alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O S . A P - 7 6 , 5 1 4 & A P - 7 6 , 5 1 5

E X P A R T E R A U L G A R C I A , J R . , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N S F O R W R I T S O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O S . B 1 7 9 7 3 - 0 9 0 3 & B 1 7 9 7 4 - 0 9 0 3 I N T H E 6 4 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T

T H F R O M H A L E C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provi s i o n s o f Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmit t ed t o t h i s C o u rt these applications for writs of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d g uilty to two char g es of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, one car ry ing a drug -fr ee zone alleg ation, and wa s sentence d to four y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his convictions. Applicant contends, inter alia , that his pleas wer e in v o l u n t ary beca use he relied on the

err oneous advice of his trial co u n s el, who also filed these applications on Applicant’s behalf

.2

Applicant was g iven two plea options by the State: he could plead g uilty to both char g es in exchang e for concur rent four- y ear TDCJ sentenc es, or the State would waive the drug -fr ee zone alleg ation, and Applicant would plead g uilty in exchang e for concur rent two-y ear state jail felony sentenc es. Ba sed

on trial counsel’s rese arc h and the belief of the parties, counsel ad v i s ed Applicant that he would

serve less time if he elec ted the four- y ear TDCJ sentenc es than he would by serving the two-y ear state jail felony

sentenc es day -for -day

. Counsel ( and appar ently the prosec utor) failed to note that under Texas Gover

nment Code Section 508.145(e) , Applicant would also be compelled to serve the four- y ear TDCJ sentenc e day -for -day , beca use of the drug -fr ee zone alleg ation in one of the char g es. The trial court deter

mined that trial counsel’s advice to Applicant was err oneous, and Applicant relied on that advice to his detriment. Applicant is entitled to relief

. Ex parte Huerta , 692 S.W .2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause Nos. B17973- 0903 and B17974- 0903 in the 64 t h J udicial District Court of County are set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the sheriff of HAL E County

to answer

the cha rg es as se t out in the indictments. Co p ies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal Ju s ti c e

– Co r r e c ti o n a l I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Marc h 9, 2011 Do Not Publish
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Stockholders


Manhattan Bridge Capital, Inc.




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Manhattan Bridge Capital, Inc. on Forms S-8 (#333-82374, #333-127424 and #333-163105) of our report dated March 16, 2011, on the consolidated balance sheets of Manhattan Bridge Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2010, as appearing in the annual report on Form 10-K of Manhattan Bridge Capital, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.





By: /s/ Hoberman, Miller, Goldstein & Lesser, P.C





Hoberman, Miller, Goldstein & Lesser, P.C


New York, New York





March 16, 2011
---

Exhibit 99.8

Consent of Chris Bostwick

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of AuRico Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with the following reports and documents,
included in the 2012 Annual Information Form of AuRico Gold Inc., dated April 1, 2013 (the “AIF”):

Sections 15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 22.2.1 and 22.5 of the NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Kemess Underground Project, British Columbia, Canada

Dec 31st, 2012, Young-Davidson Underground Reserves

Dec 31st, 2012, Kemess Underground Reserves

I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-177638, File No. 333-175079 and File No. 333-173458 ) and in the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-177404) of the references to
my name and the above-mentioned information in the AIF.

Dated this 1st day of April, 2013.

/s/ Chris BostwickBy: Chris Bostwick, FAusIMM 
Title: Senior Vice President, Technical Services 
Company: AuRico Gold Inc.

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of BDO Seidman, LLP**

*Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm*

EDGAR Online, Inc. 

Norwalk, Connecticut 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No. 333-81966), Form S-3 (No. 333-41472) and Form S-8 (No. 333-60246) of Edgar Online, Inc. of our report dated February 7, 2006, except for Note 15, which is as of February 22, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statementsand financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

BDO Seidman, LLP 

New York, New York 

March 20, 2006
# ArviR2L

Jkkiit
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 18-0328 

# FILED STATE OF MONTANA, 

### APR le 2021

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. JUAN ANASTASIO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

