alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Th e c on c lus ion s o f l aw s tate , amon goth e r t hin g s, tha t th e ne wl y

dis c ov e re d e vid e nc e in 1 Applicant’s c ase “ cre ates a doubt as to the eff

icac y of the ve rdict suffic ient to undermine 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
NO. AP -76,305

EXP AR TE CL AU DE A. SIM M ON S, J R. , A pplic ant
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CA USE NO . F 97 -0 20 27 IN THE CRIM IN AL DI STRIC T C OU RT

F RO M DA LLA S CO UN TY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas C o d e o f C ri minal Procedure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 8 2 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of capital murde r and sente nced to life imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appe als aff irmed his conviction. Simmons

v . S tate , No. 05-97-01987- CR (Tex. App.–Dallas 1999, pet. ref ’d). Applicant conte nds that he is ac tually innocent. The trial court adopted Appli cant’ s and the State’s supplemental sti pulated findings of fac t and conc lusions of law, deter mined that Applicant 12

confide nce in the ve rdict” a nd that “it is more than proba ble that the ver dict would be diffe rent on a re trial.” We dec line to adopt these c onclusions of law. The y are not consistent with the evidentiar y standard in a

fre estandingactua l innocence claim. An applica nt raisingthis claim has to establish “by

clea r and c onvincingevidenc e that no re asonable juror would have convicted him in li g ht of the newevidenc e.” Ex parte Elizondo , 947 S.W .2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). has established that he i s ac t ually innocent, and r ecommende d that we grant re lief. We ag ree . Acc ording ly , relief

is gr anted. The judgme nt in Cause No. F97- 02027 in the C riminal District Court of Da llas County is set aside, and A pplicant is remande d to the custody of the Sheri ff o f

Dallas County to a

nswer the char g es ag ainst him
. Copies of this opinion shall be sent t o t h e T ex as Depa rtment of Criminal Justice–Corre cti o n al In s t i tu t i o n s Di v i s i o nan d P ar d o n s an d Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Marc h 3, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

** **

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 13, 2008 |   |
|----------------------------|--------|

 
| By |  /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
|----|----------------------------|--------|

Barbra E. Kocsis

Chief FinancialOfficer

(PrincipalFinancial and Accounting Officer)

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9335]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Infectious 
Diseases: Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Name: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for 
Infectious Diseases (NCID).
    Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., May 4, 1995; 8:15 a.m.-1:15 
p.m., May 5, 1995.
    Place: CDC, Auditorium B, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30333.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: The Board of Scientific Counselors, NCID, provides 
advice and guidance to the Director, CDC, and Director, NCID, in the 
following areas: program goals and objectives; strategies; program 
organization and resources for infectious disease prevention and 
control; and program priorities.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The agenda will focus on:

    1. Update: Implementation of CDC Emerging Infections Plan.
2. CDC Laboratories Master Plan.
3. Linkages between HIV/Sexually Transmitted Diseases/Tuberculosis 
Laboratories and Programs in other Centers.
4. Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Budget Rescissions and FY 1996 Budget 
Outlook.
5. The CDC Foundation.
6. Update--Antibiotic Resistance.

    Other agenda items include announcements/introductions; NCID 
update; late breakers; and follow-up on actions recommended by the 
board (December 1994).
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Written comments are welcome and should be received by the 
contact person listed below prior to the opening of the meeting.
    Contact Person for More Information: Diane S. Holley, Office of 
the Director, NCID, CDC, Mailstop C-20, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-0078.

    Dated: April 11, 1995.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 95-9335 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-M
#### Nelson Rodriguez, Respondent, v St. Paul’s Catholic Church et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell from a ladder while painting a church rectory owned by defendants. The accident took place in the Town of Bloomingdale in Essex County.

After the commencement of the action in Monroe County, where the plaintiff resides, defendants moved for change of venue to Essex County on the ground that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. The party moving for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) has the burden of proof *(Edwards v Lamberta,*42 AD2d 1003). The movant must supply the names, addresses and occupations of the witnesses expected to be called, indicate in some detail the testimony which each witness will give, and submit some evidence concerning the calendar in the counties involved in the motion *(see, Public Serv. Truck Renting v Ambassador Ins. Co.,*136 AD2d 911; *Thorner-Sidney Press v Merling Marx & Seidman,*115 AD2d 328). Here, defendants’ papers suffice to demonstrate that four nonparty witnesses reside or work in Franklin or Clinton *1018County which counties border Essex County and that the testimony of each is material and necessary to the defense of the claim. Moreover, the cause of action arose in Essex County and, absent cogent reasons to direct otherwise, venue should be in Essex County *(McGuire v General Elec. Co.,*117 AD2d 523). Finally, defendant has submitted evidence that the claim can be reached for trial sooner in Essex County.

Plaintiff has failed to submit evidence to support his choice of venue. He has failed to identify any prospective nonparty witness residing in Monroe County *(see, Thorner-Sidney Press v Merling, Marx & Seidman, supra),*and the only nexus Monroe County has to this matter is that it is plaintiff’s residence. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he will be prejudiced if the action is tried in Essex County.

In support of affirmance, plaintiff relies on the demand procedure contained in CPLR 511 (a) and (b). His reliance is misplaced, since a motion for a change of venue under CPLR 510 (3) is not subject to the demand procedure *(see,*CPLR 510 [3]; 511 [a], [b]; *see also,*2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac | 510.10). Accordingly, the denial of defendants’ motion constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Willis, J.—change of venue.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 28, 2016

p0620

Order 

Clerk

June 28, 2016

151310

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 151310

COA: 324096

Wayne CC: 05-010832-FH;

08-003200-FC; 

08-003209-FC

ZOUELFIKAR MAHMOUD NEHMEH, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to the Court that the case of 

People v Roark (Docket No. 152562) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the 

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
Exhibit 32



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 Mountain Bank Holding Company (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Roy T. Brooks, Chief Executive Officer and Sheila M. Brumley, Chief Financial Officer, 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 the operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       |  |                                           
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|/s/ Roy T. Brooks                      |  | /s/ Sheila M. Brumley                     
|Roy T. Brooks, Chief Executive Officer |  | Sheila M. Brumley, Chief Financial Officer



Date: September 12, 2005
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7618

United Scope LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7457

Carestream Health, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6773

Omron Management Center of America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Henery Dean KOCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 42152.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 2, 1990.

Larry C. Pace, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and SHANGLER and CLARK, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Doris J. NEEALY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 68475.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 30, 1996.

James N. Guiri, II, Foehner and Associates, St. Louis, for appellant.

Harold L. Whitfield, Whitfield, Montgomery & Staples, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals after a judgment entered in her favor in the amount of $36,000.00 in this personal injury tort action. We affirm. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00128-CR

Joshua SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR7686

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED January 24, 2018.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 7311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,

Plaintiff

- Appellee
,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LOUIS PARK
,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:22

- cr

- 00028

- JPB

- JPM

- 1 )

Submitted : July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Christopher Louis Park, Appellant Pro Se. Clayton John Reid, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7311 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Christopher Louis Park appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion s for a sentence reduction. * “We review a district court’s

decision [whether] to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of

discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.”

United States v. Mann , 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Our review of the record reveals

no error. The court clearly understood its authority to reduce Park’s sentence, but the court

declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Park’s motion to amend

his informal brief . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Park ’s motion to amend his informal brief indicates that he mistaken ly believes
t his appeal is a direct appeal of his conviction or resentencing

. However, the subject of this appeal is the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion s for a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines and his purportedly successful rehabilitation. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7311 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
October 8, 2018 

via www.regulations.gov 

RE: Docket Number: USTR-2018-0025: Exclusion Request for Machining Centers 

(HTS 8457.10.0055); Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related 

to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation 

Office of United States Trade Representative (USTR): 

DRO PROS is a sole proprietorship that my wife and I have owned for a little over ten 

years. As a disabled Veteran, the business is the sole source of income for our family. 

Our business focuses on providing affordable products to the small business / serious 

hobbyist in the metal working industry. Typically, our customers are the inventors, 

tinkerers, and future business owners of America, that are trying to make their 'great idea' 

out of metal and start their own business. Our product is critical to making anything out 

of metal - new medical devices, space exploration, robotic technology, all of the 'future' 

technologies our country needs. Our customers are trade schools, High School robotics 

programs, Pratt & Whitney, Space-X, and Google to name just a few. 

There are currently no manufacturers of these size machining centers in the United States. 

While I can certainly understand the desire to buy American, there simply is not a US 

manufacturer available. Current environmental regulations and a lack of industrial 

infrastructure both prevent the manufacture of these machines. 

Because of the tariffs, we've already been forced to raise prices, the effect of which has 

been an immediate reduction in sales, causing our company a severe economic hardship. 

Additionally, many of the customers, schools and businesses that rely on our products 

can no longer afford them. 

Machining centers are not a part of the Made in China 2025 program. In summary, on 

behalf of our customers, ourselves, and the future of America, we sincerely request that 

your office approves the exclusion of tariffs for DRO PROS due to this untimely 

economic hardship. 

Sincerely, 

Todd Scholey 

DRO PROS 

E-mail: dropros@mail.com 

Office: (707) 452-8434
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5304

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**

**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 WMG Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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. 

Dated: August 7, 2008