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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered April 3, 1986, convicting him of criminally negligent homicide, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s claim that CPL 450.10 and 450.15, which authorize appeals from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction *(see,*CPL 440) only by permission, are unconstitutional (NY Const, art VI, §4 [k]). This court has noted that: "a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment on the ground of ineffectiveness of counsel, like an order denying a common-law writ of error coram nobis, is an 'intermediate order’, an appeal from which may be limited or conditioned *(see, People v Gersewitz,*294 NY 163, *cert dismissed*326 US 687; mem of State Exec Dept., 1971 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 2463; *cf., People v Pollenz,*67 NY2d 264)” *(People v Ghee,*153 AD2d 954; *People v Bellamy,*160 AD2d 886). Thus, the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel which was denied on the merits on his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, is not properly before this court on direct appeal. Leave to appeal from that order was denied by order of this court dated June 20, 1989 *(see,*CPL 450.10, 450.15 [1]; *People v Drummond,*104 AD2d 825, 826).

In addition, we reject the defendant’s remaining contention, which can be determined from the record on appeal, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel’s efforts, as a whole, afforded the defendant "meaningful representation” *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). *607Counsel made various pretrial motions, effectively cross-examined witnesses, raised numerous objections, delivered a cogent opening and closing statement, made appropriate posttrial motions, and made a logical and compelling statement on behalf of the defendant at sentencing. Thus, taken as a whole, his performance was sufficiently competent to satisfy the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baveghems,*137 AD2d 822, 823; *People v Robinson,*133 AD2d 473, 474; *People v Morris,*100 AD2d 630, *affd*64 NY2d 803). Moreover, defense counsel’s assistance was not constitutionally ineffective merely because some of his strategic choices turned out to be unsuccessful *(see, People v Hinton,*140 AD2d 712). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 13.1



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 annual report on Form 20-F of Vannessa Ventures Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.





Date:  April 10, 2006





/s/ John R. Morgan



John R. Morgan

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)







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





---

Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Vannessa Ventures Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.





Date:  April 10, 2006





/s/ Cameron B. Boyer



Cameron B. Boyer

Controller

(Principal Financial Officer)







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11711]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Corps of Engineers


Available Surplus Real Property at Fort Chaffee Military 
Reservation, Located in Fort Smith, Sebastian County, AR

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice identifies the surplus real property located at 
Fort Chaffee Military Reservation, Arkansas. Fort Chaffee is located 15 
miles from Interstate 40 and is 15 miles east of Fort Smith, Arkansas. 
A municipal airport and rail network are in close proximity.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For additional information regarding particular properties identified 
in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plans, existing sanitary 
facilities, exact street address), contact Ms. Peggy Boismier, Army 
Corps of Engineers, 700 West Capitol, Room 6317, Little Rock, Arkansas 
72201-3221 (telephone (501) 324-5716, fax (501) 324-7166) or Mr. Warren 
Johnson, Base Transition Coordinator, HQ USAG, ATTN: ATZR-ZC, Fort 
Chaffee, Arkansas 72905-5000 (telephone (501) 484-2083, fax (501) 484-
2055).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This surplus property is available under the 
provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949 and the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless 
Assistance Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-421). Notices of interest should 
be forwarded to the Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority (FCRA), W.R. 
Harper, Sebastian County Judge, County Courthouse, 35 South 6th Street, 
Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901, (501) 783-6139, or by fax at (501) 784-
1550.
    The surplus real property at Fort Chaffee contains 6,206 acres and 
includes 515 buildings totaling 1,881,670 square feet. Present use of 
the buildings includes administrative, supply, vehicle maintenance, 
warehouse/storage, dining, hospital/ward and barracks
    The effective date of the Determination of Surplus is April 5, 
1996.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-11711 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-DL-M
Exhibit 32.2  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 Derby Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Frank Pioppi, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  June 10, 2009 /s/ Frank Pioppi Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 576 

To address the duration of copyright, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2023 

Mr. STEUBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To address the duration of copyright, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Copyright Clause Res5 toration Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DURATION OF COPYRIGHT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.— 

8 (1) ORIGINAL TERM.—Notwithstanding any 

9 provision of title 17, United States Code, or any 

10 other provision of law, copyright in any work shall 

11 endure for 28 years from the date it was originally 

12 secured. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 576 IH

1 (2) EXTENSION.—The holder of a copyright 

2 under paragraph (1) shall be entitled to a renewal 

3 and extension of the copyright in the applicable work 

4 for a further term of 28 years if the holder applies 

5 for that renewal and extension during the 1-year pe6 riod before the expiration of the original term of the 

7 copyright under that paragraph. 

8 (b) APPLICATION.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para10 graph (2), subsection (a) shall apply with respect to 

11 copyright protection for any work fixed on or after 

12 the date of enactment of this Act. 

