alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *741Thomas Struss, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered January 10, 1989, convicting him of scheme to defraud in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Brown, J. P., Kooper, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

        In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofEarthLink, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Kevin M. Dotts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:

(1)          the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition

                     and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/  KEVIN  M. DOTTS |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| Kevin M. Dotts                 |
| Chief Financial Officer        |
| March 1, 2007                  |

 

----
#### William J. MATTHIESSEN and Paul G. Silber, Jr., Petitioners v. John M. SCHAEFER, Respondent.

No. 95-0423.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 22, 1995.

Rehearing Overruled March 7, 1996.

Thomas H. Crofts, Jr. and Earle Cobb, Jr., San Antonio, for Petitioners.

*480Robert W. Loree and Britannia H. Hardee, San Antonio, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a turnover order. The only issue on appeal is the turnover order’s attorney’s fees award, which the court of appeals affirmed. 897 S.W.2d 825. On rehearing, the court of appeals reversed the judgment on which the turnover order is based. *See Matthiessen v. Schaefer,*900 S.W.2d 792, 798 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1995, writ denied). Today, we denied application for writ of error in that case. If the underlying judgment is reversed on appeal, then the turnover order must be reversed also. *See Enis v. Smith,*883 S.W.2d 662, 663 (Tex.1994). Without hearing argument, a majority of the court grants writ of error, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, and renders judgment that Schaefer take nothing by the turnover proceeding. Tex.R.App.P. 170.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5979 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5979

 To require each enterprise to include on the Uniform Residential Loan 
   Application a disclaimer to increase awareness of the direct and 
 guaranteed home loan programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 2023

  Ms. De La Cruz (for herself, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. 
 Posey, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Gooden of Texas, Mr. Moore of Alabama, and Mr. 
                Sessions) introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

            Referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require each enterprise to include on the Uniform Residential Loan 
   Application a disclaimer to increase awareness of the direct and 
 guaranteed home loan programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``VA Home Loan Awareness Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. MILITARY SERVICE QUESTION.

    (a) In General.--Subpart A of part 2 of the Federal Housing 
Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4541 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1329. UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION.

    ``Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
section, the Director shall, by regulation or order, require each 
enterprise to include a disclaimer below the military service question 
on the form known as the Uniform Residential Loan Application stating, 
`If yes, you may qualify for a VA Home Loan. Consult your lender 
regarding eligibility.'.''.
    (b) GAO Study.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on whether or not 
less than 80 percent of lenders using the Uniform Residential Loan 
Application have included on that form the disclaimer required under 
section 1329 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and 
Soundness Act of 1992, as added by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Present: All the Justices 

ANNIE CONNER 

OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 

v. Record No. 951836 June 7, 1996 

JAMES M. ROSE 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 

James E. Kulp, Judge 

 Code § 8.01-380(A) contains a limitation which provides that 

"[a]fter a nonsuit no new proceeding on the same cause of action 

or against the same party shall be had in any court other than 

that in which the nonsuit was taken, unless that court is without 

jurisdiction." In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 8.01-

380(A) permits a plaintiff to nonsuit an action in a general 

district court and to refile that action in a circuit court, 

claiming damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the general 

district court. 

 In 1994, Annie Conner filed an action against James M. Rose 

in the Richmond City General District Court. Conner alleged in 

her warrant in debt that she had purchased a home from Rose and 

that he breached certain warranties that he had made to her. 

Conner sought damages in the amount of $4,000. 

 On Rose's motion, the action was transferred to the Henrico 

County General District Court. Subsequently, Conner nonsuited her 

action in that court and refiled her action in the Circuit Court 

of Henrico County. Her motion for judgment included causes of 

action for breach of warranty and fraud in connection with the 

purchase of the house. She sought compensatory and punitive 

damages totaling $11,000. 
 Relying upon Code § 8.01-380(A), Rose requested that the 

circuit court transfer Conner's action to the general district 

court. Rose argued, and the trial court held, that Code § 8.01-

380(A) requires that Conner refile her action in the general 

district court because her nonsuit was taken in that court. We 

awarded Conner an appeal. 

