alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State *ex rel.*Fred Saunders *v.*Luke Boyles, *Justice, et al.*

(No. 7281)

Submitted March 31, 1932.

Decided April 12, 1932.

*Wm. T. George,*for petitioner.

*Howard B. Lee,*Attorney General, *B. Dennis Steed*and *W. Elliott Nefflen,*Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents.

Litz, Judge:

Petitioner, Fred Saunders, seeks, by a writ of prohibition, to prohibit respondents, Luke Boyles, a justice of the peace, and Forest D. Poling, prosecuting attorney, of Barbour County, and C. P. Wilson, a member of the department of public safety, from further prosecuting petitioner upon the the charge of driving a motor truck, without a chauffeur’s license, over an unfinished state road, not open to public travel, for the removal of material in the process of grading the right of way.

Chapter 17, article 6, section 26, Code 1931, prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle upon a highway by any person without a chauffeur’s license. The state contends that an unimproved right of way for a public road not open to traffic is a road within the meaning of the statute. We cannot concur in this view. Chapter 17, article 1, section 3, *126Code 1931, provides that tbe term “road” or “public road” shall be deemed to include the right of way, roadbed and all necessary culverts, sluices, drains, ditches, waterways, embankments, slopes, retaining walls, bridges, tunnels and viaducts necessary for the maintenance of travel, dispatching of freight and communication between individuals and communities. As the requirement of a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle is intended primarily to regulate traffic, it necessarily applied only to roads open to public travel.

The writ is, therefore, granted.

*Writ granted.*
IB 

Union Calendar No. 279 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5117 

[Report No. 109–500] 

To exempt persons with disabilities from the prohibition against providing 

section 8 rental assistance to college students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2006 

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio (for herself, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. NEY, and Mr. 

LEACH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

JUNE 13, 2006 

Additional sponsor: Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania 

JUNE 13, 2006 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To exempt persons with disabilities from the prohibition 

against providing section 8 rental assistance to college 

students. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5117 RH

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

2 FROM SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE PRO3 HIBITION. 

4 Subsection (a) of section 327 of Public Law 109–115 

5 (119 Stat. 2466) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para9 graph (7); and 

10 (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the fol11 lowing new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(6) is not a person with disabilities, as such 

13 term is defined in section 3(b)(3)(E) of the United 

14 States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 

15 1437a(b)(3)(E)); and’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 279 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5117 

[Report No. 109

–500] 

A BILL 

To exempt persons with disabilities from the prohiance to college students. bition against providing section 8 rental assistJUNE 13, 2006 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32




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




In
connection with the quarterly filing of Artfest International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Eddie Vakser, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.ss.1350), 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:
      August 19, 2009
            By:
            /s/ Eddie
      VakserEddie
      VakserChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
Fw: oops, my mistake...

Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/12/2011 03:55 PM

Jan King

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group

phone: (919) 541-5665

fax: (919) 541-2664

Mailcode: C404-05

----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/12/2011 03:55 PM -----

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Laity, Jim" <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Ginger 

Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet 

McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen 

Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy 

Waite/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/12/2011 03:10 PM

Subject: Re: oops, my mistake...

Thanks Jim. I'm glad what I said made sense to you. I'll wait to hear from you after you hear from your 

management. 

"Laity, Jim" Just read your detailed response on Set 1. I tota... 07/12/2011 03:07:39 PM

From: "Laity, Jim" <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>

To: "Laity, Jim" <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, 

Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea 

Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ginger 

Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy Waite/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich 

Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/12/2011 03:07 PM

Subject: oops, my mistake...

Just read your detailed response on Set 1. I totally missed that the first 

sentence already says you are retaining the current secondary standards. 

Please accept my apologies...trying to do this too quickly!!

Everything looks good to me, but I need to wait for internal clearance before 

you upload. I will let you know as soon as we're ready.

-- jim

-----Original Message-----

From: Laity, Jim 

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:03 PM

To: 'Lydia Wegman'; Mancini, Dominic J.

Cc: Karen Martin; John Hannon; Lea Anderson; Janet McCabe; Ginger Tennant; 

Randy Waite; Rich Scheffe; Jan King

Subject: RE: Our response to your first set of comments

Set 2 looks fine. I don't understand why you are reluctant to say explicitly 

up front that you are retaining the current secondary standard to protect 
against direct exposure to gaseous NOx/SOx. This is key info for the public

and several folks who read this were initially confused. What's the big deal 

here. Am I missing something?

Please call... 202-395-5168

-----Original Message-----

From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:12 PM

To: Laity, Jim; Mancini, Dominic J.

