alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JEREMIAH PAUL MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 9804

April 7, 1978

576 P.2d 1125

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *James B. Gibson,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*180OPINION

By the Court,

THOMPSON, J.:

Matthews seeks review of a judgment entered on jury verdict which found him guilty of burglary. He contends that he was not sufficiently identified as the burglar; that expert testimony regarding the age of his fingerprints found at the crime scene should not have been received; that error occurred when the judge instructed the jury regarding flight. For reasons hereafter expressed, we affirm his conviction.

1. The identifying witness saw a white male, about 5 feet 10 inches tall, of slight build, wearing dark pants and a white pullover shirt, run from the burglary scene. He did not see that person’s face and was unable positively to identify Matthews as that person. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, this is not a fatal defect in proof. When arrested, Matthews fit the description of the person seen fleeing from the scene. Identity is provable by height and clothing. Mathis v. People, 448 P.2d 633 (Colo. 1968); State v. Williamson, 438 P.2d 161 (N.M. 1968). Moreover, Matthews was apprehended near the scene of the crime within a short time of its perpetration, and his fingerprints were found in the store on several items. It was permissible for the jury to conclude that he was the burglar.

2. An expert gave his opinion concerning the age of Matthews’ fingerprints found on items in the store, even *181though he had not conducted a control test. Had proper objection been made the trial judge presumably would have precluded such opinion. Beasley v. State, 81 Nev. 431, 404 P.2d 911 (1965). Objection was not made. Notwithstanding this fact we are asked to find reversible error. We decline to do so. This assigned error was not preserved for appellate review by proper objection at trial. Moss v. State, 88 Nev. 19, 492 P.2d 1307 (1972); Wilson v. State, 86 Nev. 320, 468 P.2d 346 (1970).

3. The court instructed the jury that the flight of a person after commission of a crime could be considered along with other proven facts in deciding guilt or innocence, and that the significance of such circumstance was for the jury to determine. Flight is relevant since it may demonstrate a consciousness of guilt. People v. Hill, 429 P.2d 586 (Cal. 1967). The instruction was proper since the jury (for reasons stated under point 1) properly could find that the intruder seen running from the store and Matthews was the same person.

Affirmed.

Batjer, C. J., and Mowbray, Gunderson, and Manou-kian, JJ., concur.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

ATLANTA VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Decatur, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0568

Issued: October 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 8, 2020 appellant sought an appeal from a purported November 5, 

2020decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0568.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed his appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board neither contains a final 

adverse decision issued on November 5, 2020, nor a final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 

180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.3 As there is no final adverse decision 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes 

that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0568 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0568 is dismissed.

Issued: October 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5278 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

405 West Second Street in Dixon, Illinois, as the ‘‘President Ronald 

W. Reagan Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2010 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. HARE, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. KIRK, Mr. COSTELLO, Ms. BEAN, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. JACKSON

of Illinois, Mr. RUSH, Mrs. HALVORSON, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. 

ROSKAM, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. GARRETT of New 

Jersey, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. HENSARLING, Mrs. 

DAHLKEMPER, Mr. PLATTS, Ms. KOSMAS, Mr. PAUL, Ms. MARKEY of 

Colorado, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. MINNICK, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. COSTA, Ms. HERSETH

SANDLIN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. LATOURETTE, and Mrs. BACHMANN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 405 West Second Street in Dixon, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building’’. 

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


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5278 IH

1 SECTION 1. PRESIDENT RONALD W. REAGAN POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 405 West Second Street in 

5 Dixon, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘President Ronald W. 

11 Reagan Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



       STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                       BY
    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO
                              EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS

                              Dated - March 7, 2003


         In accordance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
John Y. Caloz, hereby certify that the periodic report, to which this Statement
is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly present, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Statement as of
the date first written above.





                              /s/  John Y. Caloz
                              -------------------------------------
                              John Y. Caloz
                              Corporate Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial
                              Officer and Secretary]
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Keith Walz, Chief Financial Officer of Sand Hill IT Security Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

| • | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: November 14, 2005

 

/s/ Keith Walz

Keith Walz

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randal Hardy, Chief Financial Officer 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.



