alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-04-0313-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	AUGUST 10, 2004

	______________________________

	SHERYL D. ATWOOD,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2002-478,973; HON. DRUE FARMER, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

	Appellant Sheryl D. Atwood appeals from a judgment convicting her of driving while intoxicated.  The reporter’s record is due in this cause.  An extension of the applicable deadline was sought by the court reporter.  To justify the extension, the court reporter represented that appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay for the record.  Nothing of record shows that appellant is indigent and entitled to a free record.

	Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the County Court at Law No. 2 of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall  immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following: 

     	1.  whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

     	2.  whether appellant is indigent; and, 

     	3.  whether the appellant is entitled to appointed counsel and a free appellate 

	record. 

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed.  So too shall it 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause to be developed a supplemental reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing.  Should it be determined that appellant wishes to prosecute the appeal, is indigent, and is entitled to an appointed attorney but has none, then the trial court shall appoint counsel, unless appellant knowingly and voluntarily waives counsel.  Furthermore, the name, address, and phone number of any counsel appointed by the trial court to represent appellant shall be included in the supplemental record.  The trial court shall also file both supplemental records with the clerk of this court on or before September 9, 2004.  Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then it must be requested before September 9, 2004. 

      It is so ordered. 

                                                                             Per Curiam 

 Do not publish.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH D. ST. JOHN

No. 7519SC7

(Filed 2 April 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Long, Judge.*Judgment entered 10 October 1974 in Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 March 1975.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Daniel C. Oakley, for the State.*

*Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for the defendant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge, PARKER and ARNOLD, Judges.

No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5014 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5014

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2010

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans 
          Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDED BY THE SECRETARY OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS THAT CONSTITUTES MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 
              COVERAGE.

    (a) In General.--Clause (v) of section 5000A(f)(1)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is amended to read as 
follows:
                            ``(v) a health care program under chapter 
                        17 or 18 of title 38, United States Code, as 
                        determined by the Secretary of Veterans 
                        Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of 
                        Health and Human Services and the Secretary,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORMAN HICKS

No. 7310SC620

(Filed 10 October 1973)

Appeal by defendant from *Hobgood, Judge,*9 April 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury upon one David Hamilton. He entered a plea of not guilty and was convicted by a jury.

The State’s evidence tended to show that on 10 August 1972 the defendant, an inmate in Central Prison, became involved in an argument with a fellow prisoner, David Hamilton. During the course of the argument defendant produced a dagger-like weapon referred to as a “shank” and. stabbed Hamilton several times in the back, lungs, and elsewhere about the body, causing serious injuries.

The defendant presented several witnesses who testified in effect that Hamilton had assaulted him and that he was acting in self-defense.

From judgment imposing a prison sentence of 10 years, defendant appeals.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Emerson D. Wall, for the State.*

*Carl W. Hibbert for defendant appellant.*

*588BALEY, Judge.

After a careful examination of the record, we find no error in the proceedings in the court below. The trial court properly instructed the jury upon the elements of the offense charged in the bill of indictment and any lessor included offenses and upon the. elements of self-defense, upon which the defendant relied. The evidence for both the State and the defendant was fully presented. The verdict of guilty was clearly supported by the State’s evidence, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits.

Defendant has been convicted by a jury in a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated March 25, 2005, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 4, 2005, (70 FR 17124), Johnson Matthey, Inc., Custom Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Methamphetamine (1105), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.                 

The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in bulk for distribution to its customers. 

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Johnson Matthey, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. 

Dated: October 12, 2005. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, 

[FR Doc. 05-20949 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**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 Annual Report of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, as C.F.O., 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) 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: February 23, 2011 |                     |
|                         |                     |
| Signature:                   | /s/ Larry G. Badgley     |   |
|                         | Larry G. Badgley, C.F.O. |   |
|                              |                          |  |  |

 

----
#### BILLY WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7482

January 16, 1975

530 P.2d 761

*Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Gary A. Sheerin,*Deputy Public Defender, of Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, and *Robert A. Groves,*Deputy Attorney General, of Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Billy Williams was convicted of the crime of robbery for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual criminal. Williams appealed to this court on March 7, 1969. We affirmed. A petition for rehearing was subsequently denied and the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. Williams v. Nevada, 396 U.S. 916 (1969).

On July 27, 1971 the United States District Court of Nevada denied Williams’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus and on *17appeal from that denial the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the denial on the grounds that Williams had not exhausted his state remedies under NRS 34.360, our statutory habeas corpus provision. Williams v. Hocker, 463 F.2d 234 (9th Cir.1972). On January 12, 1973 Williams petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to the First Judicial District Court and said petition was denied without a hearing. Williams now seeks reversal of that denial.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in considering Williams’ appeal of denial of his petition for habeas corpus, stated that Williams was entitled to a hearing on his mental competency to stand trial under Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966). The record before the court contained sufficient evidence to raise serious doubt about Williams’ competency to stand trial as indicated by his history of mental illness and the evaluation of a court-appointed psychiatrist. Williams v. Hocker, supra.

