alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James E. ELDRIDGE and Orie T. Stewart, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21503.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 1, 1965.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1965.

Frank P. Samples, Phenix City, Ala., John S. Glenn, Opelika, Ala., for appellants.

Ben Hardeman, U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., J. O. Sentell, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON * and SMITH,** Circuit Judges.

*

 Senior Circuit Judge of the D. C. Circuit, sitting by designation.

**

 Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The principal claim in this appeal is that the Government charged a conspiracy relating to 17 automobiles but proved one with respect to only 14. The failure of the Government fully to connect up the remaining three ears with these defendants is not such error as would warrant a reversal of a conviction because of the failure of the court to strike all evidence dealing with the three automobiles. There was uncontroverted evidence clearly connecting these appellants to the conspiracy charge. Their conviction was thus fully warranted.

The judgments are affirmed.
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12

- 405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer

generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. A
- 1
- CA
- 41565
CONGREGATION ALBERT OF ALBUQ UERQUE, NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. THE ESTATE OF ISAAC LUCERO,
Defendant

- Appellant,
and CARLOS LUCERO, Interested Party

- Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Benjamin Chavez, District Court Judge Sutin, Thayer & Browne Andrew J. Simons Alex G. Elborn Albuquerque, NM for Appellee
Thiel Law NM LLC Albert N. Thiel, Jr. Joseph R. Thiel Albuquerque, NM for Appellant Carlos Lucero
MEMORANDUM OPINIONBOGARDUS, Judge.

{1} Summary reversal was proposed for t he reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing the proposed disposition has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. REVERSED

. {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
WE CONCUR: J. MILES HANISEE, Ju dge JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5169]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


In the Matter of International Business Ventures Group, Inc.; 
File No. 500-1; Order of Suspension of Trading

March 6, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
International Business Ventures Group, Inc. (``IBVG'') because of 
questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by IBVG, and by others, 
of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, 
IBVG's products and business prospects.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities in the 
above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, 
March 6, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on March 19, 2009.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5169 Filed 3-6-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```

Exhibit 32.2

                            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 GenoMed, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Robyn L. Owens, Chief
Financial Officer, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/ Robyn L. Owens
Robyn L. Owens
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: June 3, 2004
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DANIEL EDWARD PANARO , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1419

[ August 15, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Sherwood Bauer, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 15

- 000870

- CF

- AXMX and 15

- 001008

- CF

- AXMX

.
Daniel Edward Panaro, Chipley, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaim an, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN , L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<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 Quarterly Report of Inveresk Research Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof Walter S. Nimmo Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company, certifies, 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

Date:  November 7, 2003                               /S/ Walter S. Nimmo
                                                      ----------------------
                                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                                      President and Director

                                       41
BRUNSON v. N.C. DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al.

403P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Dept. of Human Resources.

Jonathan E. Brunson, for Brunson, Jonathan E.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of November 2018 by Plaintiff to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
STATE v. Cory Dion BENNETT

406PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheboro, For Bennett, Cory Dion

Brent Kiziah, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality

David Weiss, Attorney at Law, Durham, For Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, For Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates

Elizabeth Hambourger, Attorney at Law, Durham, For Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates

Ernie Lee, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of July 2019 by Amicus (Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates) for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
November 4`h, 2010 

To: Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

United States Environment Protection Agency 

, 

2010 NOV 1? PM 3: 36 

F ril,~, -- .01r, Tl-;E 

Fr: Triple A Farms, LLC 

Family Farm 

Colfax, Wis. 

Dear Ms. Jackson, 

EhirCUTN' E S~0-2 E`A,R i AT 

A petition was filed in your office by the NRECA regarding the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines rule. I am writing to 

you today to show our sul#o4, for the petition . 

f We run a farm in northwestern Wiscodsil To ensure uninterrupted operation of the farm, we 

purchased a 230 kW backup generator. As an added benefit, my cooperative offers a peak 

shaving program . By participating in this program our farm sees a $6,700 per year savings on our 

electric bill . 

The rules your agency are trying to implement will take away that peak alert rate my Cooperative 

can offer. That means $5,700 out of my pocket, towards my electric bill . In this economy, every 

penny counts . The money that we are saving on this program helps us support other businesses in 

our area. 

We would like your agency to reconsider not allowing peak shaving controls of generators like 

mine within the proposed 100 hour limits. The request NRECA filed does not ask for more hours 

of operation; just to include peak shaving use within the 100 hour limit. Since we're a part of a 

Cooperative we see the savings and revenue from this type of arrangement, not them . Plus, we are 

helping to reduce energy demand during the peak times. This is a significant savings to our small 

business. 

