alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth *v.*Pilnik, Appellant

(No. 1).

*Appeals*— Criminal *law*— Separate *judgments.*

If one appeal is taken from two judgments of conviction on two indictments charging separate and distinct offenses, and no election is made to have the appeal confined to one of the cases, the appeal will be quashed.

*Appeals*— Paper-books—Omission *of docket entries.*

Omission to print docket entries in the paper-book of the appellant, is a serious disregard of the rule of court.

Argued Oct. 3, 1905.

Appeal, No. 159, Oct. T., 1905, by Barnet Pilnik, from judgment of Q. S. Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 162 and Jan. T., 1905, No. 532, on plea of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Barnet Pilnik.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Indictment for keeping a disorderly house.

*Error assigned*was in sentencing the defendant to the penitentiary.

*Wm. E. Berhowitz,*with him *Ellis 8. Abrams,*for appellants.

*Joseph H. Taulane,*assistant' district attorney, with him *John O. Bell,*district attorney, for appellee.

October 23, 1905:

Per Curiam,

On February 9, 1905, the defendant withdrew his pleas of not guilty to two indictments, one found at December Term, 1902, No. 162, and the other found at February Term 1905, No. 134, and pleaded guilty. On the following day the court sentenced the defendant upon both indictments to terms of imprisonment in the eastern penitentiary, the term of imprisonment in the second case to begin after the expiration of the term of the sentence in the first case. The indictments charged-separate and distinct offenses, and the judgments, although rendered at the same time, are likewise separate and distinct. *286The commonwealth’s counsel contend that for this reason, as well as for the reason that copies of the docket entries are not printed in the appellant’s paper-book, the appeal should be quashed. The second objection is meritorious, and we are not to be understood as holding that the rule with regard to printing the docket entries can be safely disregarded. It was especially important in this case that they should be set forth. However, the commonwealth’s counsel have to some extent supplied the omission in their paper-book, and therefore we shall consider only the first reason assigned for quashing the appeal, viz.: that it is an attempt to bring up for review by one appeal, two separate and distinct judgments.

It is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as of our own court, that the motion to quash for this reason must prevail, in the absence of an election to have the appeal confined to one of the cases, and dismissed as to the other : Hollohan v. McLean, 1 W. N. C. 262 ; Cauley v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., 95 Pa. 398; McCosh v. Myers, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 61.

The appeal is quashed.
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-93 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
#### In the Matter of the Application of Charles S. Jones for Admiss the Bar.

Application granted.

Present — Jenks, P.. J., ThomaJ Woodward and Rich, JJ.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09

- 18

- 00 324

- CV



### _________________

IN RE TIMOTHY D. STOVALL

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17

- 10

- 12611

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this mandamus proceeding, Timothy D. Stovall asks this Court to compel
the trial court (1) to vacate a June 26, 2018 order granting Crown Packaging
Corporation’s motion to compel arbitration and abating the state court proceeding , and (2) to sign an order denying the motion to compel arbitration. St ovall requests a
stay of the trial court’s June 26, 2018 order pending resolution of this mandamus
proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a).

To be entitled to mandamus relief , the relator must show that the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and th at the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.2 In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
Having reviewed the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Stovall has

not shown that he is entitled to mandamus reli ef. Accordingly, we deny the motion
for temporary relief and the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P.
52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 29, 2018 Opinion Delivered August 30, 2018
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson , JJ.
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 07-2134 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v . YNOCENCIO GONZÁLEZ-CASTILLO, a/k/a Freddy Mora, a/k/a Freddy Correa,

a/k/a Ynocencio González, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on April 9, 2009, is amended as follows: On p. 2, line 19: Replace "2005" with "2004"
EXHIBIT 31.3

                            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 ICOA, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.

Date May 16, 2006                           By: /s/ Erwin Vahlsing, Jr.
                                                    ----------------------------
                                          Name:     Erwin Vahlsing, Jr.
                                         Title:     Vice President Finance and
                                                    Principal Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided Sherb & Co., LP and will be
retained by ICOA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 10.13
 PACKETEER, INC.
NOTICE OF GRANT OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS
(For U.S. Participants)
  Award   Plan 
 Participant:
    
    
    
    
    
    Employee ID:Grant Date:
    
    
    
    
    
    Grant No.:Number of
Restricted Stock
Units:
    
    , subject to adjustment as provided by the Restricted Stock Units Agreement.Settlement Date:
    
    For each Restricted Stock Unit, except as otherwise
provided by the Restricted Stock Units Agreement, the date
on which such unit becomes a Vested Unit in accordance with
the vesting schedule set forth below.Vested Units:
    
    Except as provided by the Restricted Stock Units Agreement
and provided that the Participants Service has not
terminated prior to the relevant date, the number of Vested
Units shall cumulatively increase on each respective date
set forth below by the number of units set forth opposite
such date, as follows:Vesting Date
    
    Number of Units Vesting
  PACKETEER, INC.
    
