alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Richardson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William T. Martin, J.), rendered May 9, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested on September 22, 1987 as part of a buy-and-bust operation. Having raised the defense of agency, defendant contends that the court’s failure to charge that it was the People’s burden to disprove the agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt deprived him of a fair trial. We conclude that the court’s charge as a whole properly conveyed the People’s burden to disprove the agency defense, although it would have been preferable for the court to have specifically stated that the People were required to disprove this defense *414beyond a reasonable doubt. *(Cf., People v Arnott,*143 AD2d 761.)

For the most part, defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation comments are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them in the interests of justice. In any event, the prosecutor’s comments, which defendant contends improperly vouched for the credibility of the police witnesses, were a fair response to defense counsel’s summation comments, which attacked the credibility of those witnesses. Although the prosecutor, in using defendant’s testimony as to his relationship with "Joe” and his drug use, improperly mischaracterized the evidence to encourage the jury to speculate that defendant committed uncharged crimes to pay for a drug habit *(see, e.g., People v Bannerman,*110 AD2d 706), these comments were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. *(People v Colon,*151 AD2d 146, 154.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United St ates District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2800

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Jason Nathaniel Williamson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 5, 2007 Filed: November 8, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jason Nathaniel Williamson appeals the 235-month prison sentences the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery with a da ngerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and money launde ring, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). His counsel has moved to withdr aw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentences, at the top of the advisory Guidelines range, are unreasonable, because the court gave undue weight to-2- a robbery victim’s testimony as compar ed to Williamson’s mental illness and sentenced him beyond what was minimally sufficient. The presumption of reasonableness accord ed a sentence with in the Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007), may be rebutted by showing that the district court failed to c onsider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise committed a clear error of judgment, seeUnited States v. Davidson , 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 2006). The record supports that the district court properly considered only relevant factors, including the offense circumstances and Williamson’s extensive criminal history, as well as his serious mental illness; and that the court did not commit a clear error of judgment in choosi ng sentences at the top of the Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that the sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 31085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12386]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 31085]]


                Notice of June 8, 2021

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to the Actions and Policies of Certain Members 
                of the Government of Belarus and Other Persons To 
                Undermine Democratic Processes or Institutions of 
                Belarus

                On June 16, 2006, by Executive Order 13405, the 
                President declared a national emergency pursuant to the 
                International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
                1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and 
                extraordinary threat to the national security and 
                foreign policy of the United States constituted by the 
                actions and policies of certain members of the 
                Government of Belarus and other persons to undermine 
                Belarus's democratic processes or institutions, 
                manifested in the fundamentally undemocratic March 2006 
                elections; to commit human rights abuses related to 
                political repression, including detentions and 
                disappearances; and to engage in public corruption, 
                including by diverting or misusing Belarusian public 
                assets or by misusing public authority.

                The actions and policies of certain members of the 
                Government of Belarus and other persons continue to 
                pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
                national security and foreign policy of the United 
                States. For this reason, the national emergency 
                declared on June 16, 2006, must continue in effect 
                beyond June 16, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with 
                section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 
                U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the 
                national emergency declared in Executive Order 13405.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    June 8, 2021.

[FR Doc. 2021-12386
Filed 6-9-21; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3295-F1-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Kelly OSHIA, Defendant/Appellant. Kelly OSHIA, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 65349, 67615.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 25, 1995.

*378Deborah B. Wafer, Dist. Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals her conviction by the circuit court for three counts of sale of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1994. She was sentenced by the court to five, eight, and five years of imprisonment, each to be served concurrently. We affirm. Movant addresses no points on appeal to the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion; that appeal is considered abandoned. *See State v. Nelson,*818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT32.2

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

I, ConnieStechman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Ormat Funding Corp. on Form 10-Q for the threemonths ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and resultsof operations of Ormat Funding Corp. as of and for the periodspresented in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. This written statementis being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anexhibit accompanying such Quarterly Report and shall not be deemedfiled pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Date: May 12, 2005

|        |  |                        |  |                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|------------------------|--|-------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | By:/s/ CONNIE STECHMAN |
|   |  |                   |  | Name: ConnieStechman          |
|   |  |                   |  | Title: Chief FinancialOfficer |
|        |

----
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of New Oriental Energy & Chemical Corp.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Donglai Li Chief Financial Officer 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:




(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.





Date:
      November 16, 2009By:
              /s/Donglai LiDonglai
      LiChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Exhibit 32

Section 1350
Certifications

---

# Exhibit 32

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

The  undersigned,  the Chief  Executive  Officer and the Chief  Financial  Officer of  Independence  Bancshares,  Inc. (the
"Company"), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:

| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2007 as
               filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the
               Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
               15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  November 2, 2007 |  | By: /s/ Lawrence R. Miller
Lawrence R. MillerChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  November 2, 2007 |  | By: /s/ Kimberly D. Barrs
Kimberly D. BarrsChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned officer of Moldflow Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2004 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange
Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b) (32), this certification (A)
shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

Date: September 10, 2004

                                         /s/ SUZANNE E. MACCORMACK
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:    Suzanne E. MacCormack
                                         Title:   Executive Vice President of
                                                  Finance and Administration and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
April 16, 1973 

The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison Opinion No. H- 30 

Executive Director of the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department Re: Is the multi-colored 

John H. Reagan Building feral pigeon a variety 

Austin, Texas 78701 of wild pigeon within 

the meaning of Article 

872 of the Texas Penal 

Dear Mr. Garrison: Code? 

In your recent letter to this office you requested a formal opinion 

on the following question: .Is the multi-colored feral pigeon a variety 

of wild pigeon within the meaning of Article 872 of the Texas Penal 

Code? 

Article 872, Vernon’s Texas Penal Code, as amended in 1961 

provides as follows: 

“Wild, turkey, .wild ducks of all varieties, 

wild geese of all varieties, wild brant, wild 

grouse, wild prairie chickens or pinnated grouse, 

wild pheasants of all varieties, wild partirdge 

and wild quail of all varieties, wild pigeons of 

all varieties, wild mourning doves and wild 

white-winged doves, wild snipe of all varieties, 

wild shore birds of all varieties, wild Mexican 

pheasants or chachalacas, wild plover of all 

varieties, and wild sand-hill cranes, are hereby 

declared to be game birds within the meaning ,.. 

of this Act. I’ 

Clearly all varieties of wild pigeon are within the language of 

Article 872, and if the multi-colored ferdl pigeon is a wild pigeon, 

then it is within that statute. 

p. 127 
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 2 (H-30) 

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961) defines 

“feral” as “having escaped from domestication and become wild”. 

It would therefore appear that the multi-colored feral pigeon is 

a wild creature within the scope of Article 872. 

There are no Texas cases on this question. In the Missouri 

case of State v. Willers, 130 S. W. 2d 256 (Mo.App. 1939) the 

defendant was convicted of having killed pigeons without a permit. 

The birds shot were the “common every&y pigeon”, and the 

question was whether they were within the protected class of “the , 

columbae, commonly known as doves and pigeons”. The Court 

concluded that they were within the order Columbae, and that 

“it at once becomes manifest that the pigeons of this region 

in the feral state fall within the protection of the statute”. 

Although the Texas statute does not use the biological name, 

it does, as does tk Missouri statute, protect only wild birds, 

and includes within that protection wild pigeons of all varieties. 

It is therefore our opinion that feral pigeons are within the scope 

of Article 872, V. T. P. C. 

Since, by definition, feral pigeons are wild pigeons, the statute 

does not protect domesticated pigeons, such are bred and raised 

by farmers, for table consumption, sometimes classified as 

poultry. State v. Willers. supra. 

“Feral” refers to a state rather than a breed. Therefore, 

multi-colored feral pigeons are within the scope of the statute. 

The multi-colored feral pigeon is a variety 

of wild pigeon within the meaning of Article 872, 

Vernon’s Texas Penal Code. 

:: 

Very truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 128 
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 3 (H-30) 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 129
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 31716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12589]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting is open to the public. Out of an abundance of 
caution related to current and potential coronavirus developments, the 
public's means to observe this Board meeting will be via a Webcast live 
on the internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately 
one week after the event. Visit http://fdic.windrosemedia.com to view 
the live event. Visit http://fdic.windrosemedia.com/index.php?category=FDIC+Board+Meetings after the meeting. If you need 
any technical assistance, please visit our Video Help page at: https://www.fdic.gov/video.html.
    Observers requiring auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language 
interpretation) for this meeting should call 703-562-2404 (Voice) or 
703-649-4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Pursuant to the provisions of the 
``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby 
given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of 
Directors will meet in open session to consider the following matters:

Summary Agenda

    No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. 
These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of 
the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion 
agenda.
    Disposition of Minutes of a Board of Directors' Meeting Previously 
Distributed.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Policy Statement Regarding 
Minority Depository Institutions.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Real 
Estate Lending Standards.
    Status of report of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated 
by the Board of Directors.

Discussion Agenda

    Memorandum and resolution re: Establishment of the FDIC Advisory 
Council on Innovation.
    Briefing: Restoration Plan Semiannual Update.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Requests for further information 
concerning the meeting may be directed to Ms. Debra A. Decker, Deputy 
Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on June 10, 2021.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12589 Filed 6-11-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
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-Q for the period ending May 31, 2010 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 14, 2010  By: /s/ James F. Dempsey  -------------------------------  James F. Dempsey Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SoftBrands, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on March 15, 2005 (the “Report”), the undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial 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.             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ GEORGE H. ELLIS                                     |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | George H. Ellis,  Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                                                    |
|   | Date:                                                   | March  17, 2005 |

 

 
|   | /s/ DAVID G. LATZKE                                                            |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | David G. Latzke, Chief Financial Officer, Senior  Vice President and Secretary |
|   |                                                                           |
|   | Date:                                                                          | March  17, 2005 |

 

----