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

No. WD 51164.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

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

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 17,1996.

*484Byron N. Fox, Kansas City, for appellant.

Breck K. Burgess, Attorney General Office, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

HANNA, Judge.

The defendant, Nicholas A. Adams, appeals from his conviction, by a jury, of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer, § 565.082.1(3), RSMo 1994. He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the results of a blood test, because the procedures used to withdraw his blood were not in compliance with relevant state statutes and regulations. The appeal is dismissed because appellant failed to provide the record on appeal, which would allow a proper review of the trial court’s decision.

Appellate review of a ruling on a motion to suppress is limited to a determination of whether sufficient evidence exists to support the trial court’s ruling. *State v. Wise,*879 S.W.2d 494, 503 (Mo. banc 1994), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 757, 130 L.Ed.2d 656 (1995). If the trial court’s ruling is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, this court may not reverse. *State v. Page,*895 S.W.2d 269, 271 (Mo.App.1995).

Rule 30.04(a) provides that the record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings, and evidence necessary for a determination of all questions to be presented. It further provides that the transcript to be filed with the appellate court “shall contain the portions of the proceedings and evidence not previously reduced to written form.” *Id.*It was the defendant’s responsibility to provide the record on appeal, including the complete transcript of the pretrial hearing for our review. Rule 30.04(c); *see State v. Hummel,*652 S.W.2d 749, 750 (Mo.App.1983).

The defendant failed to file a complete transcript of the motion to suppress hearing, providing only the testimony of two of the three witnesses who testified at the pretrial hearing. The record on appeal does not contain the testimony of fourteen out of the fifteen witnesses who testified for the state at trial. Further, the defendant testified and his testimony has not been provided. Rule 30.04(a) permits the parties to “agree in writing upon an abbreviated or partial transcript of the record, proceedings, and evidence, with the evidence either in narrative form or in question and answer form.” The parties made no such agreement here.

The defendant’s failure to provide us with a complete transcript precludes us from reviewing the record in its entirety. Because we are unable to determine whether the trial court erred, the defendant’s appeal is not subject to review. *Arnold v. State,*789 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Mo.App.1990). The appeal is dismissed.

LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and SPINDEN, J., concur.
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Sports Source, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Tubbs, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.    Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sports Source, Inc.

 
| Dated: April 28, 2006 |
|-----------------------|

 

**SPORTS SOURCE, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ James Tubbs* |
|-----|-------------------|

President, Chief Executive Officer 

Chief Financial Officer,
#### John Anthony LOVE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 1204-94.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Nov. 8, 1995.

Keith S. Hampton, Austin, for appellant.

Robert Smith, Darla Espinoza, Assistant Dist. Attys., Austin, and Robert A Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of Theft and his punishment assessed at confinement for one *516year. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed in *Love v. State,*(Tex.App.—Austin, No. 03-92-538-CR, delivered September 14, 1994). We granted discretionary review to test the vitality of our holding in *Eisenhauer v. State,*754 S.W.2d 159 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) after *Heitman v. State,*815 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). However, it now appears that our decision to do so was improvident. Accordingly, the instant cause is hereby dismissed. As always, refusal or dismissal of a petition for discretionary review implies no decision on the merits.

CLINTON, J.,

dissents with note:

Believing we are duty bound to decide the simple question of law involved and then remand to court of appeals to apply it, I respectfully dissent.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 05-50138

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. RAUL SALGADO-RAMOS also known as, Sergio Vasquez
Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

(04-CR-1855)

--------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate

the sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed motion

to remand the case to District Court for resentencing is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s alternative

unopposed motion to extend time to file the Appellee’s brief

__________________

* Pursuan t to 5 t h Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D December 8, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerkuntil fourteen (14) days from the Court’s denial of the motion to

vacate and remand is denied as unnecessary.
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Notice of Intent To Negotiate an Agreement Among the Central Utah 
Water Conservancy District, Wasatch County Water Service Area No. 1, 
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, and Department 
of the Interior for Implementation of the Wasatch County Water 
Efficiency Project/Daniels Replacement Project of the Central Utah 
Project, Utah

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary--Water and Science, 
Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to negotiate an agreement among the Central 
Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), Wasatch County Water Service 
Area No. 1 (WCWSA1), Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
Commission (URMCC), and Department of the Interior (DOI) for 
implementation of the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project/Daniels 
Replacement Project (WCWEP/DRP) of the Central Utah Project, Utah.

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

SUMMARY: Public Law 102-575, Sections 202(a)(3), 207(e), and 303(b) 
authorize construction of WCWEP/DRP for the purposes of increasing 
irrigation efficiency in the Heber Valley, conserving water, and 
eliminating the diversion of water from the upper Strawberry 
tributaries to Heber Valley. A negotiated agreement among CUWCD, 
WCWSA1, URMCC, and DOI will allow for implementation of WCWEP/DRP.

