alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                                WRITTEN STATEMENT
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



     The undersigned, James M. McNamee, the Chief Executive Officer, and Fred
Lash, the Chief Financial Officer, of Hooper Holmes, Inc. (the "Company"),
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, each hereby certifies that:

               (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
          ended June 30, 2002 of the Company (the "Report) fully complies with
          the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
          Act of 1934; and

               (ii) 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, 2002


                                       /s/ James M. McNamee
                                       ------------------------------
                                       James M. McNamee
                                       Chairman, President and
                                       Chief Executive Officer


                                       /s/ Fred Lash
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Fred Lash
                                       Senior Vice President, Treasurer and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE PARTS SOURCE, INC. (D/B/A ACE AUTO PARTS) FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         573,351
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,890,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                   139,975
<INVENTORY>                                 13,786,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,959,198
<PP&E>                                       3,603,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                 733,018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,398,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,093,933
<BONDS>                                      7,133,102
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,412
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,001,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,398,644
<SALES>                                      9,667,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,667,979
<CGS>                                        6,149,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,277,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,207
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             135,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,748
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1765 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1765

                 To prohibit post-viability abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 1999

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 To prohibit post-viability abortions.

    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 ``Post-Viability Abortion Restriction 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ABORTIONS.

    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful, in or affecting interstate 
or foreign commerce, knowingly to perform an abortion after the fetus 
has become viable.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if, in the medical 
judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to 
preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health 
consequences to the woman.
    (c) Penalty.--
            (1) Action by the attorney general.--The Attorney General, 
        the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or 
        any Assistant Attorney General or United States Attorney 
        specifically designated by the Attorney General may commence a 
        civil action under this section in any appropriate United 
        States district court to enforce the provisions of this 
        section.
            ``(2) First offense.--Upon a finding by the court that the 
        respondent in an action commenced under paragraph (1) has 
        knowingly violated a provision of this section, the court shall 
        assess a civil penalty against the respondent in an amount not 
        to exceed $10,000.
            ``(3) Second offense--Upon a finding by the court that the 
        respondent in an action commenced under paragraph (1) has 
        knowingly violated a provision of this section and the 
        respondent has been found to have knowingly violated a 
        provision of this section on a prior occasion, the court shall 
        notify the appropriate State medical licensing authority in 
        order to effect the revocation of the respondent's medical 
        license in accordance with the regulations and procedures 
        developed by the State.
            ``(4) Hearing.--With respect to an action under paragraph 
        (1), the appropriate State medical licensing authority shall be 
        given notification of and an opportunity to be heard at a 
        hearing to determine the penalty to be imposed under this 
        subsection.
                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report of Old Point Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and belief:
 
 (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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.
  /s/Robert F. Shuford, Sr.
 Robert F. Shuford, Sr.
 Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
 
 May 13, 2011
  /s/Laurie D. Grabow
 Laurie D. Grabow
 Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President/Finance
 
 May 13, 2011
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-231-CR

STEVEN RAY CHILCUTT A/K/A 

STEVEN RAY CHUILCUTT	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Steven Ray Chilcutt a/k/a Steven Ray Chiulcutt appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a child.  In a single point he complains that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction because it does not prove penetration of the victim’s female sexual organ.  We affirm.

I.  FACTS

	D.H., the daughter of appellant’s girlfriend, testified that appellant stuck his finger in her vagina; that his finger went between her outer folds; that penetration into her vagina started when she was approximately fifteen; and that he put his finger inside her female sexual organ.  Also, appellant signed a confession, admitting in part as follows:

	Then we were discussing about masturbation again.  She still  didn’t understand. . . .  I asked her permission if I could show a demonstration by pointing at vagina and showed her what to do.  She didn’t understand about the concept. . . .  Then with her permission again demonstrated the process with finger for a couple of minutes. . . .  When this happened I was in chair.

	Further, Nurse Donna Duclow, a coordinator of the sexual assault examiner program at John Peter Smith Hospital, received an outcry from D.H. in March of 2002.  She testified that D.H. said there were five such assaults and identified appellant as the perpetrator.  In contrast to the foregoing evidence, D.H. testified that his actions were “swiping and touching.”