We chose to follow the suggestion of the Ninth Circuit Court for otherwise an unnecessary burden is placed on the U.S. District Court of the District of Nevada. Fine v. Warden, 90 Nev. 166, 521 P.2d 374 (1974); Rahn v. Warden, 88 Nev. 429, 498 P.2d 1344 (1972). The order of the trial court is therefore reversed and we order Williams discharged from confinement unless the State within a reasonable time elects to retry him. Should the State so elect, Williams shall be given a special hearing to determine mental competency to stand trial. Pate v. Robinson, supra; Krause v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 459, 463, 421 P.2d 949 (1966).

Reversed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) by OptimumBank
Holdings, Inc. (the Company), I, Richard L. Browdy, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |     |  |                                           
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard L. Browdy                     
|                   |  |     |  | Richard L. Browdy, Chief Financial Officer
#### Young Men’s Christian Association of City of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*City of New York and Others, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

June 10, 1935.

*Allin, Tucker & Allen [George L. Allin*and *Yorke Allen*of counsel], for the plaintiff.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel [Sol Charles Levine*of counsel], for the defendant.

Cohn, J.

I find that the plaintiff is a semi-public institution as defined in Local Law No. 24 (No. 25 in published volume) of the Local Laws of the City of New York for the year 1934 (Cf. N. Y. Local Laws of 1934, No. 25, § 1,1T [h], p. 165), and is a charitable and religious institution supported in part by public subscriptions and endowment and is not organized or operated for profit. By express provision of law (Id. § 2, p. 166) it is, therefore, free from the tax imposed under said law.

Judgment for the plaintiff. Submit findings within five days upon two days’ notice.
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 (No. 333-101297), the Registration Statement on Form S-3 originally filed
      on
      Form S-1 (No. 333-112727), and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.
      333-130139 and 333-123693) of DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc. of our report dated
      March
      14, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
      of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
      10-K .





/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





Florham
      Park, New Jersey


March
      14,
      2006
Exhibit 12.1
 PlanetOut Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(In thousands, except ratios)
 Six monthsYear ended December 31,
    
    
    ended2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    June 30, 2008Net income (loss) from
operations as reported
    
    $
    (423
    )
    
    $
    449
    
    
    $
    2,043
    
    
    $
    (1,248
    )
    
    $
    (41,528
    )
    
    $
    (3,288
    )Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    193
    
    
    
    1,713
    
    
    
    238
    
    
    
    1,216
    
    
    
    2,270
    
    
    
    80Earnings as defined
    
    $
    (230
    )
    
    $
    2,162
    
    
    $
    2,281
    
    
    $
    (32
    )
    
    $
    (39,258
    )
    
    $
    (3,208
    )Fixed charges
    
    $
    193
    
    
    $
    1,713
    
    
    $
    238
    
    
    $
    1,216
    
    
    $
    2,270
    
    
    $
    80Ratio of earnings to
fixed charges (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.3x
    
    
    
    9.6x
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
 
 (1)
    
    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing income
(loss) from operations plus fixed charges by fixed charges. Fixed
charges consist of interest expense, amortization of debt issuance
costs and that portion of rental payments under operating leases that
we believe to be representative of interest. Earnings were
insufficient to cover fixed charges in 2003, 2006, 2007 and the six
months ended June 30, 2008 by amounts equal to the net loss for the
period.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21135]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3214-EM]


Alabama; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Alabama (FEMA-3214-EM), dated August 28, 2005, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Acting Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, 
Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as 
amended, Michael Bolch of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
    This action terminates my appointment of Ron Sherman as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, 
Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department 
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-21135 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
H. R. 5148 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to clarify the instances in which the term 

‘‘census’’ may appear on mailable matter. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR MAIL BEARING THE TERM ‘‘CENSUS’’ 

ON THE ENVELOPE OR OUTSIDE COVER OR WRAPPER. 

(a) MATTER SOLICITING THE PURCHASE OF A PRODUCT OR

SERVICE.—Section 3001(h) of title 39, United States Code, is 

amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘; or on which the term 

‘census’ is visible through the envelope or outside cover or 

wrapper’’ after ‘‘or which bears the term ‘census’ on the envelope 

or outside cover or wrapper’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or matter on which 

the term ‘census’ is visible through the envelope or outside 

cover or wrapper’’ after ‘‘In the case of matter bearing the 

term ‘census’ on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper’’. 

(b) MATTER SOLICITING INFORMATION OR CONTRIBUTION OF

FUNDS.—Section 3001(i) of title 39, United States Code, is 

amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘; or on which the term 

‘census’ is visible through the envelope or outside cover or 

wrapper’’ after ‘‘or which bears the term ‘census’ on the envelope 

or outside cover or wrapper’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or matter on which 

the term ‘census’ is visible through the envelope or outside 

cover or wrapper’’ after ‘‘In the case of matter bearing the 

term ‘census’ on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.