alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37650

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER A. HARRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 725

Filed: December 2, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of three years, and consecutive unified term of ten years for two 

counts of possession of sexually exploitative material, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Christopher A. Harry pled guilty to two counts of possession of sexually exploitative 

material. I.C. § 18-1507. The district court sentenced Harry to a unified term of ten years, with 

a minimum period of confinement of three years, for the first count and a consecutive unified 

indeterminate term of ten years for the second count. Harry appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Harry’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as principal financial officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, 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 Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ David G. MaffucciDavid G. MaffucciExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


August 13, 2010
<SEQUENCE>13

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a


                            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 Quarterly Report of Regent Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David A. Nelson, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting 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/ DAVID A. NELSON
                                        -------------------
Date: September 13, 2005
                                        David A. Nelson,
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                        Accounting Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 208 (Friday, October 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 62144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21566]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act 
of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permit modification issued under the Antarctic Conservation 
Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 19, 2005, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a Waste 
Management permit modification request received. A modification to a 
Waste Management permit was issued on October 24, 2005, to the 
following applicant: Rennie S. Holt--Permit No. 2002 WM-002 Mod. 1.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21566 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
<Page>




                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 333-45303 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account One on Form N-4.


Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 528 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain shipping 

from the harbor maintenance tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. MCHUGH 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 

certain shipping from the harbor maintenance tax. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Short Sea Shipping 

5 Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND BULK 

7 CARGO FROM THE HARBOR MAINTENANCE 

8 TAX. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4462 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 528 IH

1 (i) as subsection (j) and by inserting after subsection (h) 

2 the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(i) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SHORT SEA SHIP4 PING CARGO.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No tax shall be imposed 

6 under section 4461(a) with respect to commercial 

7 cargo (other than bulk cargo) that is loaded at— 

8 ‘‘(A) a port in the United States mainland 

9 and unloaded at another port in the United 

10 States mainland after transport solely by coast11 al route or river or unloaded at a port in Can12 ada located in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence 

13 Seaway System, or 

14 ‘‘(B) a port in Canada located in the Great 

15 Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System and un16 loaded at a port in the United States mainland. 

17 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

18 ‘‘(A) BULK CARGO.—The term ‘bulk cargo’ 

19 has the meaning given that term by section 

20 53101(1) of title 46, United States Code. 

21 ‘‘(B) GREAT LAKES ST. LAWRENCE SEA22 WAY SYSTEM.—The term ‘Great Lakes St. 

23 Lawrence Seaway System’ means the waterway 

24 between Duluth, Minnesota, and Nova Scotia, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 528 IH

1 encompassing the 5 Great Lakes, their con2 necting channels, and the St. Lawrence River. 

3 ‘‘(C) UNITED STATES MAINLAND.—The 

4 term ‘United States mainland’ has the meaning 

5 given such term in subsection (b)(3).’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to port use after the date of enact8 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of AFP Imaging Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David Vozick, Co-Chief Executive 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:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) 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/
      David
      Vozick








David
      Vozick,


Chairman
      of the Board


Co-Principal
      Executive Officer


September
      15, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 511 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.511

                      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 authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to terminate certain easements 
   held by the Secretary on land owned by the Village of Caseyville, 
Illinois, and to terminate associated contractual arrangements with the 
                                Village.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF NRCS EASEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED CONTRACTUAL 
ARRANGEMENTS, VILLAGE OF CASEYVILLE, ILLINOIS.
    (a) Termination Authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
terminate any easement held by the Secretary on land owned by the 
Village of Caseyville, Illinois, and terminate associated contractual 
arrangements with the Village.
    (b) Consideration.--As consideration for the termination of an 
easement and associated contractual arrangements under subsection (a), 
the Village of Caseyville, Illinois, shall enter into such compensatory 
arrangements with the Secretary as determined to be appropriate by the 
Secretary.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
STATE v. Christopher MOSBY

518P98-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Christopher Mosby, for Mosby, Christopher

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of October 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
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 Quarterly Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard L. Browdy, Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by 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.   To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
          by the report.





Date:  May 10, 2006               By: /s/ Richard L. Browdy
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Richard L. Browdy, Chief Financial Officer
#### In re Romance M.

The petition of the petitioner Rose Alma Senatore, commissioner of the department of children and youth services, for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 839 (AC 10511), is granted, limited to the following issue:

> “Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court improperly conclude that the amendment *917to the petition related back to the date of the filing of the petition, for purposes of determining whether General Statutes § 17a-112 (b) applied?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14804.

*Dennis Antonacci,*assistant attorney general, in support of the petition.

Decided July 8, 1993
**EXHIBIT32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of EntercomCommunications Corp. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

 

(i)            the accompanyingAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31,2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii)           the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: March 15, 2010

 
| By:    | /s/ David J. Field                     |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | David J. Field                         |   |
| Title: | President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|   | (principal executive officer)          |   |

 

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to EntercomCommunications Corp. and will be retained by Entercom Communications Corp. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

1

----
#### LORENA CLARK PINER, Administratrix of the estate of PATRICK DEAN PINER, Deceased Plaintiff v. RYDER TRUCK RENTALS, INC., and SAV-A-STOP, INCORPORATED, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. ROBERT E. PRINCE, and AUSBY E. PRINCE, Third-Party Defendants

No. 7112SC112

(Filed 31 March 1971)

Venue § 8— motion to remove for convenience of witnesses — discretion of court

A motion for change of venue for the convenience of the witnesses and to promote the ends of justice is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his action thereon is not reviewable on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown.

