alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A96A0811.

#### ROUNDTREE v. THE STATE.

(474 SE2d 224)

Decided July 11, 1996

Reconsideration denied July 29, 1996

*Saia & Richardson, Joseph J. Saia,*for appellant.

Judge Harold R. Banke.

Deon Roundtree was convicted of cocaine trafficking in violation of OCGA § 16-13-31. On appeal, Roundtree raises three errors. *Held:*

1. In his first two enumerations, Roundtree appeals the denial of his motion to suppress and the validity of a vehicle search. However, this Court previously affirmed the denial of Roundtree’s motion to suppress and determined that the police had probable cause to search the vehicle. *Roundtree v. State,*213 Ga. App. 793, 794 (446 SE2d 204) (1994). Res judicata precludes relitigation of the denial of the motion to suppress. *Blalock v. State,*201 Ga. App. 461 (411 SE2d 914) (1991). The determination that the police had probable cause to search the vehicle renders moot the voluntariness of consent issue.

2. We reject Roundtree’s contention that his two prior cocaine convictions by the State of Florida were improperly admitted into evidence. Before similar transaction evidence can be introduced, the State must make three affirmative showings as mandated by *Williams v. State,*261 Ga. 640, 642 (2) (b) (409 SE2d 649) (1991). See USCR 31.3 (B).

The State’s similar transaction evidence showed that Roundtree was arrested for trafficking in cocaine and police found 134.5 grams of crack cocaine and 135 grams of marijuana during a search of his residence. The crack cocaine was wrapped and packaged in the same manner as the cocaine in the instant case. Roundtree pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to sell. In the other incident, after Roundtree was arrested police discovered 156 grams of cocaine in the trunk of Roundtree’s car. Although Roundtree was charged with trafficking in cocaine, he pled guilty to the lesser charge of possession of cocaine with intent to sell.

Roundtree was the perpetrator in the earlier crimes, they were strikingly similar, and the independent crimes tended to prove the facts for which they were offered to show Roundtree’s conduct or bent of mind. *Williams,*261 Ga. at 642. Similar transactions need not be identical in every respect. *Sessions v. State,*207 Ga. App. 609 (428 SE2d 652) (1993). Because the State adequately made the three affirmative showings required by *Williams,*supra, the trial court did not err in admitting the similar transaction evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.*

*364
      *John C. Pridgen, District Attorney,*for appellee.
Exhibit A

Chapter 11 Plan Timeline

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3512-1 Filed: 08/12/19 Entered: 08/12/19 14:29:59 Page 1

of 3
WEIL:\97149332\5\67615.0014

In re PG&E Corporation et. al, Case No. 19-30088 (DM) (jointly administered) 

Illustrative Chapter 11 Plan Solicitation and Confirmation Timeline1

Schedule Proposed Date2

Hearing on Estimation Procedures Motion August 14, 2019 

Debtors to File Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement September 9, 2019 

Hearing Regarding Tubbs Causation October 7, 2019 to 

October 28, 2019 

Hearing Regarding Inverse Condemnation October 9, 2019 

Chapter 11 Bar Date October 21, 2019, 

at 5:00 p.m. (PT) 

Deadline to File Objections to Disclosure Statement 

(35 days after filing of Disclosure Statement) 

October 14, 2019 

 at 4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Deadline for Debtors’ to File Reply in Support of Disclosure Statement 

(2 weeks after objections to Disclosure Statement are due) 

October 28, 2019 

 at 4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Disclosure Statement Approval Hearing November 6, 2019 

at 10:00 a.m. (PT) 

Entry of Order Approving Disclosure Statement November 8, 2019 

Mailing of Plan Solicitation Packages November 6, 2019 to 

December 20, 2019 

Hearings Regarding Final Estimation December 16, 2019 to 

January 17, 2020 

Entry of Order Regarding Final Estimation /Resolution of Estimation Hearings January 17, 2020 

Chapter 11 Plan Voting Deadline 

(approximately 2 months from completion of solicitation mailing) 

February 21, 2020 at 

4:00 p.m. (PT) 

                                                            

1 The Debtors will work with the CPUC and its restructuring advisors to coordinate the CPUC approval 

process for the Debtors’ chapter 11 plan.

