alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Jfourtlj**Court of** **Antonio, LS** **January 22,2014** **No. 04-13-00456-CR** **Lowell Qtiincey** **Green, Appellant** **v. The** **Slate of** **Texas, Appellee** **Trial Court** **Case No.** **20I2-709-C2**

## ORDER**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this** **appeal and** **has determined** **thai oral argument** **will not** **significantlj aid** **il in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See TEX.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Therefore, all** **requests for** **oral argument** **are denied,** **and the** **cause is** **advanced for** **ON BRIEFS** **submission on** **February 19.** **2014. to** **the following** **panel: Chief** **justice Stone.** **Justice Angelini.** **and Justice** **Chapa. All** **parties will** **be notified** **of the** **Court's decision** **in this** **appeal in** **accordance uilh** **Trx. K.** **App. P.** **48. Either** **parly may** **file motion** **requesting the** **Court to** **reconsider its** **determination that** 

### oral**argument will** **not significantly** **aid ihc Court** **in determining** **the legal** **and factual** **issues presented** **in the** **appeal. See** **TEX. R.** **APP. P.** **39.8, Such** **motion should** **be filed** **within ten** **(10) days** **from the** **date of** **this order.** **It is** **so ORDERED** **on January** **22. 2014.** **Catherine) Stone.** **Chief Justice** 

# IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/fixed the** **seal o/the** **said court** **on this** **January 22.** **2014. s^\**
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Steven J. MITCHELL, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 106372

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: March 26, 2019

Garrick F. D. Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Katharine P. Curry, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Steven J. Mitchell appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of robbery in the second degree and armed criminal action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court committed no reversible error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 254 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 254

 Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 26, 2023, 
         through April 1, 2023, as ``National Cleaning Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 2023

 Mr. LaHood submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 26, 2023, 
         through April 1, 2023, as ``National Cleaning Week''.

