alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Hager, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 317]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Ronald H. Tills, A.J.), rendered April 20, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the mandatory surcharge to $150 and the crime victim assistance fee to $5 and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum; As the People concede, it was a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution (US Const, art I, § 10 [1]) for Supreme Court to order defendant to pay a mandatory surcharge in the amount of $200 and a crime victim assistance fee of $10, ostensibly pursuant to an amendment to Penal Law § 60.35 (1) (a). Although defendant’s criminal conduct occurred on April 6, 2000, after the date that the amendment stated that it was to be effective (April 1, 2000), the amendment was not signed into law until May 15, 2000. Thus, the amendment is inapplicable to defendant’s conviction *(see*Donnino, Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 60.35, 2004 Pocket Part, at 126; *see also People v Goldwire,*301 AD2d 677, 678 [2003]). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the mandatory surcharge to $150 and the crime victim assistance fee to $5 *(see People v Fabela,*240 AD2d 677, 678 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 939 [1997]; *People v McIntosh,*163 AD2d 810 [1990]; *People v Bethea,*133 AD2d 836, 837 [1987], *lv denied*70 NY2d 929 [1987]). Present—Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
Exhibit 13.1





Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers
of Ecopetrol S.A. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Form 20-F”) 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 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: April 28, 2015 |     |                          
|--------------------- | --- | -------------------------
|                      |     |                          
|                      | By: | /s/ Juan Carlos Echeverry
|                      |     | Name:                    
|                      |     | Title:                   
|                      |     |                          
|Dated: April 28, 2015 |     |                          
|                      |     |                          
|                      | By: | /s/ Magda Manosalva      
|                      |     | Name:                    
|                      |     | Title:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

 

*I certify that this periodic report containing theissuer’s financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78mor 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodic report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the issuer.*

 

 
| * *                 | *By:*  | */s/  John F. Coger*                |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                     |   |                                |
|                     |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |   |                                |
| Date: July 30, 2010 |   |                                |

 

46

----
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
  CERTIFICATION
OF
 CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Balqon Corporation (the
“Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), the undersigned
hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to their knowledge:
  1.           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  2.           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Dated:  May
      22, 2009
                By:
                /s/ BALWINDER
      SAMRABalwinder
      Samra
                  President
      and Chief Executive Officer
                    (principal
      executive officer)
 Dated:  May
      22, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ ROBERT J.
      MIRANDARobert
      J. Miranda
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
                      (principal
      financial and accounting officer)
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

Th e H o n o r ab l e J a me s G . Ca rr , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC our tf

orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof O hi o, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S E UM S I S AV AT H, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. S T A T E O F C A L I F O RN I A ; K E N C L A R K , W a r de n, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15592 D . C. N o . 1 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 4 1 3 - V RW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia V aughn R . W a l ke r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r1, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T H O M A S and C L IF T O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C A R R , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** S e u m S is a v a th ap p e a ls f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t d e n y in g h is p e t i t i o n f o rh ab e a s c o rp u s r e l i e f

u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

MA R 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

S i sa vath con t ends thatthe st at e app el l at e c ou rterre d i n h ol di ng that st at em ent s a dm i tt ed du ri ng hi s tri al i n v i ol at i on of the C on fr on t at i on C l ause w er e harm l es s bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt , un der Ch a p m a n v . C a lifo rn ia , 386 U . S . 18 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, f o rth e r e a s o n s d e s c r ib e d in g r e a te rd e ta il i n thatcourt ’ s order , thatthe st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on w as no tcontra ryt o o r a n un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of cl ea rl y e st abl i shed l aw as det erm i ned b y the U ni t ed S t a t e s S upr e m e C our t , norw a s i tba s e d upon a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the fact s, i n v i ew o f th e o th er ev i d en ce su p p o rt i n g S i sav ath ’ s co n v i ct i o n . B ecau se S i sa vath fai l ed t o sat i sf

y the st andard se tby 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d), hi s pet i t i on w as pr ope r l y de ni e d. S i s a v a th m o v e s t o e x p a n d th e c e rt i f i c a t e o f ap p e a l ab i l i ty t o i n c l u d e two i s s ue s notc e r t i f

i e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . W e de c l i ne t o e xpa nd the C O A t o i nc l ude the s e i s s ue s be c aus e S i s a va th ha s notm a de a“ s ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng of the de ni a l of ac o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t” a s to th o s e c la im s . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) ; 9 th Ci r . R. 22- 1( e ) . S i s a va th’ s m ot i on, f i l e d on J une 7, 2010, i s de ni e d. AF F I RME D.
#### Tell McDonald *et al v.*Sarah Bennett *et al.*

(No. 7106)

Submitted May 3, 1932.

Decided May 24, 1932.

*348
      *J. D. Jones*and *A. G-. Mathews,*for appellants.

*Lorentz C. Hamilton,*for appellees.

Litz, Judge:-

This is an appeal from a decree partitioning the oil and gas of a tract of 212-% acres of land in Calhoun County. The ease was reversed on a former appeal for lack of necessary parties. 108 W. Va. 665, 152 S. E. 533.

By deed dated December 1, 1898, W. T. Wiant and N. M. Bennett conveyed said land to C. E. Vandevender and John S. Withers. The deed contained the provision: “But there is reserved and excepted from this conveyance *Ys*of all the oil and gas in and underlying said tract of land that may be produced therefrom, and the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of utilizing the same, and the parties of the second part (grantees) are to pay annually accuring taxes upon the said land hereby conveyed, including the reservation and rights here reserved.”

The settlement of the controversy involves the construction of this provision. The parties succeeding to the rights of the grantees contend, as the circuit court held, that the reservation is limited to *Ys*of the oil and gas in place, while those succeeding to the rights of the grantors assert that the reservation carries *Ys*of all the oil and gas “that may be produced” from the land. The interest retained is definitely described as *Ys*of the oil and gas that may be produced. The phrase, “and the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of utilizing the same”, comports with the plain language describing the reserved interest as oil and gas produced from the land. The operation of an undivided interest of oil and *349gas in place is neither possible nor permissible. *Law*v. *Heck Oil Co.,*106 W. Va. 296, 145 S. E. 601. Moreover, if the incidental right had been intended for the operation of the oil and gas in place, the deed wonld have so provided instead of simply reserving the right of ingress and egress to'utilize oil and gas produced from the land.

It is said that the provision in question ought to be limited to *Ys*of the oil and gas in place because the grantees in the deed covenanted to pay the taxes on the whole property. In view of the plain terms of the reservation, the court would not be warranted in giving it a different interpretation upon the theory that the grantees would otherwise have assumed a burdensome obligation.

We are clearly of opinion that the deed reserved to the grantors *Ys*of the oil and gas produced, as contradistinguished from *Ys*of the oil and gas in place. See Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. v. Knapp, 102 W. Va. 308, 135 S. E. 1.

The decree complained of is, therefore, reversed and the • canse remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 13, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0791

Lower Tribunal No. F16-9143

________________

Johanna Garcia,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Daryl E. Trawick, Judge.

Johanna Garcia, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[No. 52264-7-I.

Division One.

June 1, 2004.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Bradley Ray VanWoert, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 02-1-00630-1, Michael E. Rickert, J., entered March 31, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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 Zaldiva, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Robert B. Lees,
President and director and John A. Palmer, Jr., Secretary/Treasurer and
director 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/Robert B. Lees
-----------------
President
Director
08/11/03

/s/John A. Palmer, Jr.
----------------------
Secretary
Treasurer
Director
08/11/03
CMAQ POLICY 

LOCAL COST- EFFECTIVENESS 

Adopted September 2007 

Kern Council of Governments 

1401 19th Street, Suite 300 

Bakersfield, California 93301 

www.kerncog.org 

661-861-2191 

Facsimile 661-324-8215 

TTY 661-832-7433 
Kern Council of Governments

Board of Directors

The Kern Council of Governments is the regional planning agency as well as the technical 

and informational resource, and rideshare administrator for the area's 11 incorporated cities 

and the County of Kern. Following Board direction, staff coordinates between local, state, 

and federal agencies to avoid overlap or duplication of programs. This intergovernmental 

coordination enables staff to work with many public agencies to ensure that planning and 

implementation of programs proceed in a coordinated manner. 

Chairman: Cheryl Wegman 

Vice Chairman: Fran Florez 

Secretary/ Executive Director: Ronald E. Brummett 

City of Arvin City of Bakersfield

Tim Tarver Zack Scrivner 

City of California City City of Delano

Nicholas Lessenevitch Sam Ramirez 

City of Maricopa City of McFarland

Gary Mock Ken Rosson 

City of Ridgecrest City of Shafter

Steve Morgan Fran Florez 

City of Taft City of Tehachapi

Cliff Thompson Philip A. Smith 

City of Wasco

Cherylee Wegman 

County of Kern County of Kern

Jon McQuiston Michael J. Rubio 

Military Joint Planning Policy Board Golden Empire Transit 

Jason Warren Howard Silver 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Caltrans

Vacant Sharri Ehlert
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5230 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against 

tax for qualified elementary and secondary education tuition. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2006 

Mr. FOSSELLA (for himself, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mrs. JO

ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. SHADEGG) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

credit against tax for qualified elementary and secondary 

education tuition. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax and Education 

5 Assistance for Children (TEACH) Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SEC7 ONDARY EDUCATION TUITION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart A of part IV of sub9 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5230 IH 

1 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is 

2 amended by inserting after section 25D the following new 

3 section: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 25E. QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDU5 CATION TUITION. 