Date: May 6, 2011

| |                                                                                                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By:   /s/ Randal Hardy
_____________________________
Randal Hardy
Chief Financial Officer
Principal Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 11.1

    
                               EARNINGS PER SHARE
                               PRIMARY COMPUTATION
             ($ in millions, except share and per share amounts)


                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                       September 30,  
                                                  ----- ------------   
                                                   1996        1995
                                                   ----        ----
Basis for computation of earnings per 
 common and common equivalent shares:
  Earnings from continuing operations             $ 36.1      $ 35.7  
  Deduct dividends on 4 Percent cumulative
   preferred stock                                   (.1)        (.1)
                                                  -------     -------
  Earnings from continuing operations
   available to common shareholders                 36.0        35.6
  Discontinued operations                            (.7)        3.5
                                                  --------    -------
  Available for common shareholders               $ 35.3      $ 39.1
                                                  ========    =======



Number of shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding          74,231,367  76,712,609
  Shares issuable upon exercise of stock
   options, net of shares assumed to be
   repurchased                                  1,269,703   1,212,131
                                               ----------  ----------
                                               75,501,070  77,924,740
                                               ==========  ==========

Earnings per common share:
  Continuing operations                              $.48        $.46
  Discontinued operations                            (.01)        .04
                                                     ----        ----

  Net earnings                                       $.47        $.50
                                                     ====        ====
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 Current Report of Mobile Reach International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Hewitt, Chief
Executive Office 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) of
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Action 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.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Alan Christopher Johnson
----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
December 16, 2004
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350 OFCHAPTER 63 OF**

**TITLE 18 OF THEUNITED STATES CODE**

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Navistar Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”),subsidiary of International Truck and Engine Corporation, on Form 10-Q forthe period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pamela Turbeville, PrincipalExecutive Officer and I, Andrew J. Cederoth, Principal Financial Officer of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCorporation.

 

 
| /s/  Pamela Turbeville       |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Pamela  Turbeville           |
| Principal  Executive Officer |
| April 19,  2005         |
|                         |
| /s/  Andrew J. Cederoth      |   |
| Andrew J. Cederoth           |
| Principal  Financial Officer |
| April 19,  2005         |
|                              |        |  |

 

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Corporation forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This certification shall also not be deemedto be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except tothe extent that the Corporation specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4123 JOHN ALVIN DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-97-725-DWS) Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Eric Wm. Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: John Alvin Davis appeals his conviction and amended sentence for failing to stop when signaled by a United States Army Military Police vehicle by means of a siren and flashing light, in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-750 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1999), and the districtcourt's order denying Davis' motion to reconsider the restitution portion of the previously imposed sentence.* Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Davis raises only one issue on appeal, claiming that the issue of restitution was contemplated as a sentencing issue on remand. Because Davis failed to contest the restitution order in his first appeal, however, he has waived the issue under the mandate rule, which"forecloses litigation of issues decided by the district court but foregone on appeal or otherwise waived, for example because they were not raised in the district court." United States v. Bell , 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993). After reviewing the record, we find that none of the exceptions to the mandate rule apply. See id. at 67. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying Davis' motion to reconsider the restitution portion of the previously imposedsentence and affirm Davis' conviction and amended sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________*On July 13, 1999, this court remanded this case for resentencing pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-750(B)(2) (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1999). See United States v. Davis , 184 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 1999).
2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5355 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5355

  To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to repeal the limitation of 
liability of a responsible party for a discharge or substantial threat 
          of a discharge of oil from an offshore oil facility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2010

 Mr. Grijalva introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to repeal the limitation of 
liability of a responsible party for a discharge or substantial threat 
          of a discharge of oil from an offshore oil facility.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR 
              DISCHARGE OF OIL FROM AN OFFSHORE FACILITY.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 1004(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
U.S.C. 2704(a)) is amended by--
            (1) inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
        paragraph (2);
            (2) striking paragraph (3); and
            (3) redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take 
effect on April 15, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

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

I, Scott Mac Caughern, the Chief Executive Officer of Amnis Systems Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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

Dated: August 14, 2003





/s/  Scott Mac Caughern
Name:  Scott Mac Caughern
Title:  Chief Executive Officer



                                       44
Exhibit 32.2

                           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 Investment Properties Associates (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert Hecht,  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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Robert Hecht
------------------------------------
Robert Hecht
Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2003


                                       12
December 15, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.G, T.R.W. AND K.M.M., CHILDREN

NO. 14-16-00819-CV 

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on August 17, 2016. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.