13 (2) RETROACTIVE EFFECT.— 

14 (A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara15 graph (B), subsection (a) shall apply with re16 spect to a copyright that, on any date on or 

17 after May 1, 2023, is owned by a person that— 

18 (i) has a market capitalization of 

19 more than $150,000,000,000; and 

20 (ii)(I) is classified under North Amer21 ican Industry Classification System code 

22 5121 or 71; or 

23 (II) engages in substantial activities 

24 for which a code described in subclause (I) 

25 could be assigned. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 576 IH

1 (B) LICENSING.—If, as of May 1, 2023, a 

2 person is operating under a license with respect 

3 to a copyright that is subject to subparagraph 

4 (A) and that, because of the application of that 

5 subparagraph, would expire during the 10-year 

6 period beginning on May 1, 2023, that person 

7 shall continue to hold the rights contained in 

8 that license (to the exclusion of any person not 

9 granted those rights by a license before May 1, 

10 2023) for a period that is the shorter of— 

11 (i) 50 percent of the remaining license 

12 term, as of May 1, 2023; or 

13 (ii) 10 years, beginning on May 1, 

14 2023. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dorothy NEVELS, Appellant.

No. 61684.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 2, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 24, 1993.

Henry W. Cummings, St. Charles, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert Alan Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Defendant pled guilty to delivery of cocaine, a class B felony. Subsequently, she filed a timely motion to withdraw her guilty plea pursuant to Rule 29.07(d). She appeals from the trial court’s denial of that motion. We affirm per Rule 30.25(b). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished a memorandum • for their information only.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00266-CR

ALEC NAVA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-2080-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alex Nava entered a plea of guilty to the offense of intoxication assault against 

an emergency worker and elected to have a jury assess punishment. The jury assessed 

punishment at 20 years confinement. We affirm.

Nava’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently 

reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Nava of his right to submit a 
Nava v. State Page 2

response on his own behalf. Nava did not file a response. Counsel's brief evidences a 

professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed 

the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. 

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the 

proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. at 744; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An 

appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." 

McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire 

record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial 

court's judgment.

Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Nava is 

granted. Additionally, counsel must send Nava a copy of our decision, notify Nava of 

his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter 

certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R.

APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Nava v. State Page 3

JOHN E. NEILL

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Affirmed; motion granted

Opinion delivered and filed December 4, 2019

Do not publish 

[CR25]
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

         I, Yvon Leveille, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Adsero Corp.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

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

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

         Date: April 14, 2005                /s/ Yvon Leveille
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                        Yvon Leveille
                                        PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

January 30, 2015

Hon. Laura Hinojosa

District Clerk

100 N Closner - 1st Floor

Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00150-CR

Tr.Ct.No. CR-3781-11-A

Style: Vicente Fabian v. The State of Texas

The judgment of the trial court was DISMISSED by this Court on the 6th day of 

November, 2014. The mandate is enclosed.

Tex R. App. P. 51.2(a)(1) provides that the clerk of the trial court shall send an 

acknowledgment to the clerk of the appellate court of the receipt of the mandate. Please review 

the requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 51.2(b) regarding the issuance of a capias in cases in which 

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and the defendant is not in custody.

Please sign the attached acknowledgment of receipt of the mandate and submit through 

the TAMES Records Submission Portal (RSP) as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Johnathan T. Ball (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Rene A. Guerra (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the mandate in cause no. 13-14-00150-CR this 

________ day of _________________, 2015.

District/County Clerk, 

By :____________________________
**Exhibit 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-48010, 333-75502,333-75498, 333-111223, 333-121159, 333-130385, and 333-139146)  of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. of ourreports dated August 15, 2008 relating to the (1) financial statementswhich report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph regarding the adoption of new accounting standards, (2) financialstatement schedule and (3) the effectiveness of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc.’sinternal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008.

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

McLean, VirginiaAugust 15, 2008

 

----
#### Robert FANNING, Betty Fanning, and Bobby Fanning, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Edward H. ANDRES, M.D., et al., Defendants/Respondents.

No. 64557.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

March 8, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 7, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied May 26, 1994.

John C. Milholland, Harrisonville, Donald L. Schlapprizzi, St. Louis, for plaintiffs/appellants.

Ronald R. McMillin, Jefferson City, for defendants/respondents.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ. '

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs’ filed a pleading which they labeled “Petition for Damages for Tortious Interference with Contracts.” The trial court sustained defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.-16(b).

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11668]



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

National Science Foundation


Special Emphasis Panel in Science Resources Studies; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Science Resources Studies 
(#1211).
    Date and Time: May 30, 1996-9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; May 31, 
1996-9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 340, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia.
    Type of Meeting: Partially Open.
    Contact Person: Ann Lanier, Project Director, Survey of Academic 
Research Facilities, Division of Science Resources Studies, National 
Science Foundation, Room 965, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1774, ext. 6910.
    Purpose of Meeting: To review and comment on the content, 
structure, and layout of the biennial report to Congress, Scientific 
and Engineering Research Facilities at Universities and Colleges: 
1996
    Agenda: May 30--Review and comment on the DRAFT data tables for 
the report and review and comment on the body of the report. May 
31--Review and comment on the DRAFT of the body of the report.
    Reason for Closing: The closed portion of the meeting on May 
30th will disclose data from individual institutions that is 
privileged or confidential. These matters are within exemption (4) 
of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 6, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-11668 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

John Thompson, * From the 35th 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 Bailey, J.)

This court has 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 costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against John Thompson.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

LAMAROL ABRAM, : No. 32 WAP 2023 

Appellant 

V. 

PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD 

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AGENCY, 

Appellee 

ORDER

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court entered 

October 31, 2023 at No. 477 MD 

2023. 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2024, the order of the Commonwealth Court is 

AFFIRMED.