Whereas cleaning and disinfection are an investment in protecting human health 
        and safety;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stresses the importance 
        of routine cleaning and disinfecting to protect public health;
Whereas ISSA, the Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, found that routine 
        cleaning and disinfection reduce the number of surfaces contaminated by 
        viruses by 62 percent and thereby significantly reduce the rate of 
        transmission of infectious diseases;
Whereas manufacturers and distributors produce and deliver critical cleaning and 
        hygiene products; and
Whereas essential frontline cleaning professionals work tirelessly to keep our 
        schools, hospitals, workplaces, and other spaces healthy and safe for us 
        all: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the commitment and essential services 
        provided by the cleaning industry in maintaining clean and 
        sanitary conditions; and
            (2) supports the designation of ``National Cleaning Week'' 
        to continue to promote safe and clean environments at work, in 
        schools, and at home.
                                 <all>
```
IN the INTEREST OF: T.M.L.H. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. D.Q.H. (Father), Appellant.

WD 81235

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: June 26, 2018

Robert J. Seek, Eldon, for Respondent.

Kimberly Kollmeyer, for Appellant.

Before Division Three: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Father appeals from the judgment of the Miller County Circuit Court terminating parental rights to his child. In his sole *583point on appeal, Father claims the trial court erred because the facts do not satisfy the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights and the best interest determination. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         With reference to the Annual Report of Redwood Empire Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I
Kim C. McClaran, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code 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.
                                  /s/ Kim C. McClaran
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Kim C. McClaran
                                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                  March 1, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEROD JACKSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 191 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Reed J. Killion, President andPrincipal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

·                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

·                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  |   | May 14, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Reed J. Killion                                         |   |
|--------|--------|--------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |         |   |   |   | Reed J. Killion, President and Principal Executive  Officer |

 

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. and will be retained byUni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.  The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and shall not be deemed  filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.*

----
<PAGE>

 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT




The Board of Directors
RCSB Financial, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements 33-96490, 
33-96492, 33-96494, 333-10825 and 333-10827 on Form S-8 of RCSB Financial, Inc. 
of our report dated December 13, 1996 relating to the consolidated statements of
condition of RCSB Financial, Inc. and subsidiaries as of November 30, 1996 and 
1995 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended 
November 30, 1996, which report has been incorporated by reference in the 
November 30, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of RCSB Financial, Inc.  Our report
refers to changes in accounting for mortgage servicing rights in 1995.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Rochester, New York
February 21, 1997
Todd B. BEARDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106910

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: April 16, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Amy E. Lowe, Missouri Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

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

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Todd Bearden ("Bearden") appeals the motion court's denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 (2016) motion for postconviction relief. Bearden claims the motion court erred because the group plea procedure employed by the Circuit Court of St. Francois Court was unconstitutional and caused confusion with his plea bargain. Bearden also claims the motion court erred because his guilty plea should be vacated because the State did not have a factual basis for the type of methamphetamine he was trying to create and the classification of lithium as a precursor ingredient under § 195.420 RSMo (Supp. 2016). Bearden's final two claims involve *704ineffective assistance of plea counsel in failing to advise of the two defenses, above. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only.

We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(2) (2016).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

LUIS ARMANDO JIMENEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 50054

D.C. No. 3:20

- cr

- 03874

- BAS

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023 * *

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Armando Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 120

- month sentence and 4 years of supervised release imposed

following his guilty

- plea conviction for importation of heroin and

methamphetamine, i n violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 5 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

Jimenez contends that the district court erred by not address ing his

mitigating arguments. We need not resolve whether Jimenez preserved this claim

because we would affirm under either de novo or plain error review. See United

States v. Hammons , 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standards of

review for preserved and unpreserved clam s of procedural error ). The record

demonstrates that the district court listened to Jimenez’s arguments because it

made the recommendations for participation in a residential reentry center a nd the

residential drug abuse program that Jimenez requested. T he court explained that it

would not vary further below the Guidelines range in light of Jimenez’s significant

criminal history . This explanation allows for meaningful appellate review and

co mmunicates that the parties’ arguments were heard and a reasoned decision was

made. S ee United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

The district court was not required to repeat Jimenez’s mitigating arguments just to

show it had considered them. See United States v. Perez

- Perez , 512 F.3d 514, 516

(9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.
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/A2 for the period ending March 31, 2006, 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.





August 28, 2007



|                              | 
|----------------------------- | 
|/s/ Yonglin Du                | 
|Yonglin Du, CEO and President | 
|(principal executive officer) |
**Exhibit 32**

 

 

**Certification Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofPitBoss Entertainment, Inc., ("PittBoss") on Form 10-QSB for thethree-month period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John D. Jarvis Jr.,Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of PittBoss, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, 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 ofPittBoss.

 

Date:November 22, 2005

/s/ John D. Jarvis Jr.

John D. Jarvis Jr.

Chief Executive Officer 

and Principal Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Grady Lewis, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 694]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered December 13, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see *generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). “The credibility determinations of [Supreme] Court are entitled to great deference . . ., and there is no basis to conclude that the court failed to give the evidence the weight that it should be accorded” *(People v Scott,*289 AD2d 974, 975 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 733, 735 [2002]). We reject the further contention of defendant that, in acquitting him of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.50 [3]), the court necessarily found that the eight-year-old victim was not worthy of belief and thus that the verdict is repugnant. *“A*verdict on a multiple count indictment is repugnant when a defendant is acquitted on one count which is conclusive as to a necessary element of another crime of which he is convicted, thus negating a necessary element of the latter count” *(People v Ladson,*209 AD2d 640, 640 [1994], *lv denied*85 NY2d 911 [1995]; *see People v James,*249 AD2d 919 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 899 [1998]). Here, defendant’s acquittal of sodomy “did not negate any essential element” of either sexual abuse in the first degree or endangering the welfare of a child *(James,*249 AD2d at 919). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Gorski, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5607 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5607

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a $2,000 refundable 
credit for individuals who are active members of volunteer firefighting 
              and emergency medical service organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2006

Mr. Kuhl of New York 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 $2,000 refundable 
credit for individuals who are active members of volunteer firefighting 
              and emergency medical service organizations.

    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 ``Volunteer Firefighter and Emergency 
Medical Service Incentive Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS OF VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING 
              AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) 
is amended by redesignating section 36 as section 37 and by inserting 
after section 35 the following new section:

``SEC. 36. ACTIVE MEMBERS OF VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTING AND EMERGENCY 
              MEDICAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS.

    ``In the case of an individual who, at all times during the taxable 
year, is an active member (including regular part-time service) of a 
qualified volunteer fire department (as defined in section 150(e)), 
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
subtitle the amount of $2,000.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
        States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 36'' after ``section 
        35''.
            (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
        subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
        is amended by striking the last item and inserting the 
        following new items:

``Sec. 36. Active members of volunteer firefighting and emergency 
                            medical service organizations.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2

              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                of Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         I, Curtis W. Cariddi, the Chief Financial Officer of ML-Lee Acquisition
Fund II, L.P. (the "Registrant"), certify that (i) the Form 10-K of the
Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




By:      /s/ Curtis W. Cariddi
   --------------------------------------------------
            Curtis W. Cariddi
           Treasurer, ML Mezzanine II Inc.


Dated:     March 31, 2003









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ML-Lee Acquisition Fund II, L.P. and will be retained by ML-Lee
Acquisition Fund II, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
January 1 0 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEOPOLD MALACHOWITSC H , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00486

- CV V.

EXPO MOTORCARS, L.P. , EXPO HOLDINGS, L.P ., AND EXPO MOTORCARS, L.L. C. , Appellees

____________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on May 17, 2010. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reas on of this appeal be paid by
LEOPOLD MALACHOWITSC H

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Thomas K. MANGELSDORF, et al., Appellants, v. Jake ZIMMERMAN, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106406

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: September 25, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Patrick W. Keefe, 8000 Bonhomme Ave., Ste. 112, St. Louis, MO 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: Steven B. Robson, Priscilla F. Gunn, Assistant County Counselors, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Thomas K. Mangelsdorf, Arnold J. Levin, and Roslyn J. Levin appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County affirming the order of the State Tax Commission of Missouri, which upheld the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessments made by Jake Zimmerman, Assessor for St. Louis County, Missouri. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).