DATES: Dates for public negotiation sessions will be announced in local 
newspapers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information on matters 
related to this Federal Register notice can be obtained at the address 
and telephone number set forth below: Mr. Reed Murray, Program 
Coordinator, CUP Completion Act Office, Department of the Interior, 302 
East 1860 South, Provo UT 84606-6154, Telephone: (801) 379-1237, 
Internet: [email protected]

    Dated: May 8, 1996.
Ronald Johnston,
CUP Program Director, Department of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-12014 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
```
Case 2:17-mj-09493-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-09493-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-09493-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-09493-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-09493-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 5 of 5
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William CARSON, Appellant. William CARSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64538, 66091.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 18, 1995.

Robert A Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction of selling a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211 RSMo Supp.1992. Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to 12 years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The minor variance between the information and the instruction could not have prejudiced Defendant and the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22076-22077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11866]



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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised 
Information Collection; OPM 2809-EZ1

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management intends to submit to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for clearance of a revised information collection. OPM 
2809-EZ1, Enrollment Change and Brochure Request, is used only at Open 
Season to request an enrollment change, insurance plan brochures, and 
other informational materials. If OPM Form 2809-EZ1 is used to request 
plan brochures, an OPM Form 2809-EZ2 is furnished to the enrollee for 
use if a plan change is desired.
    Approximately 74,200 OPM Forms 2809-EZ1 are completed annually. 
Each form requires approximately 30 minutes to complete. The annual 
burden is 37,100 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c16111a1d0e0e13123c111d151052130c11521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e1413181f0c0c11103e131f171250110e1350191108">[email protected]</span></a>

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before July 
12, 1996.


[[Page 22077]]


ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, 
Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, room 3349, 
Washington, DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: Mary 
Beth Smith-Toomey, Management Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-11866 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRIS LILIANA TORRES ZEPEDA; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72797 

Agency Nos. A202-177-208 

A202-177-209 

A202-177-210 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Iris Liliana Torres Zepeda and her two daughters, natives and citizens of 

Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing 

their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72797 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 

1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

In their opening brief, petitioners do not raise, and therefore waive, any 

challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that they failed to establish 

nexus to a protected ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-

1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening 

brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to the petitioners’

asylum and withholding of removal claims. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Torres Zepeda failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 on Form 10-Q of Deerfield Triarc Capital
Corp. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of
the undersigned officers of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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.

|                                                    |                      
|--------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------
|/s/ JONATHAN W. TRUTTER                             | Date: August 14, 2006
|                                                    |                      
|Jonathan W. Trutter                                 |                      
|Chief Executive Officer                             |                      
|(Principal Executive
  Officer)                     |                      
|                                                    |                      
|/s/ RICHARD G. SMITH                                | Date: August 14, 2006
|                                                    |                      
|Richard G.
  Smith                                  |                      
|Senior Vice
  President and Chief Financial Officer |                      
|(Principal Financial
  Officer)                     |                      

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

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is
not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

---
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 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 Annual Report of Q Comm International, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I,
        Michael K. Openshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
        be
        retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
        request.
 
 
 /s/
        Mark W.
        Robinson
  Mark
        W.
        Robinson
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 (Principal
        Accounting Officer)
 
 August
        10, 2005
No. 94-568

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1995

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

LINDA E. BROWN,

Petitioner and Respondent,

and

RICHARD J. BROWN,

Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,

In and for the County of Fergus,

The Honorable Peter Rapkoch, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Timothy J. O'Hare, Lewistown, Montana

For Respondent:

Bruce E. Lee, Billings, Montana

Filed:

Submitted on Briefs: February 23, 1995

Decided: March 30, 1995
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Richard J. Brown appeals from the dissolution of his marriage

to Linda E. Brown by the District Court for the Tenth Judicial

District, Fergus County. We affirm.

The issues are whether the District Court erred by including

nonmarital property (a slot machine) in the distribution of marital

property, whether the court erred in awarding maintenance, and

whether the court abused its discretion by not granting Richard two

months summer visitation with his children.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial

credible evidence supports inclusion of the slot machine in the

marital estate. We discern no abuse of discretion in the award of

maintenance or in the visitation schedule. We therefore affirm.

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result

to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Publishing Company.

2
we concur:
Exhibit 32.2

                                  Certification

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

      Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of TOP Group Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Form 10-KSB/A") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 11, 2005                             /s/ Zhou Zong-Zheng
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Zhou Zong-Zheng
                                                Principal Financial  Officer

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as a separate
disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Terra Block International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
James E. Hines, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 25, 2004 | /s/ James E. Hines
James E. Hines
Chief Financial Officer of
Terra Block International, Inc.
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------