On March 31, 2021, Defendant and Appellant Juan Anastasio Rodriguez filed a petition for rehearing ofthis Court's March 16, 2021 decision in State v. Rodriguez, 2021 MT 65,403 Mont.360, P.3d . The State has responded in opposition. Under M.R.App.P. 20,this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only ifthe opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," ifthe opinion "overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case," or if the opinion "conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed"by the Court. M.R. App.P.20(1)(a)(i-iii). Rodriguez asserts rehearing is warranted in this case because the Court's plain error analysis ofthe trial testimony ofLadonna Maxwell "fail[ed] to account for the effect her mixed testimony likely had on thejury"and because the Court erred in determining he had not "presented sufficient record-based inefficacy to warrant reversal based on ineffective assistance ofcounsel." Having reviewed Rodriguez's petition and the State's response,the Courtconcludes rehearing is not warranted under M.R.App.P. 20. Regarding the testimony ofMaxwell, Rodriguez simply rehashes the same arguments regarding cautionary instructions he previously made. This Court squarely addressed and rejected those arguments in its Opinion, noting we were not "firmly convinced" it was necessary to exercise plain error 04/20/2021

Case Number: DA 18-0328review regarding a cautionary instruction as Rodriguez did not object to Maxwell's

testimony at trial. Rodriguez,¶ 21. In addition,Rodriguezagain only cites to "persuasive" federal authority for his contention a cautionary instruction should have been given but fails to address how the Court not following non-binding federal authority could mean its Opinion "conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addresser by the Court as required by M.R.App.P. 20(1)(a)(iii). Regarding Rodriguez's ineffective assistance of counsel argument,we noted there was an insufficient record to determine "why"counsel did not cross-examine Jean McAllister on false reporting and therefore his claims were not appropriate for resolution on direct appeal. Rodriguez, IN 35-36. Rodriguez's new arguments in his petition do nothing to change this fact. Once again, Rodriguez fails to demonstrate the Court's Opinion either "overlooked some fact material to the decisioe or "conflict[ed]with a statute or controlling decision not addressed"by the Court. M.R.App. P. 20(1)(a)(i, iii). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk of this Court shall provide a copy of this Order to Juan Anastasio Rodriguez and to all counsel ofrecord. `7" DATED this-0 day ofApril, 2021.

ChiefJustice



# /4-(-?

-7„

Justics61.—
Exhibit 4

NB&T FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

48 N. South Street

Wilmington, OH 45177

November 8, 2007

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20549



|Re: | NB&T Financial Group, Inc.  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

NB&T Financial Group, Inc., an Ohio corporation (NBTF), is today filing an Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q), as executed on November 8, 2007.

Pursuant to the
instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, NBTF hereby agrees to furnish the Commission, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining the rights of holders of its long-term debt and of the
long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to the Form 10-K. No such instrument represents long-term debt in excess of 10% of the total assets of NBTF and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.

Very truly yours,



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Craig F. Fortin        
|Craig F. Fortin            
|Senior Vice President & CFO
Calculation of weighted average for the year  ended Dec 31/00
Sideware Systems Inc.

Beginning Balance                    51,769,238

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Period ended       No. of Shares      Contribution to   Ending Balance
                   Issued             Weighted Avg.
<S>                <C>                <C>               <C>

Mar. 31, 2000      6,017,527          5,594,712         57,786,765
Jun. 30, 2000      2,151,423          1,487,635         59,938,188
Sep. 30, 2000        405,852            133,163         60,344,040
Dec. 31, 2000        542,375             63,587         60,886,415

TOTAL              9,117,177          7,279,096

</TABLE>

Total weighted average shares outstanding:   59,048,335
Less shares held in escrow:                     970,330
                                             ----------
Balance:                                     58,078,005

Comprehensive loss for the period:          $28,446,552

Net loss per share                          $      0.48
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-57.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Joint motion to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1162 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 846
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1162

_______________________________________________________________________

                     IN THE SENATE OF UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 1999

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

           September 28 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

       Reported by Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 that crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The bridge on United States Route 231 that crosses the Ohio River 
between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the bridge referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

                                                       Calendar No. 846

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1162

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 that crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