Sincerely, 

Joc9.~ ~ ~ ~J r ~~ l~' 

Triple A Farms 

Colfax, Wisconsin 
0 

d 

0 

O 

. 

. 

U14 1+ 

C rr 

z UQ 

'RESORTED 

IRST CLASS 

D ^' S' 

K G G oUN ITFO 

G 

O N z' ~ 9in -J 

o 

N 

z C) ~5 

N ® 

A N~ 

W G A 

°m°O~
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-QSB for the period ended June 30,
      2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
      undersigned, Larry D. Ditto, 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:
              March 21, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Larry
              D.
              DittoLarry
              D. DittoChairman
              and Chief Executive Officer
Michael Anthony Moore#487939 

Beto One Unit 

1391 FM 3328 

Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880 

Mrach 24,2015 

Hon.Abel Acosta,Clerk 

Court of Criminal appeals 

P.O. Box 12308,Capitol Station 

Austin,.Texas 78711 ("NOTICE") 

Re;IN RE MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE VS. Douglas Howell,III 

District Attorney 

Trial Court Cause No. 17,957-272 

Dear Hon.Abel Acosta,.Clerk: 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMIN#\L APPEALS 

MAR 2 R 2G15 

Absf ACOStl, Cieri< 

Please be advised that I have not received any Notice from your office 

Leting me know that your Office have file my Petition For Writ Of Handamus 

in the above Styled,with concern my pending Applicantion For A Writ Of Habeas 

Corpus,Article 11.07. 

Please be advised my Petition For Writ Of Mandamus may be file in your 

office and a dicision to be issue against the trial court to how a Evidentiary hearing ,Pursuant to Art 11.07 and Violates Due Procedure by Deying 

the Applicant to Sustain his burden of Proof.See EX Parte Campoa,613 S.W.-

2d 745,756(Tex.Crim.App.(l981); 

Relator asserts that the trial court has not rule on his Pending Motion 

For Evidentiart Hearing . 

Relater Requested that the trial Court set a Evidentiary Hearing. 

Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus,Article 11.07 that is pending,Previously 

unresolved facts material to the legality of the Applicant's Confinement 

which require an Evidetiary Hearing in the above case .Number#l1,957-272. 

EX Parte Chamber,612 S.W. 2d 573,574(Tex.Crim.App.(l981): 

Page 1. 
Applicant Moore with no tools of any kind for checking the authority of 

government overseers is not just embedded with value,but it is exeplary, 

responding to the highest calling of the legal profession,which is to give 

meaning to the term equal justice under law carved in stone on every courtheu 

ouse. 

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

.. 

By: Michael Anthony Moore#487939 

EX PARTE 

MICHAEL ANTHONY M<X>RE 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF/ BRAZOS 

Cause no. 17,957-272 

IN THE 272ND District 

Of 

Brazos Couhty,Texas 

AFFIDAVIT 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on .. this day· personally appeared, 

MICHAEL ANTHONY M<X>RE, after being by. me duly sworn,under oath-,stated as 

follows: 

My name is Michael ·Anthony Moore.! am of sound.mind and have personal Knowledge of the facts contained herein and they are true and correct to the 

best of knowledge and belief. 

Purant to section 132.001,132,002 and of the Texas Civil Praction and remidie Code •. 

Owens V. State,763 S.W. 2d at Page-489(Tex.Dallas(l988). 

March 24,2015. 

Copy File 

M/A/M/. By:Michael.Anthony Moorei487939 

!age 2.
HPMSVTypeIDyearID HPMSBaseYearVMTbaseYearOffNetVMT

10 2019 10902188.76 0

20 2019 1620065249 0

30 2019 318343911.7 0

40 2019 10902188.76 0

50 2019 67593570.3 0

60 2019 152630642.6 0
#### M. C. Holder *v.*State Compensation Commissioner

(No. 7457)

Submitted October 18, 1932.

Decided October 25, 1932.

*Martin & Ma/rtin,*for relator.

*E. jB. Lee,*Attorney General, and *R. Dennis Steed,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

HATCHER, PRESIDENT:

Petitioner’s claim for death benefits of Clyde Holder, as a partial dependent of deceased, was denied by the commissioner on May 21, 1932, on the ground that petitioner was not a dependent within the meaning of the Act. Notice of this re-*638jeetion was received May 23rd, by the petitioner, and on May 26th, he employed a competent attorney “to protect his interests.” The attorney communicated with the commissioner, but did not file an objection to his rnling within ten days as required by statute. Petitioner learned of this failure for the first time on July 29th. Shortly afterwards he had other attorneys file an objection to the ruling with affidavits stating the circumstances attending the delay, and that petitioner had evidence which would prove his claim, and asking that the case be reopened and he be allowed to introduce this evidence. The commissioner refused to reopen the case, and petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel him to do so.