Cc: Karen Martin; John Hannon; Lea Anderson; Janet McCabe; Ginger Tennant; 

Randy Waite; Rich Scheffe; Jan King

Subject: Our response to your first set of comments

Jim, and Dom,

Attached is our response to your comments on page one of the notice in the 

first set of comments. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you 

are in agreement with these edits. Thanks.

Lydia

(See attached file: NOxSOx 7-12-11 set 1 comments 7-12-11 response.docx)
No. 09-9829.

#### Louis David Johnson, Jr., Petitioner v. Rick Wertanen.

560 U.S. 912, 130 S. Ct. 3294,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1198,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4064,

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles S. PHERIBO, Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 425, Docket 29474.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 1965.

Decided June 9, 1965.

*560Charles S. Pheribo, pro se.

Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, Robert J. McGuire, John S. Martin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Charles S. Pheribo and five accomplices were indicted for stealing and conspiring to steal merchandise from a truck traveling in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. Four of the defendants entered guilty pleas to one or more of the indictment’s four counts, but Pheribo and another defendant, William Johnson, elected to stand trial. Based largely on the incriminating testimony of two accomplices, James Williams and James Lovejoy, the jury found Pheribo guilty of the three substantive counts, but returned a verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy count.1 The conviction was affirmed by this Court, United States v. Johnson, 331 F.2d 281, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, 379 U.S. 905, 85 S.Ct. 196, 13 L.Ed.2d 178 (1964). Pheribo then brought this § 2255 proceeding to vacate and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, contending that the trial was vitiated by the Government’s knowing use of the allegedly perjured testimony of co-defendant Lovejoy, who purportedly lied in denying that he had been promised leniency for testifying. After studying the full record, but without holding an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the requested relief.

The very papers submitted by Pheribo clearly indicate that Lovejoy was thoroughly cross-examined at the trial, and his possible bias, prejudice or motive for testifying — stemming from expectations of leniency in sentencing — was fully brought home to the jurors. The credibility question thus amply presented must have been resolved adversely to Pheribo and may not, without more, be reopened on this motion.

In any event, and even were we permitted to review that question, our careful reading of the record has uncovered not a scintilla of evidence that the Government promised Lovejoy a more lenient sentence for testifying at Pheribo’s trial. Cf. Napue v. People of State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed.2d 1217 (1959). On the contrary, the prosecutor told Lovejoy that “the Government at no time makes any promise concerning sentence if a defendant does cooperate with the government.” This statement, taken from the minutes of Love joy’s sentencing, was properly considered by the District Court in passing *561on this motion, for those minutes are part of the “files and records” of the case against Pheribo and his five accomplices, including Lovejoy. *A*formal hearing was totally unnecessary. Sanders v. United States, 371 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963).

Affirmed.

1

. Co-defendant Johnson was found guilty on all four counts. Both were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count, less time already served, the sentences to run concurrently.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN ZACHARY KATSU TOYOFUKU, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10263 

D.C. No. 

1:14-cr-00032-DKW-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 11, 2018

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

John Toyofuku appeals the district court’s denials of his motion to suppress 

and renewed motion to suppress. We affirm. 

The district court denied the motions to suppress because it found that

private citizen members of a Hawaiian sovereignty group were not acting as 

instruments or agents of the government for purposes of the Fourth Amendment 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

OCT 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

when one or more of the members opened a shipping crate and found marijuana, 

ultimately leading to the arrest and conviction of Toyofuku. 

As to the first motion, the district court did not err in holding that FBI 

Special Agent Judah Pent’s meeting with Samson Kama and Kimokeo Kahalewai 

the morning of the search was insufficient under our case law to establish that the 

government knew of and acquiesced in the subsequent search. See United States v. 

Walther, 652 F.2d 788, 792–93 (9th Cir. 1981).

As to the second motion, the district court did not err in finding that 

someone searched the crate before Kama spoke to Sergeant Apollo Chang. The 

district court’s factual findings must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous. See

United States v. Peterson, 902 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2018). This is a highly

deferential standard, particularly with respect to credibility determinations. See

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). It was not clearly 

erroneous for the district court to discredit Kama’s testimony and credit the 

testimony of law enforcement officers regarding whether Kama indicated that he 

knew the crate contained marijuana when he first spoke to Sergeant Chang and 

whether Sergeant Chang directed Kama to open the crate, which was the critical 

question. Precisely when the crate was opened does not matter. Also, the record

supports the district court’s finding that Kama called law enforcement several 

times before speaking with Sergeant Chang, which is consistent with the 
3 

conclusion that, by then, he already knew that the crate contained marijuana. 

Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that someone 

searched the crate before Kama spoke to Sergeant Chang, it follows that the district 

court did not err in holding that Kama’s subsequent conversations with law

enforcement officers did not retroactively convert the search into a government 

search. See, e.g., United States v. Young, 153 F.3d 1079, 1080 (9th Cir. 1998) (per 

curiam).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (Section  1350 of
Chapter  63 of Title 18 of the  United  States  Code),  each of the  undersigned
officers of AGU  Entertainment  Corp.  (the  "Company") does hereby certify with
respect to the  Quarterly  Report of the  Company on Form  10-QSB for the period
ending March 31, 2005 (the "Report") that:

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

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


May 26, 2005                                /s/ David C. Levy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Name:  David C. Levy
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer


May 26, 2005                                /s/ John W. Poling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Name:  John W. Poling
                                            Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

      The foregoing  certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the  United  States  Code) and is not being  filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Xzavius Demarquis Cook v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00513

- CR

Trial court case number: 1568441

Trial court: 176th District Court of Harris C ounty

Appell ant ’ s motion for extension of time to file his appellate brief is GRANTED.

Appell ant ’ s brief is due Mo nday

, October 2 8 , 2019.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

________ /s/ Russell Lloyd

________________________ Acting indiv idually

Date: October 1, 2019

______________________
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 Dahua, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
        10-Q
        for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Younglin Du, CEO and President
        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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
        Younglin Du
 Younglin
        Du, CEO and President
 
 Date:
        August 14, 2008
exv10w40






Exhibit 10.40




CONSULTING AGREEMENT




     This AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (“Amendment”), dated as of July 12, 2010
between EPE Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Priscilla Presley,
an individual (“Consultant”) and Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc., a Tennessee corporation
(“EPE”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the Company, Consultant and EPE are parties to that certain Consulting Agreement
dated as of February 7, 2005 (the “Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company, Consultant and EPE have each determined that it is in their interest to
enter into this Amendment to the Agreement; and



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, representations and warranties set
forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, it is hereby agreed as follows:



     1. Bonus. Simultaneous with the execution hereof, the Company will pay to Consultant
a bonus in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000).



     2. Compensation. Effective as of the date of this Amendment, in the first sentence of
Section 5 of the Agreement, the words “FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($560,000)” shall be
deleted and replaced with the words “EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($800,000).”



     3. Complete Understanding. The Agreement and this Amendment constitutes the complete
understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.



     4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with and governed
by the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflicts of laws rules thereof. The
parties hereby irrevocably consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts situated
in the state and county of New York (federal and state).



     5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon
the same instrument. This Amendment shall become effective when each party hereto shall have
received counterparts hereof signed by the other party hereto.



[Signature Page Follows]





 








 







     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	EPE HOLDING CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Jason K. Horowitz
 

Name: Jason K. Horowitz
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Senior Vice President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Priscilla Presley	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Priscilla Presley	 	 






With respect to Section 2 of this

Amendment only:




	 	 	 	 	 

	ELVIS PRESLEY ENTERPRISES, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc.
 

Name: Jason K. Horowitz
	 	 
	 

	 	Title: Senior Vice President	 	 






[Signature Page to Amendment to PP Consulting Agreement]
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.64
                                 OFFICER PAYABLE


JUNE 12, 2001

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Heartsoft, Inc. agrees to pay:

                                    Mr. Jimmy Butler
                                    3804 West Urbana
                                    Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012

the sum of $43,000 (forty-three thousand dollars), with no interest from the
date written above until paid. This loan was provided to the Company on
December 21, 2000 and reflected in the Officer's Shareholder Payable Account.

This Officer Payable is due nine (9) months from January 1, 2001.

Heartsoft shall reserve the right to prepay this Officer Payable in whole or
in part prior to its due date without premium or penalty.

Heartsoft, signers, and endorsers of this Officer Payable severally waive
demand, presentment, notice of dishonor, diligence in collection and notice of
protest and agree to all extensions and partial payments before or after
maturity, without prejudice to the holder. This written Officer Payable
represents the final agreement between the parties and may not be contradicted
by evidence of prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent oral agreements of the
parties.

Heartsoft, Inc.


by:      /s/ Benjamin P. Shell
         Chief Executive Officer


by:      /s/ Rodger Graham
         Chief Financial Officer
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Tornado Gold
International Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earl W. Abbott, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and I, George Drazenovic, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

|November 19, 2007 | By:*/s/ Earl W. Abbott*                    
|----------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                  |                                            
|                  | Earl W.
      Abbott                       
|                  | President and
      Chief Executive Officer
|                  | (Principal
      Executive Officer)        

|November 19, 2007 | By: */s/
      George Drazenovic*  
|----------------- | -----------------------------------
|                  |                                    
|                  | George
      Drazenovic            
|                  | Chief
      Financial Officer      
|                  | (Principal
      Financial Officer)

---