alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Margaret M. IRVING, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106375

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: December 11, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Damien Sepher Bhakti De Loyola, 920 Main Street, Ste. 500, Kansas City, MO 64105.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Margaret M. Irving ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment" denying Movant's "Amended Rule 29.15 Motion to Vacate Judgment & Sentence," which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### In the Matter of Antonio Daniel, Petitioner, v Peter J. Lacy, as Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 218]

Rose, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

The record evidence fails to provide substantial support for the determination of respondent Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of smuggling and stealing in violation of certain prison disciplinary rules *(cf., Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964). The misbehavior report and corroborating testimony of the correction officer who authored it relate that six pounds of fish and six pounds of hamburger meat were found hidden in a recycling cart which had been taken to the facility loading dock. Petitioner and another inmate were the only inmates permitted in the recycling area and were responsible for the contents of the recycling carts. Despite petitioner’s admission that he knew the other inmate stole the food and that the food was secreted in the cart as the other inmate pushed it to the loading dock, this did not make him an accessory subject to the same sanctions as the inmate who committed the offense *(see,*7 NYCRR 270.3 [b]; *cf., Matter of Velez v McGinnis,*246 AD2d 942).

Unlike the description of accessorial liability set forth in *917Penal Law § 20.00, the prison regulation applicable here does not require that the accessory act with the mental culpability required for the commission of the offense *(see,*7 NYCRR 270.3 [b] [3]). We nevertheless conclude that an affirmative action on the part of an alleged accessory is a necessary element in invoking accessorial liability for the offense of another inmate under 7 NYCRR 270.3 (b) (3). Such action was absent here, for there is no evidence that petitioner aided the other inmate in either secreting or removing food from the recycling area. The mere failure to report or prevent an offense by another person cannot be viewed as “[providing assistance in any manner” *(id.; see, People v Le Grand,*61 AD2d 815, 816, *cert denied*439 US 835).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ, concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and respondents are directed to expunge all references to this matter from petitioner’s institutional record.
FGD Retrofit Announcements

Date Compiled: February 2011 Sources: Proprietary Commercial Database and Internet



### Plant Name UniqueID_Final ORIS Plant Code Boiler/Generator/C

ommitted Unit Unit ID Baldwin Energy Complex 889_B_2 889B 2 Bay Shore 2878_B_4 2878B 4 Big Stone 6098_B_1 6098B 1 Chesterfield 3797_B_3 3797B 3 Chesterfield 3797_B_4 3797B 4 Chesterfield 3797_B_5 3797B 5 E W Brown 1355_B_3 1355B 3 Fayette Power Project 6179_B_1 6179B 1 Fayette Power Project 6179_B_2 6179B 2 James H Miller Jr 6002_B_1 6002 B 1 John E Amos 3935_B_1 3935B 1 Leland Olds 2817_B_1 2817B 1 Milton R Young 2823_B_B1 2823B B1 PSEG Hudson Generating Station 2403_B_2 2403B 2 PSEG Mercer Generating Station 2408_B_1 2408B 1 PSEG Mercer Generating Station 2408_B_2 2408B 2 Sunbury Generation LP 3152_B_1A 3152 B 1A Sunbury Generation LP 3152_B_1B 3152 B 1B Yorktown 3809_B_1 3809B 1 Baldwin Energy Complex 889_B_1 889B 1 Cliffside 2721_B_5 2721 B 5 Cooper 1384_B_2 1384B 2 Havana 891_B_9 891 B 9 Indian River Generating Station 594_B_4 594B 4 J T Deely 6181_B_1 6181 B 1 J T Deely 6181_B_2 6181 B 2 Kyger Creek 2876_B_1 2876B 1 Kyger Creek 2876_B_2 2876B 2 Kyger Creek 2876_B_3 2876B 3 Kyger Creek 2876_B_4 2876B 4 Kyger Creek 2876_B_5 2876B 5 Leland Olds 2817_B_2 2817B 2 Merrimack 2364_B_1 2364B 1 Merrimack 2364_B_2 2364B 2 Naughton 4162_B_1 4162 B 1 Naughton 4162_B_2 4162 B 2 Powerton 879_B_61 879B 61 Powerton 879_B_62 879B 62 Scherer 6257_B_3 6257B 3 Scherer 6257_B_4 6257B 4 South Oak Creek 4041_B_5 4041 B 5 South Oak Creek 4041_B_6 4041 B 6 South Oak Creek 4041_B_7 4041 B 7 South Oak Creek 4041_B_8 4041 B 8

