to have been made by the Servicer during the year ended December 31,
2002, which description sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such
default, (ii) the action taken, if any, by the Servicer to remedy each such
default and (iii) the current status of each such default:

                                            None.


    IN WITNESS  WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate this
14th day of March, 2003.


                                        /s/ Susan J. Sexton
                                        ---------------------
                                            Susan J. Sexton
                                            Servicing Officer
Exhibit 23.3







                 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Devon Energy Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (No. 33-32378 and 33-67924) on Form S-8 and the
Registration Statement (No. 333-00815) on Form S-3 of Devon
Energy Corporation of our report dated January 26, 1998, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of Devon Energy Corporation
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years then ended, which
report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-
K of Devon Energy Corporation.



                                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
March 10, 1998
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002****(18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned, Michael J. Cunningham, Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of Aeropostale, Inc. (the“Company”) has executed this certificated inconnection with the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2005(the “Report”).     The undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge:          1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act    of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”); and           2. The information contained the Report fairly presents, in    all material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Company.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thiscertification as of the6th dayof September 2005.     /s/ Michael J. Cunningham           Michael J. Cunningham *Executive Vice President — Chief Financial    Officer*This certification accompanies the Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Exchange Act. A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
28
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00187-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 048-311333-19

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

SHAWN TURNER A/K/A SHAWN DAVID TURNER A/K/A SHAWN D.

TURNER AND VERONICA TURNER, Appellants

V.

ALAMO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On September 3, 2020, we notified appellants that the trial-court clerk 

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal has informed us that appellants 

have not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). In our notice, we warned that we would dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellants arranged to pay for the clerk’s 

record and provided us with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b), 

44.3.

Because appellants have not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, 

we now dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 

42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellants must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: October 1, 2020
Exhibit 32.2



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hua Meng, Chief
Financial 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:

(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.



Dated: November 14, 2006



/s/ Hua Meng
--------------------------
Hua Meng
Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting officer)
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Gary L. Dreher, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of AMDL, Inc.2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.      Date: November 10, 2005     /s/ Gary L. Dreher     Gary L. Dreher  Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
15.1




Management’s
Annual Report on Internal Control


Over
Financial Reporting






The
management of Tomkins plc is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in
Rule 13a-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Tomkins
plc.  Under the supervision and with the participation of our
management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer,
we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over
financial reporting based principally on the framework and criteria established
in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission as at 3 January 2009 (the end of the
current fiscal year).  Based on that evaluation, our management has
concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as at
3 January 2009 at providing reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.




Deloitte
LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has audited the
consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 20-F
and, as part of the audit, has issued a report, included herein, on the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.









/s/
      James Nicol
              /s/
      John ZimmermanBy:
      James Nicol
              By:
      John ZimmermanChief
      Executive Officer
              Chief
      Financial Officer




24
February 2009
Exhibit 10.24

 

ASSURED GUARANTY LTD.

 

DESCRIPTION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CASH COMPENSATION

 

FOR 2011

 

Set forth below are the 2011 annual salary of the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and each of the three other most highly compensated Executive Officers.

 

Dominic J. Frederico

 

President and Chief Executive Officer, Assured Guaranty Ltd.

 

	
Salary
    	
 
    
	
$
    	
900,000
    	
 
    
			


 

Robert B. Mills

 

Chief Financial Officer, Assured Guaranty Ltd.

 

	
Salary
    	
 
    
	
$
    	
520,000
    	
 
    
			


 

Séan McCarthy

 

Chief Operating Officer, Assured Guaranty Ltd.

 

	
Salary
    	
 
    
	
$
    	
500,000
    	
 
    
			


 

James M. Michener

 

General Counsel, Assured Guaranty Ltd.

 

	
Salary
    	
 
    
	
$
    	
450,000
    	
 
    
			


 

Robert A. Bailenson

 

Chief Accounting Officer, Assured Guaranty Ltd.

 

	
Salary
    	
 
    
	
$
    	
375,000
    	
 
    
			


 

In addition to salary, the named executive officers will be eligible to be considered to receive cash bonuses for 2011 performance.  In 2011, the named executive officers will receive perquisites and other annual compensation, including employer contributions to retirement plans, tax preparation services, financial planning services, club fees, business related spousal travel and executive health benefits.  In 2011, Mr. Frederico and Mr. Michener will receive Bermuda housing allowances, Bermuda housing tax gross-ups, FICA reimbursement, Bermuda car allowances and Bermuda family travel.
Exhibit 32



                                 CERTIFICATION
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                         OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an
executive officer of Dahua Inc. (the "Company "), that, to his or her knowledge,
the Quarterly Report of Dahua Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of Dahua Inc.

     This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-QSB. A signed original of this
statement has been provided to Dahua Inc. and will be retained by Dahua Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


Dahua Inc.


BY: /s/ Yonglin Du
---------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer


BY: /s/ Hua Meng
----------------------
Hua Meng
Chief Financial Officer


Date:  September 21, 2005
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128096 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128096 

 COA: 259310 

Cheboygan CC: 92-000791-FC 

JOHN LEE O’DONNELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 10, 2004 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk