alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-502-06

NICHOLAS GEORGE KLEIN, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

DENTON COUNTY

COCHRAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which PRICE, WOMACK and

JOHNSON, JJ., joined.

O P I N I O N

I join Judge Price’s concurring and dissenting opinion. I write separately only to

emphasize that no one in this case accused the complainant of fabricating her

testimony–either recently or long ago. The defendant’s position was that the prosecutor

confused the child with his questions and that she therefore inadvertently said that appellant

had molested her when she meant to say that he had not. Nowhere in this record does
Klein Dissenting opinion Page 2

 Rule 801(e)(1)(B) reads:

1

A statement is not hearsay if. . . [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is

subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is . . . consistent with

the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the

declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.” TEX. R. EVID. 801(e)(1)(B).

appellant accuse the child of lying on the witness stand or making up her testimony. He did

not either implicitly or explicitly accuse her of improper motives in her testimony. His

position was that the prosecutor “tricked” the child into accidentally misstating the facts

during one series of his questions. Therefore, the prior out-of-court statements that she

made to a CPS investigator and a police investigator could not possibly qualify as statements

offered to rebut an explicit or implicit charge of recent fabrication by the complainant. 

Rule 801(e)(1)(B) allows a party to rehabilitate a witness who, on cross-examination,

has been accused–subtly or directly–of recently fabricating or changing his testimony for

some improper reason. In essence, the opposing party is accusing the witness of lying and 1

of recently making up that lie. When this occurs, the sponsoring party may rehabilitate the

witness by offering out-of-court statements that are consistent with that witness’s in-court

testimony and that were made before the witness had a motive to change his testimony. The

rehabilitation evidence shows that the witness has said the same thing, sung the same tune,

both before and after the alleged improper influence or motive arose. Thus, goes the logic,

the purported improper influence or motive (such as a bribe, offer of a “deal” to a codefendant, a pending civil lawsuit, and so forth), did not, in fact, change the witness’s

testimony. The witness has consistently said the same thing, regardless of any bribe, plea
Klein Dissenting opinion Page 3

deal, civil lawsuit, etc.

Appellant’s position in this case is not that the child was improperly influenced with

a bribe, or threatened, or promised something if she testified in a certain way. It is that the

prosecutor confused her with his questions on the witness stand. That position does not

attack the witness; it attacks the cross-examiner. 

Filed: October 1, 2008

Publish
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GLENN NATHAN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00230-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20070C06733)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a), which states that:

At any time before the appellate court’s decision, the appellate court may dismiss the

appeal upon the appellant’s motion. The appellant and his or her attorney must sign

the written motion to dismiss and file it in duplicate with the appellate clerk, who

must immediately send the duplicate copy to the trial court clerk.

Appellant and his attorney have filed and signed the motion to dismiss. This Court has not

issued an opinion in this cause, and the Clerk of this Court has forwarded a duplicate of this motion

to the County Clerk of El Paso County, Texas. As Appellant has complied with the requirements

of Rule 42.2(a), the Court has considered this cause on Appellant’s motion and concludes the motion

should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed.

We therefore dismiss the appeal.

 

KENNETH R. CARR, Justice

September 18, 2008

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
STATE of North Carolina v. Quinton Lee DICK aka Quenton Lee Dick

No. 386PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Dick, Quinton Lee.

James M. Stanley, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*523***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 14th of October 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of November 2016 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
STATE v. Robert Craig BARBEE

299P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Robert Craig Barbee, for Barbee, Robert Craig.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of August 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
STATE v. JACKSON.

No. COA07-1351.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Buncombe (06CRS50988, 06CRS50989, 06CRS50990, 06CRS231).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF JAMES DEVONSHIRE



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906



OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











---



Exhibit 13.1





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 Annual Report of CDG Investments Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Devonshire, President, Chief Executive Officer and a 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 results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





James Devonshire





James Devonshire,

Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
STATE v. Raymond Dakim Harris JOINER.

No. 514P13-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Raymond Joiner, Windsor, for Joiner, Raymond Dakim Harris.

Ryan Frank Haigh, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of February 2016 by Defendant for Order for Dismissal:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
# National Farm Safety and Health Week, 2005

As stewards of our natural resources, farmers and ranchers play a crucial role in keeping our Nation strong. This year's theme for National Farm Safety and Health Week, “Harvesting Safety and Health,” encourages those in the agriculture industry to practice and promote safe working conditions and reminds all Americans of the vital contributions of farmers and ranchers to our country.

Our farming communities embody the American values of hard work, faith, love of family, and love of country. Their skill and dedication feed, clothe, and provide energy for Americans and others around the world.

Agricultural workers face one of the most hazardous work environments in America. Farmers and ranchers operate heavy machinery, work in inclement weather, and tend livestock. Because of these risks, taking safety precautions is vital for agricultural workers. By implementing preventive measures and increasing our knowledge of first aid, we can greatly reduce many hazards of farm and ranch labor. Utilizing safety features and keeping children from working or playing in potentially hazardous areas also can limit injuries and help farmers and ranchers protect their families.