It is a fair presumption that upon investigation the first attorney retained came to the conclusion that an objection to the commissioner’s ruling would be futile. Even negligence of counsel, however, is no legal excuse where timely action is mandatory under the statute as in this case. *Post*v. *Carr,*42 W. Va. 72, 76, 24 S. E. 583.

The writ is denied.

*Writ denied.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5406 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5406

  To suspend the visa waiver program until certain entry-exit control 
             requirements are met, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2006

 Mr. Gingrey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend the visa waiver program until certain entry-exit control 
             requirements are met, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF VISA WAIVER PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
visa waiver program established under section 217 of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187) is hereby suspended until such time 
as the Secretary of Homeland Security determines and certifies to 
Congress that--
            (1) the automated entry-exit control system authorized 
        under section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
        Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note) is 
        fully implemented and functional;
            (2) all United States ports of entry have functional 
        biometric machine readers; and
            (3) all nonimmigrants, including Border Crossing Card 
        holders, are processed through the automated entry-exit control 
        system.
    (b) Repeal.--Subparagraph (B) of section 217(a)(3) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)) is hereby 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Ralondo WHEELER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 79860

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: July 24, 2018

Damien S. de Loyola, for Appellant.

Shaun Mackelprang, for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Ralondo Wheeler appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Wheeler alleges that his convictions for first-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and armed criminal action should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a memorandum of law to the parties. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
**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 Quarterly Report of Optigenex Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Zwiren,
      the
      Chief Executive Officer and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Optigenex Inc. and will be retained by Optigenex Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
      May
      20, 2008





/s/
                DANIEL ZWIREN


Daniel
      Zwiren


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### M. L. MARTIN v. H. W. WEAVER, J. E. RICHMOND and *G.*W. CONLEY, Trading and Doing Business as THE TRI-STATE LUMBER COMPANY.

(Filed 23 September, 1942.)

Appeal by defendant H. W. Weaver from *Bobbitt, J.,*at April Term, 1942, of Stokes.

Civil action to recover for lumber sold and delivered.

At the time of the institution of this action, on 24 April, 1941, plaintiff caused warrant of attachment to issue against defendants, as nonresidents of North Carolina. Under the warrant the sheriff attached certain property, among other things one Tower-Double saw gang edger, an office table and a “roll top desk,” to the ownership of which defendant H. W. Weaver set up claim.

Upon the trial the evidence for plaintiff failed to show that a partnership existed between defendants, but did tend to show that defendant J. E. Richmond was indebted to plaintiff in the amount claimed in his complaint, with respect to which, issue as to Richmond’s liability was submitted to jury, and answered in the affirmative.

Plaintiff further offered evidence tending to show that, while defendant Weaver had looked at the table and desk in the store, with the view to buying it, he did not complete the purchase, and defendant Richmond later went to the store and bought and paid for them; and that the edger was brought by Richmond to Weaver’s mill. On the other hand, defendant Weaver offered evidence tending to show that he bought the *748table and desk, and that, though Richmond paid for it, he did so as a part payment on amount due by him to Weaver for dressing lumber; and that he, Weaver, purchased the edger from Richmond about the first of March, 1941, at price of $270, payment of which was by agreement offset by $140 then due to him by Richmond for dressing lumber, and the balance paid by further dressing of lumber for which Richmond became indebted to him.

The court submitted an issuers to whether J. E. Richmond was the owner of the edger, table and desk, or any of them, to which the jury answered, “Yes, all.” From judgment thereon defendant H. W. Weaver appealed to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Petree & Petree for plaintiff, appellee.*

*J. W. Hall for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the evidence bearing on issue as to whether J. E. Richmond owned the edger, table and desk, when taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was sufficient to take the ease to the jury, and to support the verdict thereon. It was purely an issue of fact, which the court fairly presented to the jury, and the jury has taken plaintiff’s version.

We find

No error.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Betsy Henley-Cohn and
John S. Tomac, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer,
respectively, of BIW Limited (the "issuer"), do each hereby certify that the
report on Form 10-Q accompanying this certification (the "report") fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in
the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the issuer.



/s/ Betsy Henley-Cohn
--------------------------------
Betsy Henley-Cohn
Chairwoman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)
BIW Limited

November 12, 2004


/s/ John S. Tomac
--------------------------------
John S. Tomac
President and Treasurer
(chief financial officer)
BIW Limited

November 12, 2004