### State Name County Capacity (MW) FGD Online Year

Illinois Randolph 629 2011 Ohio Lucas 215 2011 South Dakota Grant 470 2011 Virginia Chesterfield 100 2011 Virginia Chesterfield 166 2011 Virginia Chesterfield 310 2011 Kentucky Mercer 422 2011 Texas Fayette 598 2011 Texas Fayette 598 2011 Alabama Jefferson 684 2011 West Virginia Putnam 800 2011 North Dakota Mercer 221 2011 North Dakota Oliver 250 2011 New Jersey Hudson 608 2011 New Jersey Mercer 324 2011 New Jersey Mercer 324 2011 Pennsylvania Snyder 40.0 2011 Pennsylvania Snyder 40.0 2011 Virginia York 159 2011 Illinois Randolph 624 2012 North Carolina Cleveland 550 2012 Kentucky Pulaski 225 2012 Illinois Mason 487 2012 Delaware Sussex 405 2012 Texas Bexar 385 2012 Texas Bexar 385 2012 Ohio Gallia 217 2012 Ohio Gallia 217 2012 Ohio Gallia 217 2012 Ohio Gallia 217 2012 Ohio Gallia 217 2012 North Dakota Mercer 448 2012 New Hampshire Merrimack 113 2012 New Hampshire Merrimack 320 2012 Wyoming Lincoln 160 2012 Wyoming Lincoln 210 2012 Illinois Tazewell 385 2012 Illinois Tazewell 385 2012 Georgia Monroe 875 2012 Georgia Monroe 850 2012 Wisconsin Milwaukee 261 2012 Wisconsin Milwaukee 264 2012 Wisconsin Milwaukee 298 2012 Wisconsin Milwaukee 312 2012
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael A. Gerlich, Chief Financial Officer of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
September 30, 2009 (the Report), filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fully complies with the requirements
of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 5, 2009



/s/ MICHAEL A. GERLICHMichael A. GerlichChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1






HIGHLIGHT
NETWORKS, INC.


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 Annual  Report of HighLight Networks,
Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-K  for the period  ended
June 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Perry D. West  Chief  Executive  Officer and
Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  ss.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 Perry D. West and will
be retained by HighLight Networks, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






October
14, 2009






/s/
Perry D. West


Perry D.
West


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cosi, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003,
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Kenneth S. Betuker
-----------------------------------
Kenneth S. Betuker
Chief Financial Officer
May 7, 2003
#  Waiver of Reimbursement Under the United Nations Participation Act to Support the United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 10(d)(1) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287e-2(d)(1)), I hereby determine that provision of assistance to the United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur to support the airlift of equipment for peacekeeping in Darfur without reimbursement from the United Nations is important to the security interests of the United States.

                    You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. E9-598

Billing code 4710-10-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5603 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5603

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the seventh day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
  To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
                      1965, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Second Higher Education Extension 
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

    Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public 
Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking ``June 30, 
2006'' and inserting ``September 30, 2006''.

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 
2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise 
alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of, 
programs contained in the amendments made by the Higher Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) to the provisions of 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection 
Act of 2004.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Scott OGLE, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas

NOS. PD-0846-18 PD-0847-18

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Filed: October 10, 2018

Mark W. Bennett, SBN 00792970, 917 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor, Houston, Texas 77007, for Appellant.

Stacey Soule, P.O. Box 13046, Austin, TX 78711, Stacey Soule, State's Attorney, Austin, for State of Texas.

Petition for Discretionary Review Refused.

Keller, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Appellant has been charged with two counts of the offense of sending harassing electronic communications. The alleged victims in this case are police officers. According to the information, Appellant made "repeated phone calls, calls for service, emails, and or subpoenas many of which contained offensive or disparaging language" with "intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass" the officers.1 The information in this case appears to implicate core speech under the First Amendment-criticism of the government.