	A.  Standard of Review

	Evidence is legally sufficient if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

II.  CONCLUSION

	Applying the appropriate standard of review to this evidence, we hold it is legally sufficient to establish penetration.  Thus, we overrule appellant’s point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

								BOB MCCOY

								JUSTICE

PANEL A:	CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 5, 2004
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1937

To amend the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation

Act to provide for sales of electricity by the Bonneville Power Administration to joint operating entities.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 17, 1999

Mr. CRAIG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning

and Conservation Act to provide for sales of electricity

by the Bonneville Power Administration to joint operating entities.

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

3 SECTION 1. Section 5(b) of the Pacific Northwest

4 Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.

5 839c(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(7) REQUIRED SALE.—

7 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF A JOINT OPERATING

8 ENTITY.—In this section, the term ‘joint oper-
2

S 1937 IS

1 ating entity’ means an entity that is lawfully or2 ganized under State law as a public body or co3 operative prior to the date of enactment of this

4 paragraph, and is formed by and whose mem5 bers or participants are two or more public bod6 ies or cooperatives, each of which was a cus7 tomer of the Bonneville Power Administration

8 on or before January 1, 1999.

9 ‘‘(B) SALE.—Pursuant to paragraph (1),

10 the Administrator shall sell, at wholesale to a

11 joint operating entity, electric power solely for

12 the purpose of meeting the regional firm power

13 consumer loads of regional public bodies and

14 cooperatives that are members of or partici15 pants in the joint operating entity.

16 ‘‘(C) NO RESALE.—A public body or coop17 erative to which a joint operating entity sells

18 electric power under subparagraph (B) shall not

19 resell that power except to retail customers of

20 the public body or cooperative or to another re21 gional member or participant of the same joint

22 operating entity, or except as otherwise per23 mitted by law.’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8053

HUBERT L. JAMES, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00132-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: July 6, 2009 Decided: July 31, 2009

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hubert L. James, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Hubert L. James seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny James’ motion for transcripts at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

23 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 199 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                Private Calendar No. 20
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 199

                          [Report No. 106-957]

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 1999

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                            October 11, 2000

       Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  For the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, 
                          Vladimir Malofienko.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Alexandre 
Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, shall be 
held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States 
for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act 
upon payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

  Upon the granting of permanent residence to Alexandre Malofienko, 
Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, as provided in section 
1, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce 
by the appropriate number during the current fiscal year the total 
number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the 
aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

            Passed the Senate August 5, 1999.

                                                Private Calendar No. 20

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 199

                          [Report No. 106-957]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  For the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, 
                          Vladimir Malofienko.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 11, 2000

       Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 25284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1906-DR]
Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002


Mississippi; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1906-DR), dated April 29, 2010, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of April 29, 2010.

Oktibbeha County for Individual Assistance.

(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; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-10790 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 26747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11239]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER10-1177-000]


Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

May 5, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is May 25, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5838097868aaba9acaba096b0b5b5aab7b185a3a0b7a6eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51171403121e3f3d383f34022421213e232511373423327f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11239 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00079

- CR

SANTIAGO SORIANO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 1222923

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### ORDER

Wade A. Forsman , counsel for the appellant, Santiago Soriano , has filed a motion to extend time to file the appellant’s brief. The brief was due July 24 , 201 3

. In h is motion, counsel does not provide the Court with a reasonable explanation of the need for an extension of time. This Court interprets Rule 10.5(b)( 2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure as requiring counsel to provide the Court with specific information to justify the requested extension, including the cause numbers of other briefs filed, the dates they were filed, the dates of trials, how long those trials are expected to last, etc. Broad, general statements do not provide the required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the

R ule. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b)(2).

All future motions to extend time must contain case

- specific information adequate to justify the request, or they will be denied. In this instance, we grant the motion for an extension, for a period of thirty days, making appellant’s brief now due August 23 , 2013. Further requests for extensions will not be looked upon with favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: July 30, 2013