alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appellant was convicted of robbery in 1990, and he appealed it to this court. We dismissed the 1

conviction in January of 1991 and issued mandate in March of 1991.

NO. 07-90-0230-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 29, 2008

______________________________

TIMOTHY WAYNE CARTER, JR., 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 320 DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; TH

NO. 28,148-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL AND PIRTLE, JJ.

Pending before us are two motions filed by appellant. The first is entitled “Motion

for Nunc Pro Tunc to correct clerical mistakes of fundamental error.” The other bears the

label “Motion to obtain documents and trial records in forma pauperis.” For the following 1

reasons, we deny both.
2

Regarding the nunc pro tunc matter, he requests that we direct the trial court and

district clerk to include additional documents in the appellate record. These documents

were purportedly omitted from that record. However, we find the request moot for the

conviction involved arose in 1990. It was dismissed by this court in January of 1991, and

we issued mandate in March of 1991. The appeal having ended years ago, supplementing

the appellate record could not affect the outcome. 

Regarding the motion to obtain his trial records for free, appellant seeks the records

to prepare a petition for habeas relief to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Attempting to

prosecute such a writ evinces that he exhausted his direct appeals. See Ex parte Brown,

662 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (stating that one must first exhaust his direct

appeals before invoking art. 11.07). And since his direct appeals have been exhausted,

he is not entitled to a free record. In re McCarty, No. 08-05-0355-CR, 2005 Tex. App.

LEXIS 10197 (Tex. App.–El Paso December 8, 2005, orig. proceeding); In re Trevino, 79

S.W.3d 794, 795-96 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding). Thus, the relief

Carter ultimately seeks from the trial court is not permitted by law, without a showing of

exceptional circumstances, In re Trevino, supra, and we have been cited to no such

circumstances. 

Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment and for a free

copy of the record.

Brian Quinn

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
**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**

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of SoftNet Technology Corporation (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:			A. the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and			B. the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.			Dated:   March 17, 2006/s/ James Farinella                        James Farinella			Chairman, Chief Executive Officer			and President

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Emanuel N. Hilario, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with the
Report on Form 10-Q of McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2008 (the Report), hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 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 McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ EMANUEL N. HILARIO 
|Emanuel N. Hilario     
|Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 6, 2008
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

August 5, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4953

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JEFFERY AUSTIN MCNEFF,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00369)

Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Parrott, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc.,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. C. Nicks Williams,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jeffery Austin McNeff pled guilty to one count of

possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime

punishable by more than one year of imprisonment in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). The district court determined that McNeff

qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal and sentenced

him to the statutory minimum 180 months of imprisonment. On

appeal, counsel filed an Anders*

 brief, in which she states that

there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that the

district court erred in sentencing McNeff as an armed career

criminal. McNeff has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he

repeats counsel’s assertion and raises other claims related to his

conviction and sentence. We affirm.

In considering whether the district court properly

designated McNeff as an armed career criminal, this court reviews

the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual

findings for clear error. United States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446,

451 (4th Cir. 2003). Our review of the record leads us to conclude

that no error occurred in applying the armed career criminal

statute in this case. United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284

(4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
- 3 -

appeal. We have considered the arguments asserted in McNeff’s pro

se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. We

therefore affirm McNeff’s conviction and sentence. This court

requires that counsel inform McNeff, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If McNeff requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on McNeff. 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
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with
the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, I, Kevin S. Royal, Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)
such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at the dates indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|              |  |  |  |                                                                                                     
|------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|              |  | 
|March 5, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/    KEVIN S.
ROYAL                                                                               
|              |  |  |  | Kevin S. Royal                                                                                      
|              |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Maxwell
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5616 

To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications and 

Records Commission through fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2010 

Mr. CLAY (for himself and Mr. LARSON of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission through fiscal year 

2015, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘National Historical 

5 Publications and Records Commission Act of 2010’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5616 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS THROUGH 

2 FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR NATIONAL HISTOR3 ICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMIS4 SION. 

5 Section 2504(g)(1) of title 44, United States Code, 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (R), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (S), by striking the period 

9 at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(T) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

13 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.’’. 

14 SEC. 3. GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE AND 

15 LOCAL DATABASES FOR RECORDS OF SER16 VITUDE, EMANCIPATION, AND POST-CIVIL 

17 WAR RECONSTRUCTION. 

18 Section 8 of the Presidential Historical Records Pres19 ervation Act of 2008 (44 U.S.C. 2504 note) is amended 

20 to read as follows: 

21 ‘‘SEC. 8. GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE AND 

22 LOCAL DATABASES FOR RECORDS OF SER23 VITUDE, EMANCIPATION, AND POST-CIVIL 

24 WAR RECONSTRUCTION. 

25 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Archivist of the United 

26 States, after considering the advice and recommendations 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5616 IH

1 of the National Historical Publications and Records Com2 mission, may make grants to States, colleges and univer3 sities, museums, libraries, and genealogical associations to 

4 preserve records and establish electronically searchable 

5 databases consisting of local records of servitude, emanci6 pation, and post-Civil War reconstruction. 

7 ‘‘(b) MAINTENANCE.—Any database established 

8 using a grant under this section shall be maintained by 

9 appropriate agencies or institutions designated by the Ar10 chivist of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Document

Exhibit 10.9

NINTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
INTERFACE, INC. NONQUALIFIED SAVINGS PLAN II
(as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009)


    THIS AMENDMENT to the Interface, Inc. Nonqualified Savings Plan II (the “Plan”) is made by the Administrative Committee of the Plan (the “Administrative Committee”). 