Our farmers and ranchers help keep our Nation strong and advance the opportunities that come from freedom. During National Farm Safety and Health Week, we recognize the significant contributions of farmers and ranchers to our Nation and encourage the further development of work environments that will ensure their safety.

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 18 through September 24, 2005, as National Farm Safety and Health Week. I call upon the agencies, organizations, and businesses that serve America's agricultural workers to continue strengthening their commitment to promoting farm safety and health programs. I also urge all Americans to recognize the men and women cultivating our land who contribute to the vitality and prosperity of our Nation.                          ( print page 55510)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

[FR Doc. 05-18977

Billing code 3195-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ FRED M. POWELLFred M. PowellChief Financial Officer
  25
1523.

#### BEDFORD *v.*THE STATE.

The verdict was demanded by the evidence, and it would have been error to have granted a new trial.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder, from Floyd superior court- — -Judge Wright. October 14, 1908.

Submitted January 14,

Decided January 27, 1909.

*P. W. Copeland,*for plaintiff in- error. '

*John W. Bale, solicitor-general,*TP. *H. Ennis,*contra.

Russell, J.

The defendant was indicted for assault with intent to murder, and found guilty of assault and battery. Accord*462ing to the evidence for the State, the defendant knocked a peddler in the head with a brickbat (which was testified to be a weapon likely to produce death), inflicting a wound from which he was unconscious for two or three days. According to the State’s testimony, the blow was inflicted without the slightest provocation. The peddler priced his cabbage to the defendant at eight cents .a, pound, while the defendant insisted that they were worth four cents; and upon the peddler’s not agreeing to that price he applied unutterably vile epithets to him, and finally, as the peddler went to get in his wagon, knocked him down with a brickbat. The only justification offered in behalf of the defendant (who admitted throwing the brickbat) was that the peddler, while in his house, had several times called him a “damn liar.” From the fact that the jury only found the defendant guilty of assault and battery, and viewing the case most favorably to him, we assume that the jury took his testimonj' upon this subject as the true statement of what occurred. Even if this be true, in view of the time when the blow was struck, and of the nature of the wound inflicted, the jury would not have been authorized to find him guilty of less than assault and battery. Certainly the evidence would not have .authorized an acquittal. The undisputed evidence authorized the jurjr to find that the defendant used far greater force in resentment of the insult offered him than he was authorized to employ. While one may be justified in resenting opprobrious words, the force used in resentment must not be so disproportionate as to be brutal. And in such degree as one insulted by such words' exceeds the proper measure of resentment therefor, he himself becomes the aggressor. There being no evidence of any disparity of size and strength on the part of the defendant, the jury might have been authorized to find him justifiable in repelling the opprobrious words with a blovv of his fist; but in using the brickbat upon the head of the prosecutor in such manner as to render him unconscious, the defendant could not be justified, and the jury was authorized to find the verdict of assault and battery merely on account of the absence of proof of a specific intent to kill. The motion for new trial rested only on the general grounds, and, it not being contended that there was any error committed by the court, the lower court correctly held that a new trial should not have been granted. *Judgment affirmed.*
In re: Skinner

277A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 16, 2016

Ira Braswell, IV, Attorney at Law, Louisburg, for Skinner, Mark.

Jenna F. Butler, Attorney at Law, Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Clark, Nancy Bass, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 14th of December 2016 by Respondent:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of December 2016."

Respondent shall have up to and including the 28th day of December 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
EXHIBIT 31

                       QUARTERLY CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Stephen Samuels, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cameron
     International, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
     make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
11th day of May, 2005.


/s/ Stephen Samuels
------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. Jose Luis DOMINGUEZ.

No. 15P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Jose Luis Dominguez, Lumberton, for Dominguez, Jose Luis.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of January 2016 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

JACKSON, J. recused.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3880 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3880

To provide for the expiration of certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 on December 31, 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2014

Mr. Carney (for himself, Ms. Hanabusa, and Mr. Connolly) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
  and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent 
Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the expiration of certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 on December 31, 2014.

    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 ``National Security Agency Data 
Collection Review Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. SUNSET OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE 
              FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008.

    (a) USA PATRIOT Act.--Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 
U.S.C. 1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is 
amended by striking ``June 1, 2015'' and inserting ``December 31, 
2014''.
    (b) FISA Amendments Act of 2008.--
            (1) Sunset.--Section 403(b) of the FISA Amendments Act of 
        2008 (Public Law 110-261; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``December 31, 
                2017'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2) in the material preceding 
                subparagraph (A), by striking ``December 31, 2017'' and 
                inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--The heading of section 404(b)(1) 
        of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-261; 50 
        U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2017'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1412]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas*, the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 247, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 247 to include a site (Site 4 - 34 acres) at the Venango Regional Airport Industrial Park in the City of Franklin (Venango County), Pennsylvania, adjacent to the Erie Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 13-2005; filed 3/11/05);                

*Whereas*, notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (70 FR 13450, 3/21/05) and the application has been processed                           ( print page 55107)                        pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

*Whereas*, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore*, the Board hereby orders:                

The application to expand FTZ 247 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of September 2005.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-18718 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S