alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cecil POWERS, Jr., Appellant.

Nos. WD 48672, WD 50387.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted Nov. 20, 1995.

Decided March 12, 1996.

Judith C. LaRose, Office of the Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Barbara J. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Cecil Powers, Jr., appeals from his conviction for assault in the first degree, § 565.050 RSMo 1994, and for armed criminal action, § 571.015. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of seven and eight years, respectively. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief.

The judgment of conviction and the judgment denying the postconviction motion are affirmed. Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

         CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-63070, No. 333-42656, No. 333-30111 and No.
333-04186) and Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-73550, No. 333-59368
and No. 333-42798) of Conceptus, Inc. of our report dated February 8, 2002
relating to the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2001 and the
consolidated statements of operations, of stockholders' equity and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 2001 of Conceptus, Inc., which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated February 8, 2002 relating to the financial statement schedule
for the year ended December 31, 2001 of Conceptus, Inc., which appears in this
Annual Report on From 10-K.

                                        /S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Jose, California
March 29, 2002
# Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy in San Jose, California

As a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless acts of violence perpetrated on May 26, 2021, in San Jose, California, by the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, May 30, 2021. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.

[FR Doc. 2021-11562

Billing code 3295-F1-P
----

----

|   | (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/ Kenneth      J. Koock                                                     |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Kenneth      J. KoockChief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6669

Lubrication Specialties, 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 9, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-12-00489-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., MINOR CHILD 

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-04041J

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, D.T., appeals a final decree signed May 1, 2012, terminating her 

parental rights to A.A., a child who is the subject of this suit terminating D.T.’s parental 

rights. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to 
2

be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The 

Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights 

when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on 

appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no 

pet.). Appellant’s counsel also filed a motion to withdraw her representation of appellant.

A copy of counsel’s brief and a copy of the record were delivered to appellant. 

Appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se

response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re 

D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329–30. More than thirty days have elapsed, and, as of this date, 

no pro se response or motion requesting additional time has been filed. 

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s appellate brief carefully. We agree 

the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. A discussion of the appellate brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of 

the state.

Having determined that the appeal is frivolous and that the requirements of Anders

have been satisfied, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

Per curiam

Panel consists of Justices Frost, McCally, and Busby.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1501

JTH TAX, INC., d/b/a Liberty Tax Service,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES HINES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00558-RBS-RJK)

Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 28, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Eli Ohana, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, 

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Charles Hines appeals the district court’s orders accepting the 

recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing his counterclaims alleging 

breach of contract, fraud, and related claims against Plaintiff JTH Tax, Inc. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. JTH Tax, Inc. v. 

Hines, No. 2:15-cv-00558-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2017; Mar. 2, 2018). 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
<PAGE>

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Arcadia Financial Ltd.
Board of Directors

We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
consolidated balance sheet of Arcadia Financial Ltd. (the Company) as of
December 31, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then
ended and have issued our report thereon dated February 29, 2000 (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
concerning the Company's change in its method of accounting for recognition of
sales of asset-backed securities); such financial statements and report thereon
are included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999.

Our audit, referred to in the preceding paragraph, included procedures applied
to the documents, records, and delinquency and loss rates of the Company that we
considered necessary in the circumstances to enable us to express an opinion on
the financial statements referred to above taken as a whole. Because the
procedures performed in connection with our audit do not constitute an audit of
the documents, records and delinquency and loss rates, we do not express an
opinion on those documents, records, or delinquency and loss rates.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 29, 2000
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.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5695

Seaboard International, 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
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-2018-0025-5971

Barksdale, 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
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Samuel S. Duffey, Chief Executive Officer, President and General Counsel of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: February 14, 2013





/s/ Samuel S. DuffeySamuel S. Duffey, Esq.Chief Executive Officer; President; General Counsel




This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29255-29256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-820-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Request for Limited Waiver of El Paso Natural Gas 
Company.
    Filed Date: 5/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210511-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-734-001.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Revised Fuel Percentage 
to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 5/24/21.
    Accession Number: 20210524-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-835-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Northern 
Utilities 510939 to Emera eff 5-22-21 to be effective 5/22/2021.
    Filed Date: 5/24/21.
    Accession Number: 20210524-5000.

[[Page 29256]]

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-836-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 20210524 DDVC Tariff Waiver.
    Filed Date: 5/24/21.
    Accession Number: 20210524-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-837-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: PAL NRA Engie SP367255 & J.P. 
Morgan SP367264 to be effective 6/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 5/24/21.
    Accession Number: 20210524-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 25, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11468 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
Company) for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Alan M. Pearce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The form 10-Q fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: and

(2) The information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 16, 2008



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ Alan M. Pearce               
|Alan M. Pearce                   
|Chief Financial Officer; Director

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

End of Filing
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roosevelt Grant, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J., at suppression hearings, trial and sentence), rendered on April 28, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the second degree and robbery in the third degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to concurrent indeterminate terms of from 3 Vi to 7 years’ imprisonment on the second degree robbery count and from 2 Vi to 5 years’ imprisonment on the remaining counts, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court correctly ruled that the showup at which complainant Kuykendall identified defendant, having been promptly conducted near the crime scene, was proper *(People v Riley,*70 NY2d 523, 529). Also, the hearing court’s *Sandoval*ruling, permitting inquiry into defendant’s 1980 and two 1982 convictions for selling controlled substances, while prohibiting inquiry into three youthful offender adjudications, two convictions in 1972 and 1973 for trespass, and a 1976 conditional discharge conviction, was an appropriate exercise of discretion *(People v Mayrant,*43 NY2d 236, 239; *People v Greer,*42 NY2d 170, 176; *People v Contreras,*108 AD2d 627, 628). Defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s summation is largely unpreserved as a matter of law because of a failure to timely object (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641), and, in any event, the prosecutor did not demonstrate a persistent, egregious course of conduct that was deliberate and reprehensible *(People v Sandy,*115 AD2d 27, 28). Similarly, defendant’s claim that the officers’ testimony impermissibly bolstered the complainants’ identification testimony is unpreserved as a *288matter of law, and does not warrant review in the interests of justice. Finally, any errors were harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.