alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Earl W. CAREY, Appellant, v. The ST. LOUIS JOURNALISM REVIEW, et al., Respondents.

No. 63661.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 17, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 16, 1993.

Earl W. Carey, Pro Se.

Lewis C. Green, Bruce A Morrison, Kathleen G. Henry, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his libel petition for failure to state a claim. We find no error of law appears and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Appellant’s primary argument is his petition does state a claim for both libel per se and libel per quod. However, after reviewing the petition, we find it did not state a claim for libel per se. The petition did not include allegedly libelous statements which directly injured his profession by “imputing] a want of knowledge, skill, capacity, or fitness to perform or discharge his duties.” *Morton v. Hearst Corp.,*779 S.W.2d 268, 271[3] (Mo.App.1989); *See also, Capobianco v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.,*812 S.W.2d 852, 856[4, 5] (Mo.App.1991); *Greening v. Klamen,*652 S.W.2d 730, 735[13-16] (Mo.App.1983).

In addition, Appellant’s petition fails to state a cause of action for libel per quod. It does not allege special damages with the particularity required for such an action. *See, Swafford v. Miller,*711 S.W.2d 211, 216-17[11] (Mo.App.1986).

We find an extended discussion of Appellant’s points would have no precedential value and affirm by written order.
NUMBER 13

- 1 7

- 00 576

- C R



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

RAUL ERNESTO SILVA

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 2 4th District Court

of Calhoun County, Texas.



### ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

Currently pending before the Court is appellant's motion for pro se access to the

appellate record. Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief herein and appellant has

been unable to examine the record so that he can file a pro se brief.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial court ensure that appellant has

the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or before Augu st 13, 2018 , and it2

is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this Court as to the date upon which the

appellate record was made available to appellant. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate record was first

made available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court. The State shall have twenty

days thereafter to file its response, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

2 4th day of July , 20 18

.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C., ss.1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Smartpay Express, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 Smartpay Express Inc.








Date: November 15, 2010
By
/s/ Ping TangPing TangChairman and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30610-30611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12033]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Revision to the 
Coordinating Center for Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet (U01 Clinical Trial 
Required).
    Date: July 15, 2021.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy

[[Page 30611]]

Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7119, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-
594-2242, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a505f48515354495b7a54535e5e5114545352145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e68c83948d8f889587a6888f82828dc8888f8ec8818990">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 3, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-12033 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE of Missouri (Respondent), v. John D. SCHNEIDER (Appellant).

No. WD 50441.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 12, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 30, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.

Appellant, pro se.

Mikael R. Louraine, Asst. Pros. Atty., Cal-laway County, Fulton, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and ULRICH and SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the trial court’s conviction under § 304.016 for passing a vehicle on the right by driving off the main traveled portion of the roadway.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

          I, Richard W. Gross, certify that:

          1.      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K ofInterpool, Inc.;

          2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain 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 whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 

          3.      Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

          4.      The registrant's other certifying officers andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

                    (a)      Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

                    (b)      Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

                    (c)      Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financialreporting; and

          5.      The registrant's other certifying officers andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant'sauditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant's Board of Directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

                    (a)      All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and

                    (b)      Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  January 9, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.01

 

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

I, Anthony Escobar, Chief Executive Officer, and Anthony Coletti, Principal Accounting Officer, of Trafalgar Resources, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period March 31, 2008 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 

|   | (1) | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated:  May 9, 2008 |  | By:  /s/ Anthony Brandon Escobar                                 |
|---------------------|--|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |  | Anthony Brandon Escobar, President (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                     |  |                                                                  |
|                     |  |                                                                  |
|                     |  | By:  /s/ Anthony Coletti                                         |
|                     |  | Anthony Coletti, Principal Accounting Officer                    |

 

 

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Trafalgar Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Trafalgar Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-2690 THOMAS S. McCLOSKEY AND KEVIN P. McCLOSKEY AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF PHILIP McCLOSKEY,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. ROBERT S. MUELLER III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.
ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on May 16, 2006 is corrected as follows: On page 14, line 19, change "alternation" to "alteration"
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David Johnson, the Chief Executive Officer, and Tom Mayenknecht, Secretary and Treasurer, of Park Place Energy Corp. (the "Company"), each 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, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | /s/ David JohnsonDavid JohnsonPresident, Chief Executive Officer and a director
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date:  August 13, 2010
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Tom MayenknechtTom MayenknechtSecretary, Treasurer and a director 
(Principal Financial Officer)
Date:  August 13, 2010         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Park Place Energy Corp. and will be retained by Park Place Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10720]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

April 24, 1996.
TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, May 2, 1996.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    The Commission will consider and act upon the following:
    1. Secretary of Labor o.b.o. Poddey v. Tanglewood Energy, Inc., 
Docket No. WEVA 93-339-D. (Issues include whether the judge erred in 
applying three section 110(i) criteria in assessing a civil penalty 
for a section 105(c) violation, and whether the judge erred by 
deducting unemployment compensation received from the back pay 
award.)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2706.150(a)(3) and Sec. 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean Ellen (202) 653-5629/(202) 
708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 96-10720 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
Exhibit 13.2



ASAT Holdings Limited

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant
to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned, Robert J. Gange, the Chief Financial Officer of ASAT Holdings Limited (the Company), does hereby certify as follows:



To the best of my knowledge, the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for year ended April 30, 2005 accompanying this Certification, in the form
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: August 2, 2005



/s/    ROBERT J.
GANGEName:

Robert J. GangeTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




The certification set forth
above is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and should not be deemed to be filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company or the certifying officers.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,231)
<INVENTORY>                                     40,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,054
<PP&E>                                          28,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,876)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,784
<SALES>                                        199,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,578
<CGS>                                          132,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,225
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,948
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,277
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,277
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leary Gayle, True Name Larry Gayle, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert C. Hinkson, J.), rendered November 17, 1987, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree and of attempted robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to two indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 20 years to life for the murder counts and from 4 to 12 years for the attempted robbery count, all terms to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

The claim that the trial court’s denial of the defense request for a missing witness charge at the close of defendant’s case deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial was not raised below and is therefore unpreserved for appellate review *262
      *(see, People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467, 473). The request was untimely in that it was made after the defense case, and thereby deprived the prosecution of the opportunity to tailor its trial strategy, under the particular facts of this case, to avoid " 'substantial possibilities of surprise’ ” *(People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 428).

At trial, a prosecution witness indicated that the uncalled witness to the shooting, who is a cousin of the decedent, had knowledge of the material issues in this case and could be expected to testify favorably to the prosecution *(see, People v Gonzalez, supra,*at 430). The People, while arguing that the whereabouts of the witness were unknown, failed to demonstrate that a diligent effort was made to locate him. Furthermore, the People’s argument, advanced for the first time on this appeal, that his testimony would be cumulative is unpreserved for our review *(People v Gonzalez, supra,*at 430). Nevertheless, any error in failing to deliver a missing witness charge must be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt provided by the uncontroverted testimony of two prosecution witnesses who were present in the apartment at the time of the attempted robbery and shooting *(People v Walker,*105 AD2d 720). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
#### Edward WINTERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67574.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 19, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 7, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of post conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an evidentia-ry hearing. His motion was filed for relief from Alford pleas on charges of attempted robbery and robbery first degree. The trial court imposed five and ten year concurrent sentences on the charges.

At movant’s plea hearing the state summarized evidence to prove both charges. The *307attempted robbery and robbery occurred at two neighboring fast food restaurants within a few minutes time. The evidence included a statement that employees were prepared to testify that defendant used what appeared to be a gun in demanding money. Believing the gun to be real, the employees complied and gave defendant the money. A claim that the weapon was in fact a toy is irrelevant. All that is required to prove the charges was the reasonable appearance of the use of a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon. At the plea hearing movant heard the description of the evidence and told the court that he had the benefit of counsel in discussing the charges and his rights. He declined an offer of further time to consider matters and denied any threat or promise. After a presen-tence investigation and before sentencing, movant considered and abandoned any request to withdraw his pleas.

Movant now argues the court erred in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing because his trial counsel was inadequately prepared to render effective advice, a matter he did not learn until after sentencing.

We hold the trial court did not clearly err in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing. On the present facts the extent of trial counsel’s investigation would not be probative on the issue of defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent Alford pleas. The record supports a finding he acknowledged the state had evidence the crimes were committed with what appeared to be a dangerous or deadly weapon and was prepared to prove all of the elements of the charges. Under these circumstances the failure of trial counsel, even if proven, to review police reports or physical evidence for possible defenses would not be a ground for finding that the Alford pleas were unknowing or involuntary. Nor would proof of the alleged failure support the requisite finding of prejudice. All that could have been discovered by counsel was in fact presented to the court and to counsel in the presence of the defendant before he pled.

The findings and conclusions and judgment of the trial court in denying the motion was not clearly erroneous. The judgment is affirmed in accord with Rule 84.16(b).