6 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—There shall be al7 lowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter 

8 for a taxable year an amount equal to the qualified ele9 mentary and secondary education tuition paid or incurred 

10 by the taxpayer during the taxable year. 

11 ‘‘(b) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—The amount allowed as 

12 a credit under subsection (a) with respect to the taxpayer 

13 for any taxable year shall not exceed— 

14 ‘‘(1) $4,500 in the case of a joint return, 

15 ‘‘(2) $4,500 in the case of an individual who is 

16 not married, and 

17 ‘‘(3) $2,250 in the case of a married individual 

18 filing a separate return. 

19 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

20 EDUCATION TUITION.— 

21 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified elemen22 tary and secondary education tuition’ means ex23 penses for tuition which are incurred in connection 

24 with the enrollment or attendance of any dependent 

25 of the taxpayer with respect to whom the taxpayer 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5230 IH 

1 is allowed a deduction under section 151 as an ele2 mentary or secondary school student at a private or 

3 religious school. 

4 ‘‘(2) SCHOOL.—The term ‘school’ means any 

5 school which provides elementary education or sec6 ondary education (kindergarten through grade 12), 

7 as determined under State law.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 

10 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relat11 ing to section 25D the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 25E. Qualified elementary and secondary education tuition.’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 6, 2013

h0130

Order 

February 6, 2013

145536 & (25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145536

COA: 306864

Oakland CC: 2009-227279-FH

JAMES HENRY NELSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of December 12, 2012, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer 

the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for the appointment of substitute 

appellate counsel. The record shows that initially appointed appellate counsel moved to 

withdraw because of a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. The record does not 

show that counsel determined or advised the court that there was no non-frivolous issue 

to raise on appeal, and counsel’s motion did not comply with MCR 7.211(C)(5) or AO 

2004-6, Standard 5. Under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court erred in 

granting the motion to withdraw without appointing substitute appellate counsel. On 

remand, newly appointed appellate counsel may file an application for leave to appeal to 

the Court of Appeals within 12 months of the date of the circuit court’s order appointing 

counsel, as, at the time the defendant was sentenced, he was entitled to file an application 

within 12 months of sentencing. See former MCR 7.205(F)(3).
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 Dahua, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Younglin Du, President & CEO 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/ Yonglin Du                | 
|Yonglin Du, President and CEO | 
|                              | 



May 14, 2007
Opinion issued February 14 , 201 3

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 01095
- CV

——————————— BELINDA DAWN TIDWELL , Appellant V. JOHN ARRELL ROBERSON, SR ., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Waller County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 09
- 05
- 19791

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Belinda Dawn Tidwell , has filed a motion to dismiss the appea l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion contains a certificate of service, but
does not contain a certificate of conference. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.1 (a). T en days2 have passed , however, and appellee has not filed a response in opposition. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.1(b) (providing th at court may determine motion before response is filed) , 10.3(a) (providing, in pertinent part, that court should not hear or determine motion until 10 days after motion was filed, unless motion states that parties have conferred and that no party opposes motion)

. No opinion has issued.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(c ). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1)

. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justice s Higley and Brown

.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF AITE GROUP, LLC

We consent to the use of information derived from articles
titled High Frequency Trading in FX: Open for Business, dated April 2010, The Next Challenge in FX: Creating a New Post-Trade Paradigm in an Electronic Reality, dated January 2009, Retail FX: Taking Center in Overall
Market Growth, dated July 2007, and any extracts or information from Aite Group, LLC, appearing in the periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. (the Company), including, but
not limited to, the Companys current and future (i) Annual Reports on Form 10-K, and (ii) Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. We also consent to the references to Aite Group, LLC by the Company in such periodic reports.



|                  
|------------------
|Aite Group, LLC   
|                  
|/s/ Frank Rizza   
|Frank Rizza       
|Head of Operations
|Aite Group, LLC   
|March 21, 2011