2

 All times prevailing Pacific Time. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3512-1 Filed: 08/12/19 Entered: 08/12/19 14:29:59 Page 2

of 3
2

WEIL:\97149332\5\67615.0014

Schedule Proposed Date2

Deadline to File Objections to Chapter 11 Plan Confirmation February 21, 2020 at 

4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Deadline to File Certification Announcing Chapter 11 Voting and Tabulation 

Results 

(2 weeks after objections are due) 

March 6, 2020 

Deadline to File Debtors’ Reply Brief In Support of Chapter 11 Plan 

Confirmation 

(2 weeks after objections are due) 

March 6, 2020 at 

4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Confirmation Hearing Commences March 17, 2020 at 

10:00 a.m. (PT) 

Confirmation Order Entered April 15, 2020 

Chapter 11 Plan Effective Date and Emergence May 1, 2020 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3512-1 Filed: 08/12/19 Entered: 08/12/19 14:29:59 Page 3

of 3
Exhibit 35.1

HomEq Servicing


                              ANNUAL CERTIFICATION


      Re:   Securitized Asset Backed Receivables, LLC Trust, Series 2007-HE1
            (the "Trust"), issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing
            Agreement, dated as of 01/01/2007 (the "Pooling and Servicing
            Agreement"), by and among Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC,
            as depositor (the "Depositor"), Deutsche Bank National Trust
            Company, as trustee (the "Trustee"), and Barclays Capital Real
            Estate Inc. d/b/a HomEq Servicing, as servicer (the "Servicer").

I, Arthur Q. Lyon, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the
HomEq Servicing Division of Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. d/b/a HomEq
Servicing, hereby certify to the Depositor and the Trustee and their officers,
directors, and affiliates, pursuant to Section 3.22 of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, that:

         A review of the activities of the Servicer for the Calendar year ending
         December 31, 2007, and to the best of my knowledge, based on such
         review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
         Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects, except as
         noted below.

         Foreclosure was not initiated in accordance with the timeframes
         established by its servicing agreements and the servicing criteria set
         forth in 1122(d)(4)(vii) of Regulation AB and therefore represents an
         instance of material noncompliance.


Date:   March 13, 2008


/s/ Arthur Q. Lyon
---------------------
Arthur Q. Lyon
Executive Vice President and CEO
HomEq Servicing Division
Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc.


Barclays Officer's Certificate
Securitized Asset Backed Receivables, LLC Trust, Series 2007-HE1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5389 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5389

To amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prescribe an additional 
requirement for the designation of marine sanctuaries off the coast of 
                                Alaska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2014

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prescribe an additional 
requirement for the designation of marine sanctuaries off the coast of 
                                Alaska.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE MARINE SANCTUARIES.

    Section 303 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1433) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The Secretary may'' 
        and inserting ``Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary may''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary may not designate as a national 
marine sanctuary any area of the marine environment off the coast of 
Alaska seaward of the high tide line unless an Act of Congress--
            ``(1) requires the Secretary to make such a designation; 
        and
            ``(2) prescribes the boundaries of the area to be given 
        such designation by the Secretary.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Hudson T. Baker, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The Rochester City and Brighton Railroad Company, Appellant.

Order granting new trial reversed.

Opinion by

Lewis, J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.
#### David K. McCarthy, Dennis McCarthy and Thomas Emory, Respondents, v. Oliver S. Vreeland, Appellant.

— Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs to abide the event.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Opencell
Biomed Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending November 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Mislav Pavelic, in my capacities set forth below 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, to my 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.

|              |                                 
|------------- | --------------------------------
|March 2, 2011 | /s/MislavPavelic                
|              | Mislav Pavelic, President       
|              | (as Principal Financial Officer)
|              |                                 

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-149955 on Form S-8, pertaining to the MEMSIC, Inc. 2000 Omnibus Stock Plan and the MEMSIC, Inc. 2007 Stock Incentive Plan, of Memsic, Inc. of our reportdated March 31, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Memsic, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 31, 2010
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 20732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RHONDA FLEMING,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07 -CR- 513 -1

Before DENNIS, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rhonda Fleming, federal prisoner # 20446

- 009, has filed several motions seeking summary reversal, remand, and other relief from the district court’s denial of her motion for relief from her criminal judgment entered upon her conviction of one count of conspiring to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, 35 counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud, 10 counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud, 1 6 counts of money laundering, and five counts of engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-20732 Document: 00514107062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2017No. 16

- 20732

2 activity. Purs uant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) or (6), Fleming sought relief from the portion of the judgment that ordered her to pay over $6 million in restitution, including over $5.8 million to be paid to Medicare. Rule 60(b) is a rule of civil procedure, not of criminal procedure. See F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60(b). Fleming has not shown that her request to amend the restitution order in her criminal judgment was cognizable pursuant to Rule 60(b). Her appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. S ee Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219

- 20 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, t he appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS, and a ll outstanding motions are DENIED

. See
5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Fleming is WARNED that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on h er ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v. Starkey , 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988) (noting federal courts’ inherent power to sanction litigants for frivolous filings). Case: 16-20732 Document: 00514107062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2017
#### In the Matter of Jane A. Porter, a Lunatic.