    
    
    PARTICIPANTBy:SignatureIts:DateAddress:
    
    10201 North de Anza BoulevardCupertino, CA 95014, USA
    
    
    
    Address
 ATTACHMENTS:
    
    1999 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended to the Grant Date; Restricted Stock Units
Agreement and Plan Prospectus




---



##### 



PACKETEER, INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS AGREEMENT
(For U.S. Participants)
 Notice of Grant of Restricted
Stock Units  Grant Notice   Agreement   Units   Plan   Plan
Prospectus 
 1. Definitions and Construction.
 Definitions .
 Construction .
 2. Administration.
  3. The Award.
 Grant of Units.




---



##### 



No Monetary Payment Required.
 4. Vesting of Units.
  5. Corporation Reacquisition Right.
  6. Settlement of the Award.
 Issuance of Shares of Common Stock .
 Beneficial Ownership of Shares; Certificate Registration .
 Restrictions on Grant of the Award and Issuance of Shares .
 2




---



##### 



Fractional Shares .
 7. Tax Withholding.
 In General.
 Withholding in Shares.
 8. Effect of Corporate Transaction on Award.
 Acquiror
 3




---



##### 



9. Adjustments for Changes in Capital Structure.
  10. Rights as a Stockholder or Employee.
  11. Legends.
  4




---



##### 



12. Miscellaneous Provisions.
 Termination or Amendment.
 Nontransferability of the Award.
 Further Instruments.
 Binding Effect.
 Delivery of Documents and Notices.
 Description of Electronic Delivery .
 5




---



##### 



Consent to Electronic Delivery.
 Integrated Agreement.
 Applicable Law.
 Counterparts.
 6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOSEPH REAVES,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 32 EAP 2021

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court entered

on October 6, 2021 at

No. 127 MD 2019

O RDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of July , 2022

, the order of the Commonwealth Court is

AFFIRMED

.
**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 Annual Report of Beijing Logistic, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yu
      Zhang ,
      Chief
      Executive 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/****Yu
                ZhangYu
                ZhangChief
                Executive Officer




Dated:
      April 14 ,
      2008




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Beijing Logistic, Inc. and will be retained
      by Beijing Logistic, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
32.1









CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In
connection with the Annual Report of Volcan Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Pnina
Feldman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby
certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350),
that to her 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.









January
      15, 2010





/s/
      Pnina FeldmanPnina
      Feldman
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### Edward F. Lowhouse, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant.

Order affirmed. Opinion by

Barker, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                            8523
<SECURITIES>                                     61908
<RECEIVABLES>                                    36597
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1212
<INVENTORY>                                       1309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                110626
<PP&E>                                           20073
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  136915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            32663
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         52653
<OTHER-SE>                                       45858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    136915
<SALES>                                         120633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                120633
<CGS>                                            21432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    51545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 20851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  20075
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6702
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              13373
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     13373
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Laura J. Durr, certify
that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Polycom, 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, 2016 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ LAURA J. DURR                                                              
|               |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Laura J. Durr                                                                  
|               |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Executive Vice President
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50651 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FERNANDO GARCIA, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-96-CR-68-1

- - - - - - - - - - December 15, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fernando Garcia, Jr., was convicted at a bench trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to import marijuana, importing marijuana, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. He appeals his conviction, challenging the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress the physical evidence found at the time of his arrest and to suppress his confession. Specifically, Garcia contends that he was subjected to an investigatory detention inNo. 97-50651 -2- violation of his Fourth Amendment rights because Border Patrol Agents had no reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when they stopped his vehicle. The totality of the circumstances shows that, prior to stopping Garcia’s vehicle, the Border Patrol was aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warranted suspicion that Garcia’s truck was involved in illegal activities. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975). The district court did not err in denying Garcia’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
#### August Siegrist, Respondent, v. John A. Holloway and others, Appellants.

Order affirmed. Opinion by

Haiglit, J.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41116

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS REYES-OLVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-288-ALL 

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Reyes-Olvera (Reyes) appeals the 24-month sentence he

received upon his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry by an

alien. Reyes contends that the district court erred by

characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of a

controlled substance as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Relief on this issue is not available

in light of circuit precedent. See United States v.

Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Reyes

argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome
No. 05-41116

-2-

v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded HinojosaLopez, Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case

explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” See

United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

Reyes also makes a constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b), but it is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Reyes contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Reyes

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2130 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:36:50 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2130 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:36:50 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2130 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:36:50 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2130 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:36:50 Page 4 of

4