WITNESSETH:


    WHEREAS, Interface, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Plan for the benefit of its eligible key management and highly compensated employees; and


    WHEREAS, Section 9.1 of the Plan provides that the Administrative Committee has the right to amend the Plan at any time; and


    WHEREAS, the Administrative Committee has approved an amendment to the Plan to specify the forum for any lawsuit filed with respect to benefits, operations, investments or other Plan matters;


    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the date set forth below the signature to this Amendment below:
1.    Section 10.8 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:
10.8    Controlling Law; Forum.


Controlling Law; Forum.  The provisions of the Plan shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, ERISA or, to the extent ERISA does not apply or does not preempt applicable state law, the laws of the State of Georgia, with the exception of Georgia’s conflict of laws provision.  Any legal action brought under the Plan must be brought in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.  By participating in the Plan, all Participants and their beneficiaries waive venue and jurisdiction in all other courts.
2.Except as specified herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Administrative Committee has caused its duly authorized member to execute this Amendment on the date written below.




						
		ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
		 
		/s/ J. Gregory Minano, Chair

		 
		December 31, 2020
#### ROLAND MARSHALL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7946

August 26, 1975

539 P.2d 116

*Bell & Leavitt, Chartered,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*518OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Roland Marshall stands convicted of first degree murder and is serving a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. He requests this court to void his conviction for several reasons, none possessing merit. Since he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence establishing his guilt it is not necessary to state the probative facts of the crime, and we turn briefly to consider assigned errors of law.

1. While in custody, Marshall stated to a police officer that he had not committed robbery or murder, did not know the location of the crime scene, and had never been there. This exculpatory statement was made after the officer had warned him of his 5th and 6th Amendment rights. It now is claimed that the warnings were inadequate in the light of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The warnings were read to Marshall from a “rights card” which covered the rights expressed in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, and Marshall acknowledged that he understood what was read to him and then signed the card. We find nothing to suggest that his waiver of rights was other than voluntary and knowledgeable. This claimed error is patently without merit. United States v. Springer, 460 F.2d 1344 (7th Cir. 1972).

Neither was the court obliged to instruct the jury regarding the voluntariness of the statement made by Marshall. The cases of Carlson v. State, 84 Nev. 534, 445 P.2d 157 (1968); Grimaldi v. State, 90 Nev. 83, 518 P.2d 615 (1974); and Rhodes v. State, 91 Nev. 17, 530 P.2d 1199 (1975); are inapposite and the appellant’s reliance thereon misplaced, since the statement was exculpatory in nature.

2. A gun taken by Marshall during a prior robbery of the same store where the homicide occurred was shown to be the same weapon used in the homicide. Consequently, a witness was allowed to testify concerning the collateral offense in order to identify Marshall with the murder weapon. This ruling is *519challenged. The trial judge, in weighing the probative value of such testimony against its prejudicial effect, permissibly could rule in favor of admissibility since there was scanty evidence otherwise to connect Marshall with the murder weapon. State v. Hudgens, 423 P.2d 90 (Ariz. 1967).

Other assigned errors have been considered and are merit-less.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         NAME -- STATE OF INCORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                          COMPANY                             INCORPORATION
                          -------                             -------------
<S>                                                           <C>
Always In Style, LLC........................................  Delaware
American Down and Textile Company...........................  Wisconsin
Brawn of California, Inc....................................  California
Desius, LLC.................................................  Delaware
Domestications Kitchen & Garden, LLC........................  Delaware
Domestications, LLC.........................................  Delaware
Encore Catalog, LLC.........................................  Delaware
erizon, Inc.................................................  Delaware
Gump's By Mail, Inc.........................................  Delaware
Gump's Corp.................................................  Delaware
Hanover Brands, Inc. .......................................  Delaware
Hanover Company Store, LLC..................................  Delaware
Hanover Direct Pennsylvania, Inc. ..........................  Pennsylvania
Hanover Direct Virginia, Inc. ..............................  Delaware
Hanover Home Fashions Group, LLC............................  Delaware
Hanover Realty, Inc. .......................................  Delaware
Keystone Internet Services, Inc. ...........................  Delaware
Kitchen & Home, LLC.........................................  Delaware
LWI Holdings, Inc. .........................................  Delaware
Scandia Down Corporation....................................  Delaware
Scandia Down, LLC (d/b/a Turiya)............................  Delaware
Silhouettes, LLC............................................  Delaware
   - doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as
     "Silhouettes Catalog LLC"
The Company Office, Inc. ...................................  Delaware
The Company Store Factory, Inc. ............................  Delaware
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.3

       Written Statement of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying  with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I,
the  undersigned  Chairman and Chief  Executive  Officer of Interstate
Power and Light Company (the "Company"),  hereby certify,  based on my
knowledge,  that the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of
1934 and that information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
operations of the Company.


/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
------------------------
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
May 15, 2003

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.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5133 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 331 1st Street in Carlstadt, New Jersey, as 

the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and Lance Corporal 

Michael A. Schwarz Post Office Building’’. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5133 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT FRANK T. CARVILL AND 

2 LANCE CORPORAL MICHAEL A. SCHWARZ 

3 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 331 1st Street in Carlstadt, New 

6 Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff Ser7 geant Frank T. Carvill and Lance Corporal Michael A. 

8 Schwarz Post Office Building’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

12 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Frank 

13 T. Carvill and Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz Post 

14 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS