alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Alpha Resources, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Gerald L. Couture,
Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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/ Gerald L. Couture
-------------------------
Gerald L. Couture
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 5, 2018

No. 04-18-00543-CV

Nori Elsa Alvarez-BAKER,

Appellant

v.

ORANGEPANDA, LLC,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-08249

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time to pay the trial court clerk and the 

court reporter for preparation of the record on appeal is GRANTED. We ORDER appellant 

Nori Elsa Alvarez-Baker to provide proof to this court, by September 10, 2018, that she has paid 

the clerk’s fee and the reporter’s fee. We further ORDER the trial court clerk, Donna Kay 

McKinney, and the court reporter, Luis Duran, to file their respective parts of the record on 

appeal by October 1, 2018. Appellant is notified that her failure to comply with this order and to 

pay the clerk’s fee may result in a dismissal of her appeal without further notice. Appellant is 

further notified that her failure to comply with this order and pay the reporter’s fee may result in 

this court considering only those issues in the appellant’s brief that do not require the reporter’s 

record for consideration.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Monte Lee ARMSTRONG, also known as Monte Armstrong, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41350

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Albert Anthony Pena, III, Esq., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*123Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Monte Lee Armstrong appeals his jury-trial conviction on one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. He claims that he was denied due process of law because the Government bolstered its case during its opening statement. Armstrong contends that his conviction must be reversed because the cumulative effect of the Government’s errors so tainted the jury that he could not receive a fair trial.

As Armstrong concedes, he failed to object during the Government’s opening statement. Thus, review is for plain error. *See United States v. Rice,*607 F.3d 133, 138 (5th Cir.2010). A plain error is a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and affects the defendant’s substantial rights. *United States v. Ellis,*564 F.3d 370, 377 (5th Cir.2009). When those elements are shown, this court has the discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *Id.*(internal quotation and citation omitted).

“The government’s attempt to bolster a witness by vouching for his credibility constitutes error when the prosecutor’s statements ‘might reasonably have led the jury to believe that the prosecutor possessed extrinsic evidence, not presented to the jury, that convinced the prosecutor of the defendant’s guilt.’ ” *United States v. Binker,*795 F.2d 1218, 1223 (5th Cir.1986) (citation omitted). “[F]or bolstering to constitute plain error, the prosecutor must intertwine ‘his personal and official credibility with the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” *United States v. Davis,*831 F.2d 63, 67 (5th Cir.1987) (citation omitted).

The purpose of an opening statement is to present what the evidence would show. *United States v. Garza-Vasquez,*1994 WL 35615, *5 (5th Cir. Jan.27, 1994) (unpublished). Here, the Government’s opening statement merely provided an overview of the case and the evidence it expected to present. Armstrong has not demonstrated plain error.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Robert William WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. EVANS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15890.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

Robert William Walters, lone, CA, pro se.

Virginia I. Papan, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

*972Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert William Walters, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Jett v. Penner,*439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Walters failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ treatment of his shoulder and back injuries constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs. *See Wilson v. Seiter,*501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (inmate must establish that prison officials “possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind” to implicate the Eighth Amendment); *Jett,*439 F.3d at 1096 (deliberate indifference requires “a purposeful act or failure to respond to pain or possible medical need”).

Walters’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS
INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER
27, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-26-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-27-1999
<CASH>                                           2,947
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,879)
<INVENTORY>                                     16,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,114
<PP&E>                                          53,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,782)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,981
<BONDS>                                        141,134
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          6
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,381
<SALES>                                         38,739
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,739
<CGS>                                           17,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   259
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,876
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,505)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,835)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.88)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99(.1) Certification Pursuant to
               Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by
                  James S. Osterman, Chief Executive Officer



          In connection with the Annual Report of Blount International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James S. Osterman, Chief Executive 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:

          (i) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.




/s/ James S. Osterman
-------------------------------------
James S. Osterman
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 10, 2003
H. Res. 90

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 12, 1997.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H.

Res. 89) requesting the President to submit a budget for fiscal year 1998 that would balance the Federal budget by fiscal

year 2002 without relying on budgetary contingencies. The

resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The

resolution shall be debatable for two hours equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Committee on the Budget or their designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion except one

motion to recommit. The motion to recommit may include instructions only if offered by the minority leader or a designee.
2

•HRES 90

If including instructions, the motion to recommit shall be debatable for five minutes by its proponent and five minutes by

an opponent.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Looney, Appellant.

Appeals by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered March 8, 1984, which, after a hearing on December 16, 1983, wherein defendant was found to have violated the conditions of his probation, vacated his sentence of five years’ probation and resentenced him to an indeterminate term of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Seidell, J.), rendered May 14, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 121/2 to 25 years as a second felony offender, said sentence to be concurrent with the one imposed on March 8, 1984.