I have previously dissented to the refusal to grant discretionary review of a First Amendment facial challenge to the electronic-communications harassment statute.2 I pointed out that the breadth of the statute, applying to all electronic communications, could accurately be characterized as "breathtaking."3 All that is required are two electronic communications that are intended and reasonably likely to annoy, alarm, or harass a particular person.4 In a prior case, involving a narrower but somewhat similar telephone harassment statute, I warned that, because the statute was not limited to phone calls made to someone's home or personal phone, the statute could encompass a "call made to a public official at his government office."5

Now we have a case in which the electronic-communications harassment statute has been invoked to punish communications made to police officers.6 If this Court believed that the prosecuting authorities would never use this statute to punish criticism of agents of the government, it ought to now recognize that such a belief was overly optimistic. Given the breadth of the electronic-communications harassment statute, and the potential to use it to suppress criticism of the government, we should grant review to address whether the statute is facially unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Because the Court does not, I respectfully dissent.

1

One of the indictments used the phrase "which many" instead of "many of which."

2

*Ex parte Reece* , 517 S.W.3d 108, 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (Keller, P.J., dissenting). *See also* Tex. Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7).

3

*Reece* , 517 S.W.3d at 110 (Keller, P.J., dissenting).

4

*Id.* at 111.

5

*Wilson v. State* , 448 S.W.3d 418, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Keller, P.J., dissenting).

6

*Ex parte Ogle* , Nos. 03-18-00207-CR, 03-18-00208-CR, 2018 WL 3637385, *1, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5955, *1 (Tex. App.-Austin August 1, 2018).
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934








In connection with the Annual Report ofChina Networks International Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Li Shuangqing, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2009 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/ Li ShuangqingName:
Li ShuangqingTitle:

Date:
Acting Chief Financial Officer

June 30, 2010








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Araymond BARSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106276

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: December 11, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market St. Ste. 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

For Respondent: JOSHUA D. HAWLEY, Julia E. Neidhardt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Araymond Barsh ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion for Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing based on alleged errors by Movant's sentencing counsel. Movant pled guilty to two counts *182of the unclassified felony of statutory sodomy in the first degree.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF 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 Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley Charter
Campbell L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz,
Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	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 Partnership.









By:  /s/Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
        the general partner of the Partnership

Date:	   August 14, 2007



? 6 ?


? 6 ?


MORGAN STANLEY CHARTER CAMPBELL L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)





? 84 ?

- 37 -

- 85 -
V 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5335 

For the relief of Tarveen Kaur Anand. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2006 

Mr. SHERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Tarveen Kaur Anand. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR TARVEEN 

4 KAUR ANAND. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Tarveen Kaur Anand shall be 

6 classified as an immediate relative within the meaning of 

7 section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nation8 ality Act for purposes of approval of a relative visa petition 

9 filed under section 204 of such Act by Tarveen Kaur 

10 Anand and the filing of an application for an immigrant 

11 visa or for adjustment of status. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 5335 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Tarveen Kaur 

2 Anand enters the United States before the filing deadline 

3 specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have 

4 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi5 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 

7 the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the pe10 tition and the application for issuance of an immigrant 

11 visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed 

12 with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the 

13 enactment of this Act. 

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

15 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res16 idence to Tarveen Kaur Anand, the Secretary of State 

17 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, for the 

18 following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 

19 available under section 201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration 

20 and Nationality Act. 

21 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

22 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

23 parents, brothers, and sisters of Tarveen Kaur Anand 

24 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 5335 IH

1 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na2 tionality Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Drake WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105808

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: November 20, 2018

Alexandria Shah, 1010 Market St., Ste 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Joshua Hawley, Gregory L. Barnes, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Drake Watkins ("Watkins") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Watkins's appeal raises two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Both points are conclusively refuted by the record under the standard set forth in *Strickland v. Washington*. 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). First, Watkins cannot show prejudice from his trial attorneys' requests for continuances without his knowledge or consent. Second, trial counsel's failure to object to portions of the closing argument that Watkins and Victim were in a "domestic abuse relationship" was not ineffective assistance because such objection would have been without merit. Accordingly, Watkins fails to allege unrefuted facts entitling him to relief. We find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Watkins's motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1 - Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO U.S.C., SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Mitchell Trace, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ladybug Resource Group, Inc., (the Company), herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Dated: October 12, 2010   By: /s/ Mitchell Trace Mitchell Trace, President (Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer