alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reynaldo Garcia RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.

No. 1196-95.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 19, 1996.

Robert 0. Switzer, San Antonio, for appellant.

Daniel Thornberry, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offenses of murder and injury to a child, V.T.C.A. Penal Code, §§ 19.02 and 22.04, alleged to have been committed on or about July 80,1991 in Bexar eounty. On March 12, *1571993, appellant was found guilty by a jury of the offenses charged in the indictment, and on March 25, 1993, the trial court assessed punishment at 99 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s request for appointment of a defense medical expert, and reversed appellant’s conviction. *Rodriguez v. State,*906 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995). The State subsequently filed a Motion for Rehearing and a Motion for En Banc Consideration on June 1, 1995, which were denied by the court of appeals on July 28, 1995. We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review on four questions:

1. Did the court of appeals err by failing to assess the reasonableness of the trial court’s refusal to appoint a defense medical expert as of the time the trial court made its ruling?

2. Did the court of appeals err in finding that appellant made the necessary showing of need for the appointment of a defense medical expert?

3. Did the court of appeals err in basing its holding that the trial court erred in failing to appoint a defense expert on the complexity of the expert’s area of expertise?

4. Did the court of appeals err in holding that the trial court erred in failing to appoint a defense medical expert because the appellant was entitled to an expert to inspect physical evidence?

We have carefully considered the four questions for review and the briefs before us. After due consideration, we find that the State’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

WHITE, MANSFIELD and KELLER, JJ., dissent.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of W. S.  INDUSTRIES,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending May 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
F. Dempsey, President and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, 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, 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 Company.


Date: July 6, 2006


/s/ JAMES F. DEMPSEY
_________________________________________
    James F. Dempsey
    President and Chief Executive Officer
**                               **                                                                    Exhibit 32.1. and

Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

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

The undersigned, Anthony Brandon Escobar, Chief Executive Officer, and Anthony Coletti, Principal Financial 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-Q for the period March 31, 2011 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 6, 2011

By:  /s/ Anthony Brandon Escobar

                            

  Anthony Brandon Escobar

                           

  Chief Executive Officer

By:  /s/ Anthony Coletti

    Principal Financial 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.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5658 

AN ACT 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to require mailin ballots to use the Postal Service barcode service, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5658 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vote by Mail Tracking 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MAIL-IN BALLOTS AND POSTAL SERVICE BARCODE 

5 SERVICE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title 39, United States Code, is 

7 amended by inserting after chapter 30 the following new 

8 chapter: 

9 ‘‘CHAPTER 31—ELECTION MAIL 

‘‘Sec. 

‘‘3101. Trackable election mail. 

10 ‘‘§ 3101. Trackable election mail 

11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No entity of government shall 

12 furnish a ballot envelope for the purpose of being carried 

13 or delivered by mail unless such envelope— 

14 ‘‘(1) contains a Postal Service barcode (or suc15 cessive service or marking) that enables tracking of 

16 each individual ballot consistent with parameters 

17 that the Postal Service may promulgate by regula18 tion; 

19 ‘‘(2) satisfies requirements for ballot envelope 

20 design that the Postal Service may promulgate by 

21 regulation; 

22 ‘‘(3) satisfies requirements for machineable let23 ters that the Postal Service may promulgate by reg24 ulation; and 
3 

•HR 5658 EH

1 ‘‘(4) includes the Official Election Mail Logo 

2 (or any successor label that the Postal Service may 

3 establish for ballots). 

4 ‘‘(b) APPLICATION.—Subsection (a) does not apply to 

5 a Federal write-in absentee ballot under section 103 of 

6 the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

7 (52 U.S.C. 20303). 

8 ‘‘(c) INFORMATION.—Not later than June 1 of each 

9 calendar year, the Postmaster General shall provide, to the 

10 entities described in the matter preceding paragraph (1) 

11 of subsection (a), the information necessary to comply 

12 with the requirements of this subsection, including how 

13 to access Postal Service tools to assist in generating the 

14 barcode or successive marking required by subsection 

15 (a)(1).’’. 

16 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters 

17 for part IV of title 39, United States Code, is amended 

18 by adding after the item relating to chapter 30 the fol19 lowing: 

‘‘31. Election Mail .............................................................................. 3101’’. 
4 

•HR 5658 EH

1 (c) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub2 section (a) shall apply to any election for Federal office 

3 occurring in 2026 and any succeeding year. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5658 

AN ACT 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to require 

service, and for other purposes. mail-in ballots to use the Postal Service barcode
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10842]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 042296B]


Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene 
a public meeting of its salmon stock review team for Puget Sound 
chinook and Strait of Juan de Fuca coho salmon stocks.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 15, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Point-No-Point Treaty 
Council office, 7999 NE Salish Lane, Kingston, WA 98346; telephone: 
(360) 297-3422.
    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth 
Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Coon, Fishery Management 
Coordinator (Salmon); telephone: (503) 326-6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to complete a 
review of the status of some Puget Sound chinook and Strait of Juan de 
Fuca coho stocks as required under the Council's salmon fishery 
management plan when a stock fails to meet its spawning escapement 
objective for three consecutive years. This meeting will focus on 
Strait of Juan de Fuca coho.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Lawrence D. Six at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days 
prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 24, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10842 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Esquire Communications Ltd.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-33629 of Esquire Communications Ltd. on Form S-8 of our report dated April
12, 2000 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Esquire Communications
Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                   DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Diego, California
April 12, 2000
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Archie P. HILL, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 68373.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 27, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 2, 1996.

*288Lawrence E. Wines, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David R. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder, § 565.020.1, and two counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015.1, RSMo1994. The trial court sentenced him to two concurrent life sentences for the murders and two concurrent 25-year sentences for the accompanying counts of armed criminal action. We affirm.

On appeal, defendant raises two points. First, he alleges a violation of the best evidence rule concerning the *Miranda*rights given him. Defendant argues that the written waiver form and detective’s testimony as to the defendant’s waiver of his *Miranda*rights should have been excluded. He contends that a videotaped confession contained the “best evidence” of his waiver.

We disagree. Defendant misconstrues the best evidence rule. The rule does not mean that all other evidence must be excluded whenever a fact is evidenced by a writing or recording. *See Cooley v. Director of Revenue,*896 S.W.2d 468, 470 (Mo. banc 1995). The rule simply states the law’s preference for producing a writing or recording when *its terms or contents*are at issue. *Id.*Here, the content of the videotape is not at issue. Therefore, the best evidence rule is inapplicable. Point denied.

In his second point, defendant alleges his statement was improperly received into evidence because “the standard Constitutional rights waiver” was not given. However, a detective testified that defendant was advised of his *Miranda*rights, and defendant signed a waiver of rights form. This evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that defendant was properly advised of his rights. *See State v. Hart,*805 S.W.2d 234, 238-39 (Mo.App.E.D.1991). Point denied.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results
of the Company as of and for the period covered by this Report.
 By:
    
    /s/ Gregory A. WhiteGregory A. WhiteChief Financial Officer and TreasurerAugust 15, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5799 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5799

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol located 
   on United States Highway 90 West in Uvalde County, Texas, as the 
            ``James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Checkpoint''.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``James R. Dominguez Memorial Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

     Congress finds the following:
            (1) A native of San Antonio, Texas, Border Patrol Agent 
        James R. Dominguez--
                    (A) proudly and honorably served his country as an 
                agent of the U.S. Border Patrol for more than 12 years;
                    (B) began his service with the U.S. Border Patrol 
                in 2000; and
                    (C) graduated as part of the 434th session of the 
                Border Patrol Academy.
            (2) Agent Dominguez served at the Uvalde Station in the Del 
        Rio Sector.
            (3) On July 19, 2012, Agent Dominguez stopped to clear 
        debris from the roadway that posed risks to road and community 
        safety along Highway 90 near Cline, Texas. While on scene, 
        Agent Dominguez was struck and killed by a passing vehicle.
            (4) Agent Dominguez is survived by his wife and 4 children.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION.

    The checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol located on United 
States Highway 90 West in Uvalde County, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Checkpoint''.

SEC. 4. REFERENCES.

     Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the checkpoint described in section 3 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James R. Dominguez Border 
Patrol Checkpoint''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT
      23.1




CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
      ACCOUNTANTS




We
      hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
      the Registration Statements on Form SB-2 (File Nos. 333-125267 and 333-124273)
      of Markland Technologies, Inc., of our report dated October 11, 2005 relating
      to
      our audits of the consolidated financial statements which appear in this Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB for the years ended June 30, 2005 and 2004.




/s/
      Wolf & Company, P.C.




Wolf
&
      Company, P.C.


Boston,
      Massachusetts


October
      11, 2005
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# muiteb**~tate~** 

# QCourtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbejfeberaIQCircuit
IN RE HARRY SERETTI AND CARL SCHAUKOWITCH 2013-1010 (Serial No. 11/625,067) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER Harry Seretti and Carl Schaukowitch move without opposition to dismiss this appeal. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. Case: 13-1010 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 12/13/2012IN RE HARRY SERETTI 2 FOR THE COURT /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 

## DEC 132m2 s21 Issued As A Mandate:

--------- Case: 13-1010 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 12/13/2012
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 CenterPoint Energy Transition
Bond Company II, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, Marc Kilbride, Sole Manager, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

     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 Company.


/s/ Marc Kilbride
-------------------------------------
Marc Kilbride
Sole Manager

November 30, 2005
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

John Thompson, * From the 35 th District Court

of Brown County

Trial Court No. CV1403091

.

v. No. 11

- 16

- 00040

- CV * September 22 , 2016

Guitar Veterinarian Service, Inc.

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Baile y, J.)

This court ha s considered the agreed motion to dismiss this appeal and

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The cost s incurred by reason of this

appeal are taxed against John Thompson

.
Exhibit 99.1

|PEC Solutions, Inc. |  | [PEC LOGO] |  | 12730 Fair Lakes Circle
Fairfax, VA 22003            
|------------------- |  | ---------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |            |  | 703-679-4900 voice
703-679-4901 facsimile
www.pec.com

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I,
David C. Karlgaard, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of PEC Solutions, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon review
of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 of the Registrant (the "Report"):



|/s/DAVID C. KARLGAARD |  |                   
|--------------------- |  | ------------------
|Name:                 |  | David C. Karlgaard
|Date:                 |  | March 28, 2003    

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit** **31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Larry Kurlender, certify that: 

1.     I  have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of VisualMED Clinical Solutions  Corp.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occured during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 

5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: September 27, 2006

 

|   | /s/      Larry Kurlender |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |   |
|   | Name:                    | Larry Kurlender |
|   | Title:                   | Principal Financial Officer, Principal      Accounting Officer and Treasurer |

 

----