Appeal by original defendants, Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., and Sav-A-Stop, Inc., from *Cooper, J.,*26 October 1970 Civil Session of Cumberland Superior Court.

*Clark, Clark & Shaw by Jerome B. Clark for plaintiff ap-pellee.*

*Marshall, Williams, Gorham & Brawley by Lonnie B. Williams for defendant appellants.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

This is a civil action instituted by the plaintiff administra-trix, Lorena Clark Piner, to recover compensation for the alleged wrongful death of Patrick Dean Piner which occurred as a result of an automobile accident in New Hanover County on 1 May 1969. The plaintiff, a resident of Cumberland County, and in which county the estate is being administered, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Cumberland County, alleging that the negligence of the defendants, Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., and Sav-A-Stop, Inc., proximately caused the death of her intestate. The defendants filed answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, and simultaneously filed a third-party complaint for contribution against Ausby E. Prince and Robert, E. Prince, owner and operator, respectively, of an automobile in which the deceased was a passenger, alleging that their negligence was a concurring proximate cause of Patrick Dean Piner’s death. At the same time, the original defendants filed a motion to remove the cause to New Hanover County “ ... on the grounds of convenience of witnesses and in the interest of *743justice.” On 26 October 1970, the trial judge held a hearing on the motion, at which time the original defendants presented affidavits in support of their motion. On 3 November 1970, the trial judge, by an order which states in pertinent part “ . . . the court, in its discretion, having concluded that the ends of justice will not be promoted by a removal of the cause from the venue in which it was commenced. . . ”, denied the motion. The original defendants appealed.

A motion for change of venue for the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his action thereon is not reviewable on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. *Cooperative Exchange v. Trull,*255 N.C. 202, 120 S.E. 2d 438 (1961); *Brendle v. Stafford,*246 N.C. 218, 97 S.E. 2d 843 (1957) ; *Howard v. Coach Co.,*212 N.C. 201, 193 S.E. 2d 138 (1937).

The appellants have failed to show any abuse of discretion in the judge’s denial of their motion. The order of the trial judge is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-93655) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan; Fourth
Amended and Restated Employees Stock Option Plan of The Ackerley Group, Inc. of
our report dated February 1, 2000 (except for Note 3, as to which the date is
February 22, 2000) with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The
Ackerley Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1999.


                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 23, 2000
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JESSIE DANIEL SMITH

No. 7314SC547

(Filed 10 October 1973)

Criminal Law §§ 113, 119— evidence of alibi — specific instruction required

Though the court in its charge to the jury called attention to defendant’s evidence that he was engaged in the duties of his employment on the date the State’s witness testified the offense was committed, the court failed to instruct the jury as to the legal principles applicable in their consideration of the alibi evidence, and defendant was entitled to such an instruction notwithstanding his failure to request it.

Appeal by defendant from *Webb, Judge,*5 March 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.

Defendant was indicted for the felonious distribution of heroin. He pled not guilty. The State introduced evidence that at 1:15 p.m. on 11 April 1972 defendant sold and delivered four tinfoil packets containing heroin to an undercover agent, who at the time was seated in his parked car on North Hyde Park about 15 feet from Elmo Street in Durham, N. C. Defendant denied he had ever sold any heroin or had seen the undercover agent at .any time in April. He testified that on 11 April 1972 he was at his job as a truck driver .for Boyce Supply Company, that on that day he drove a truck to make deliveries to Chapel Hill and to a street near Hope Valley at a point on the other side of town from North Hyde Park and Elmo Streets, and that during such time as he was not driving he was .at the yard of his employer. The jury found defendant guilty of felonious distribution of heroin. From judgment imposing a prison sentence, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney General Howard A. Kramer for the State.*

*Paul, Keenan & Rowan by James V.' Rowan for defendant appellant.*

PARKER, Judge.

The trial judge in charging the jury correctly called attention to the defendant’s evidence that on the date the State’s witness testified the offense was committed, the defendant had been engaged in the duties of his employment at places some distance away from the place where the State’s evidence indi*579cated the unlawful sale of heroin had been made. However, no specific instruction was given the jury as to the legal principles applicable in their consideration of this alibi evidence. Since defendant’s trial commenced prior to the date of filing the opinion in *State v. Hunt,*283 N.C. 617, 197 S.E. 2d 513, he was entitled to such instruction notwithstanding his failure to request it. On account of the court’s failure to so charge, defendant is awarded a

New trial.

Judges Campbell and Vaughn concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

THOMAS HENDERSON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 243 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.4


CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David Lyle, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc.; and


2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.








April 28, 2017/S/    DAVID LYLEDavid LyleSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)