Order affirmed.
#### Obediah Petett, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Opinion by

Barker, J.
#### C. L. HARTON v. J. D. ROSS.

(Filed 22 October, 1930.)

Highways B i — Where evidence discloses that anto accident resulted from ice on bridge and not from defendant’s negligence, nonsuit is l>roper.

Where in an action for damages resulting from an automobile collision the evidence tends to show that the accident resulted from ice on a highway bridge and not from any negligence of the defendant, defendant’s motion as of nonsuit is properly allowed.

Appeal by' plaintiff from *Harris, J.,*at May Term, 1930, of AlaMANCe.

Affirmed.

*631*Coulter & Cooper for plaintiff.*

*D. Dolph Long for defendant.*

Pee Oueiam.

This is an action to recover damages growing out of the collision of cars, alleged to have been negligently caused by the defendant. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the- action was dismissed as in case of nonsuit. The cars in which the parties were traveling collided on a concrete bridge coated with ice. The plaintiff was injured and his car was damaged; but the injury and damage seem to have resulted from the condition of the highway and not from actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Glowpoint, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gerard E. Dorsey, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:

         1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates of and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:  March 22, 2006

                                                /s/ Gerard E. Dorsey
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Gerard E. Dorsey
                                                Chief Financial Officer
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 SteelCloud, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian H. Hajost Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented therein.




Date:
      June 15, 2009By:
              /s/
      Brian H. HajostName:
      Brian H. HajostTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer and
President
Exhibit A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5097-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:58:32 Page 1

of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5097-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:58:32 Page 2

of 2
---

CONSENT OF PAUL TIETZ

The undersigned hereby consents to: (i) the filing of the
written disclosure regarding the technical report entitled Technical Report on
the Copper King Project, Laramie County, Wyoming dated August 24, 2012 in
relation to (a) the Form 40-F Annual Report for the period ended December 31,
2013, and any amendments thereto (the Form 40-F), of Energy Fuels Inc. (the
Company), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (b)
the Companys Annual Information Form for the period ended December 31, 2013
(the AIF) and (c) the Management Information Circular of the Company dated
July 15, 2013, and the documents incorporated by reference therein (the
Circular); and (ii) the incorporation by reference of such disclosure into (a)
the Companys Form S-8 Registration Statement, being filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments thereto (the
S-8), and (b) the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statement, being filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments thereto
(the F-10).

I also consent to: (i) the use of my name in the AIF, the
Circular, the F-10 and the Form 40-F; (ii) the incorporation by reference of the
Form 40-F, and the AIF into the S-8; and (iii) the incorporation by reference of
the Form 40-F, the AIF and the Circular into the F-10.

|                     | /s/ Paul Tietz                              
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                     | Paul Tietz, Certified Professional Geologist
|                     |                                             
|                     |                                             
|Date: March 28, 2014 |                                             

---
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 30, 2015

No. 04-14-00772-CR

Jonathan Jose GUILLEN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR2647

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this appeal was filed on April 29, 2015, completing the record. 

Appellant’s counsel was informed by email on that date that the record had been filed and 

appellant’s brief was therefore due. On June 1, 2015, the court granted appellant a thirty-day 

extension of time to file the brief and ordered the brief due June 29, 2015. Appellant has filed a 

motion requesting an additional forty-five day extension of time to file the brief.

We grant the motion, and order appellant’s brief due July 16, 2015 (75 days after the 

original due date). Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a 

motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the 

court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court 

reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended 

deadline. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29837]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5341-6]


Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; San Diego Air Pollution Control District, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the title V operating 
permits program submitted by the San Diego Air Pollution Control 
District (San Diego or District) for the purpose of complying with 
federal requirements for an approvable state program to issue operating 
permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources. 
Today's action also proposes approval of San Diego's mechanism for 
receiving delegation of section 112 standards as promulgated.
    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is 
promulgating interim approval of San Diego's title V program as a 
direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this 
submittal as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. A 
detailed rationale for this approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this proposed 
rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this 
rulemaking. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule 
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
January 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to: 
Celia Bloomfield, Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Copies of the District's submittal, EPA's Technical Support 
Document, and other supporting information used in developing the 
proposed approval are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 
IX office during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Bloomfield (telephone 415/744-
1249), Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule of the same title which is located in the Rules section of 
this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: November 8, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-29837 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P