           September 28 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                       Reported without amendment
```
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2816

___________ Glenn R. Waite, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Robert O. Hippe, Judge; Paul D. * District of Nebraska. Empson, Judge; Sara Olsen; Ann * Rosenberry, Clerk; James L. * [UNPUBLISHED] Macken, Judge, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 5, 1999 Filed: July 19, 1999

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Glenn R. Waite appeals from the district court’s 1 order dismissing with prejudice his declaratory judgment action. Mr. Waite asked the district court to declare unconstitutional both Neb. Rev Stat. § 24-318 (1995), which authorizes Nebraska state-2-

judges to order the county attorney to investigate and possibly prosecute when it appears an offense has been committed “in connection with the trial of any cause,” and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-101 (1997), which forbids the unauthorized practice of law.

We affirm the dismissal, because we conclude that Mr. Waite lacked standing and his claims were not ripe for review, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t , 118 S. Ct. 1003, 1016 (1998) (standing is threshold jurisdictional question); Johnson v. Missouri , 142 F.3d 1087, 1090 n.4 (8th Cir. 1998) (ripeness issue may overlap with standing question). Mr. Waite premises his constitutional challenge to sections 7-101 and 24-318 on a state court order requiring the court clerk to notify the county attorney if and when Mr. Waite files additional pro se pleadings in certain state court actions, and ordering the county attorney to investigate and to prosecute if a criminal offense is uncovered. We conclude that these circumstances are insufficient to create the requisite “injury in fact.” See Brouhard v. Lee , 125 F.3d 656, 661 (8th Cir. 1997) ( injury-in-fact, required for standing, is actual or imminent invasion of legally protected interest, which is both concrete and particularized to plaintiff ); cf. Johnson , 142 F.3d at 1088-90 (holding that prisoners lacked injury-in-fact to challenge state statute imposing sanctions on prisoners who filed frivolous lawsuits, where no statutory sanctions had yet been imposed on them).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Waite’s action, but
we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See Ahmed v. United States , 147 F.3d 791, 797 (8th Cir. 1998).-3-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jonathan

G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now

retired.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3197

___________

Paul Stefanyshyn, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Shafer Contracting Co., Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2006 

Filed: August 9, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Paul Stefanyshyn appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his complaint under

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act.

Following de novo review, see Meyer v. City of Joplin, 281 F.3d 759, 760 (8th Cir.

2002) (per curiam) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that

Stefanyshyn failed to state a claim under either statute, see 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)-(c)
-2-

(defining types of prohibited age discrimination); Minn. Stat. § 363A.08(2) (2004)

(defining types of prohibited discrimination). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1410 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1410

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt small issues from 
    the restrictions on the deduction by financial institutions for 
                               interest.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 1999

 Mr. English 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 exempt small issues from 
    the restrictions on the deduction by financial institutions for 
                               interest.

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

SECTION 1. QUALIFIED SMALL ISSUE BONDS EXEMPT FROM RESTRICTIONS ON 
              DEDUCTION BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR INTEREST.

    (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 265(b)(3)(B) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified tax-exempt 
obligations) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I), 
by redesignating subclause (II) as subclause (III), and by inserting 
after subclause (I) the following new subclause:
                                    ``(II) any qualified small issue 
                                bond (as defined in section 144(a)), 
                                or''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 02/01/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      167,409
COMMITMENTS
  10,669   33,905   38,275   99,454   81,619  148,398  153,799   19,011   13,610

CHANGES FROM 01/25/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     16,194)
      52      161    8,012    4,429    6,263   12,493   14,436    3,701    1,758

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     6.4     20.3     22.9     59.4     48.8     88.6     91.9     11.4      8.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      103)
      25       30       38       29       35       80       89
```

----

Updated February 4, 2011
**EXHIBIT 32.1**Certification     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), Stephen S.Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of Asyst Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), and Michael Sicuro,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:     1. The Company’s Quarterly Report for the period ended December 31, 2007, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and     2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: February 1, 2008     /S/ STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ /S/ MICHAEL A. SICURO   Stephen S. Schwartz, Ph.D.  Michael A. Sicuro  Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer  This certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification isnot deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 orSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates itby reference.
EXHIBIT 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of BusinessWay International Corp. (the
  "Company")
  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended July 31, 2004, as filed with the
  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
  I, Dominic
  Heddo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
  the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Dominic Heddo
  --------------------------
  Date: August 23, 2004

Dominic Heddo
  Chief Executive Officer
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/30/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      153,939
COMMITMENTS
  37,733   33,692   25,515   73,948   68,621  137,196  127,828   16,742   26,110

CHANGES FROM 03/23/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,769)
    -149    4,230    3,005    5,020      451    7,877    7,686     -108       83

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    24.5     21.9     16.6     48.0     44.6     89.1     83.0     10.9     17.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      177)
      46       36       59       65       57      145      133
```

----

Updated April 2, 2010