alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. WINFORD AYSCUE.

(Filed 28 April, 1954.)

1. Criminal Law § 78c: Appeal and Error § 6c (1)'—

Challenges to the admissibility of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury may not be raised initially in the Supreme Court, but must be presented by exceptions and assignments of error duly made in the lower court.

2. Criminal Law § 78c: Appeal and Error § 6c (2)—

An appeal itself is an exception to the judgment, but where the judgment is regular in form and is supported by the verdict, a sole challenge by appeal must fail.

Appeal by defendant from *Harris, J.,*and a jury, at October Term, 1953, of Eeakklin.

Criminal prosecution tried upon two bills of indictment, consolidated for trial, charging tbe defendant with forging and uttering certain checks in violation of G.S. 14-119 and 14-120.

*197From a verdict of guilty and judgment imposing penal servitude of eighteen months, the defendant appeals.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

*John F. Matthews for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant, being without counsel in the trial below, seeks to challenge in this Court for the first time (1) the admissibility of portions of the evidence adduced against him, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury. However, the record discloses no objection to any of the evidence nor motion for judgment as of nonsuit. In fact, nowhere in the record is there an objection or exception to any ruling of the trial court. The objections, first made in this Court, come too late. Decision here is controlled by what is said in *S. v. Howell,*239 N.C. 78, 79 S.E. 2d 235, and *S. v. Gaston,*236 N.C. 499, 73 S.E. 2d 311.

True, the appeal itself is an exception to the judgment, *S. v. Sloan,*238 N.C. 672, 78 S.E. 2d 738, but the judgment appears to be regular in form and is supported by the verdict. It would seem the defendant has applied to the wrong forum.

No error.
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 Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Hayward, Principal 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.




                                    /s/  JAMES A. HAYWARD
                                    James A. Hayward
                                    Principal Financial Officer
                                    May 23, 2006
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 1 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 2 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 3 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 4 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 5 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 6 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 7 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 8 of9

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2350    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 14:26:45    Page 9 of9
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12861]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-25-000]


Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Baseline Filing

May 21, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 17, 2010, Consumers Energy Company 
(Consumers) submitted a baseline filing of its Statement of Operating 
Conditions for the interruptible transportation services provided under 
section 311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (``NGPA'').
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is 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#e3a5a6b1a0ac8d8f8a8d86b09693938c9197a385869180cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="53151601101c3d3f3a3d36002623233c212713353621307d343c25">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 28, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12861 Filed 5-27-10; 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>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MIGUEL BONILLA-RIVERA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-2946

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 30, 2020. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Gilbert Smith, Jr., Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and William Stone, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

MORRIS, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., 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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Civilian Personnel Management Service (Wage and Salary Division), DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, DoD announces the Department of Defense Wage Committee will meet in closed session on June 1, 2010, in Rosslyn, Virginia.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on June 1, 2010, at 10 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at 1400 Key Boulevard, Level A, Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209-5144.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Craig Jerabek, Designated Federal Officer for the Department of Defense Wage Committee, 1400 Key Boulevard, Suite A105, Arlington, Virginia 22209-5144, Telephone: (703) 696-1735, Fax: (703) 696-5472, E-mail:                         *craig.jerabek@cpms.osd.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Under the provisions of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Public Law 92-463, it is hereby determined that every Wage Committee meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and that, accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.

## Purpose of Meeting

The Committee will receive, review, and consider wage survey specifications, wage survey data, local wage survey committee reports and recommendations, and wage schedules derived there from.

## Request for Waiver

                    Due to unforeseen difficulties, the Designated Federal Officer was unable to process the                     **Federal Register**                     notice for the June 1, 2010, meeting of the Department of Defense Wage Committee, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.                

      ( print page 29323)    
Dated: May 20, 2010.

Mitchell S. Bryman,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2010-12522 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2390-4    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 10:39:42    Page 1of 2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2390-4    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 10:39:42    Page 2of 2
Exhibit 21
 NAME
    
    JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATIONSS&C Technologies New Jersey, Inc.
    
    New JerseyFinancial Models Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareFinancial Models Company Ltd.
    
    New YorkSS&C Fund Administration Services LLC
    
    New YorkOMR Systems International, Ltd.
    
    New JerseyFinancial Interactive, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaOpen Information Systems, Inc.
    
    ConnecticutCogent Management Inc.
    
    New York3105198 Nova Scotia Company
    
    Nova ScotiaSS&C Technologies Canada Corp.
    
    Nova ScotiaFinancial Models Corporation Limited
    
    United KingdomFinancial Models Corporation B.V.
    