Amended judgment and judgment affirmed.

Neither the record nor the cases cited by defendant provides any support for defendant’s contentions that the proof adduced at his probation violation hearing was insufficient to sustain the finding that he violated the conditions of his probation.

Defendant’s argument that his guilty plea to manslaughter in the first degree was not knowingly and voluntarily made was not preserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment in the court of first instance *(People v Pascale,*48 NY2d 997; *People v Perkins,*89 AD2d 956).

Defendant also argues that the sentences imposed on him were harsh and excessive. He offers no valid reason why the sentences imposed upon him, which were within the statutory maximum, should be disturbed *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# L_2013132EN.01S00301.xml

| 16.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 132/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 132/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research: University Park, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Software
                        Integrated Farming Systems Project
                                    Integrated Farm System Model
                                    Dairy Gas Emissions Model
                                    Beef Gas Emissions Model
                                    Projected Future Climate Data for IFSMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area University Park, Pennsylvania Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Contact Information
- Research Projects
- Publications
- Selected Publications
- ARS News Articles

Paul R Adler
                     

                     Research Agronomist
                     


                     ARS News Articles
                        item
                                             A Study of Switchgrass for Home Heating in the Northeastitem
                                             Estimating Ethanol Yields from CRP Croplandsitem
                                             To Press or Not to Press: That is the Question


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herman Brown, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 334]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered May 6, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s sole contention on this appeal is that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the finding that the complainant suffered “physical injury,” an element of the crime of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). The necessary element of “ ‘[p]hysical injury’ ” is defined by Penal Law § 10.00 (9) as either the “impairment of physical condition *1230or substantial pain” *(see People v McDowell,*28 NY2d 373, 375 [1971]). “Impairment of physical condition” does not require a victim’s incapacitation *(People v Tejeda,*78 NY2d 936, 938 [1991] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “ ‘[Substantial pain’ cannot be defined precisely, but it can be said that it is more than slight or trivial pain,” although “[p]ain need not, however, be severe or intense to be substantial” *(People v Chiddick,*8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]). “Whether the ‘substantial pain’ necessary to establish an assault charge has been proved is generally a question for the trier of fact” *(People v Rojas,*61 NY2d 726, 727 [1984]; *see Matter of Philip A.,*49 NY2d 198, 200 [1980]; *People v Monserrate,*90 AD3d 785, 787 [2011]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the element of “physical injury.” The testimony at trial established that the defendant stabbed the complainant with a knife in the left side under his rib cage during an altercation, leaving a penetrative wound of approximately one inch. Shortly thereafter, according to the medical records submitted into evidence, the complainant was taken to the hospital, where, inter alia, he was administered pain medication, underwent laparoscopic surgery under anesthesia to explore the extent of any damage, and his pain level was recorded by hospital staff as reaching as high as a “7” on a scale of 1 to 10. Upon his discharge from the hospital the following day, the complainant was prescribed pain medication. Under these circumstances, there was legally sufficient evidence that the complainant suffered substantial pain and, therefore, sustained a physical injury *(see People v Chiddick,*8 NY3d at 446; *see also People v Kenner,*77 AD3d 853 [2010]; *People v Williams,*69 AD3d 662 [2010]; *Matter of Ashley M.,*35 AD3d 612 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Robert B. Kupstis *v.*Andre L. Michaud, Jr., et al.

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 425, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the attorney referee’s delay in issuing his report violate (a) General Statutes § 51-183b; (b) applicable provisions of the Practice Book; or (c) the due process *768rights of the plaintiff under the United States constitution or article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution?”

Decided February 8, 1990

*Michael A. D’Amico,*in support of the petition.

*Robert J. Crean,*in opposition.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00160-CV

Juan A. Martin-de-Nicolas, Appellant

v.

Mark Octaviano and Victorio Tostado, Appellees

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-18-007225, THE HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due May 28, 2019. On appellant’s

motions, the time for filing was extended to August 26, 2019. Appellant has now filed a third

motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. We grant the 

motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than September 25, 2019.

No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order may result in 

dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on September 11, 2019.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Exhibit  99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted), James W. Benson, Chief Executive Officer of
SpaceDev,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  hereby  certifies  that,  to the best of his
knowledge:

The  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2003, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  and the information
contained  in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the  Company.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of this 13th
day  of  August  2003.


By:     /s/  James  W.  Benson
----------------------------------
             James  W.  Benson
             Chief  Executive  Officer


<PAGE>