    NetherlandsFMC Global Investments Limited
    
    BarbadosSS&C Technologies Australia Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaSS&C Technologies Limited
    
    United KingdomSS&C Technologies Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaSS&C Technologies, KK
    
    JapanSS&C Technologies B.V.
    
    NetherlandsSS&C Technologies (s) Pte Ltd
    
    SingaporeSS&C Fund Services N.V.
    
    Netherlands AntillesSS&C Fund Services (B.V.I.) Limited
    
    British Virgin IslandsHC Investments Ltd.
    
    British Virgin IslandsSS&C (Bahamas) Ltd.
    
    BahamasSS&C Technologies Ireland Ltd.
    
    Ireland
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2022

- 2774

_____________________________
D USTIN S COTT B UNDY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Terrance R. Ketchel , Judge

. April 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , N ORDBY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Dustin Scott Bundy, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<PAGE>   1
                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-20989) of
our report dated February 14, 1997, incorporated by reference in Bolder
Technologies Corporation's Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1996,
and to all references to our Firm included in such registration.




                                             /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Denver, Colorado,
 March 27, 1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         6,041,357
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        2,039,956
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          2,045,982
<EQUITIES>                                      45,840
<MORTGAGE>                                   1,424,901
<REAL-ESTATE>                               12,483,711
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 108,564
<CASH>                                         204,851
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             286,762
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      19,570,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             11,293,350
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          428,770
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 89,319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    121,800
<COMMON>                                         7,032
<OTHER-SE>                                     905,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,570,474
<PREMIUMS>                                     261,577
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            218,016
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (4,943)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     298,832
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      7,794
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           416,020
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,987
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,849
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,849
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-7847

DAVID ELLIS, a/k/a Tree,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CR-91-14, CA-96-725-5-F)

Submitted: July 2, 1998

Decided: July 20, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed in part and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Ellis appeals the district court's order to the extent it denied

his claims that counsel was ineffective for not requesting a downward

departure for his allegedly minor role in the conspiracy and for not

objecting to his criminal history calculation. To the extent that the district court denied Appellant's § 2255 motion as to his claim that counsel was ineffective for not requesting a downward departure for his

allegedly minor role in the conspiracy, we have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. United

States v. Ellis, Nos. CR-91-14; CA-96-725-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 20,

1996). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability on this

issue and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court.

Next, Ellis claims that the district court erred in not addressing his

claim that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to his criminal

history calculation. We find that the district court did not make a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel on this issue. Accordingly, we

grant a certificate of appealability and remand the case for a finding

on this issue and for further proceedings as required. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART

 2
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2291

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Gary Franklin Albin, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 3, 2008

Filed: November 6, 2008 

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary Franklin Albin appeals the district court’s1

 judgment entered upon a jury

verdict finding him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

At trial, Wadena County Assistant Deputy Sheriff David Shaw testified that,

while Shaw was attempting to arrest Albin on an outstanding warrant, Albin pointed

a gun at him and refused to drop it. Shaw then shot Albin, hitting him in the leg, and
-2-

retreated to wait for backup help; he later retrieved a Ruger .22 revolver from

underneath the front of Albin’s nearby vehicle. The parties stipulated that the gun had

traveled in interstate commerce and that Albin was a convicted felon. The jury found

him guilty, and the court sentenced him to 220 months in prison and 5 years of

supervised release.

A defendant generally waives his right to challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence, other than for plain error, where, as here, he fails to move for a judgment

of acquittal at the close of the prosecution’s case and at the close of all evidence, see

United States v. Jordan, No. 07-5696, 2008 WL 4568135, at *13 (6th Cir. Oct. 15,

2008); United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831, 853 (8th Cir. 1998), but the

government does not raise the issue of waiver, see United States v. Buchmeier, 255

F.3d 415, 419 (7th Cir. 2001) (although defendant failed to move for judgment of

acquittal and thereby waived challenge to sufficiency of evidence, government chose

to argue evidence was sufficient and thereby “waived [defendant’s] waiver”); cf.

Greenlaw v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2559, 2564 (2008) (courts rely on parties to

frame issues for discussion).

Regardless whether we review for plain error, or apply the standard used in

cases where the challenge was preserved, United States v. Shepherd, 284 F.3d 965,

969 (8th Cir. 2002) (evidence is viewed in light most favorable to verdict, and is

sufficient if any rational trier of fact could have found essential elements of crime

beyond reasonable doubt), the evidence amply supports Albin’s felon-in-possession

conviction, see United States v. Echols, 144 F.3d 584, 585 (8th Cir. 1998)

(government has burden of proving defendant was convicted of felony and thereafter

possessed firearm, and firearm traveled in or affected interstate commerce; credibility

of officers’ testimony was matter to be resolved by jury). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________