 Conner asserts that Code § 8.01-380(A) permits her to file 

her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum clause in 

her motion for judgment exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the 

general district court and, therefore, the general district court 

lacks jurisdiction over her action. We agree. 

 The applicable statutory language quoted in Code § 8.01-

380(A) is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, we apply its plain 

meaning. Barr v. Town & Country Properties, Inc., 240 Va. 292, 

295, 396 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1990). This language permits Conner to 

refile her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum

clause in her motion for judgment exceeds the general district 

court's jurisdictional limit of $10,000, see Code § 16.1-77. 

Therefore, the general district court is without jurisdiction to 

adjudicate her claims. 

 Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court 

and remand this case for further proceedings. 

Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Henry J.
Fuchs M.D., the Chief Executive Officer of IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Company"), and Eric H. Bjerkholt, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

      1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
      31, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the
      "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
      of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of
      the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: March 28, 2003

/s/ Henry J. Fuchs M.D.                                  /s/ Eric H. Bjerkholt
Henry J. Fuchs M.D.                                      Eric H. Bjerkholt
Chief Executive Officer                                  Chief Financial Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHALIN MERRIHEW

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3301

[ November 25, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Martin County ; Lawrence M. Mirman , Judge; L.T. Case No.

432017CF000940A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David John McPherrin,

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf,

Assist ant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, K LINGENSMITH JJ., and N UTT

, J AMES

, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Beacon Power Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesM. Spiezio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe 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/ James M. Spiezio    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| James M. Spiezio        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |
| May 2, 2007             |

 

----
Exhibit 21.1

Caldera International, Inc list of Subsidiaries

SCO
Operations, Inc. (formerly Caldera Systems, Inc (a US Company))

SCO
Global, Inc. (formerly Caldera Global, Inc (a US Company))

The
SCO Group, Ltd. (formerly Caldera Europe Ltd (a UK Company))

The
SCO Group (Deutschland) GmbH (formerly Caldera Deutschland GmbH (a German Company))

SCO
Japan, Ltd. (formerly Caldera KK (a Japan Company))

The
SCO Group (France) Sarl (formerly The Santa Cruz Operation (France) Sarl (a France Company))

The
SCO Group (Italia) Srl (formerly The Santa Cruz Operation (Italia) Srl (a Italy Company))

SCO
Canada, Inc (a Canada Company)

1

---

QuickLinks
#### JACKSON *v.*THE STATE.

One who in Barrow county procures an agent to go to Hall county and there to buy and bring back whisky is guilty of having, possessing, and controlling the whisky in Gwinnett county, wherein the agent is intercepted and arrested with the whisky on his return journey; and the procurer can be prosecuted in Gwinnett county.

*No. 3351.*

November *17,*1922.

Question certified by Court of Appeals (Case No. 13653).

*Richard B. Bussell*and *G. A. Johns,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. O. Bean, solicitor-general,*contra.

*545Fish, C. J.

The Court of Appeals certified to this court the following question: “Where A in Barrow county furnishes B with an automobile and money, and instructs B to go to a certain point in Hall county and there purchase for him (A) a large amount of whisky and to bring the whisky back in the automobile to him (A) in Barrow county, and where in pursuance of such instruction B goes in the automobile and purchases the whisky for A in Hall county, and on the return trip to Barrow county and while passing through Gwinnett county B is intercepted and arrested with the whisky in Gwinnett county, is A guilty of having, possessing, and controlling the whisky, and can he be prosecuted therefor in Gwinnett county ? ”•

“ An accessory is one who is not the chief actor in the offense, nor present at its performance, but is in some way concerned therein, either before or after the act committed.” Penal Code, § 44. “ An accessory before the fact is one who, being absent at the time of the crime committed, doth yet procure, counsel, or command another to commit a crime.” Penal Code, § 45. “ The rule of the common law that in misdemeanors there are no accessories before the fact, but that all who would be such in felonies are principals in misdemeanors, is still of force in Georgia.” *Kinnebrew*v. *State,*80 *Ga.*232 (5 S. E. 56); *Parmer*v. *State,*91 *Ga. 152*(16 S. E. 937); *Slaughter*v. *State,*113 *Ga.*284 (38 S. E. 854, 84 Am. St. R. 242).

To have, control, or possess contraband liquor in this State is a misdemeanor. Acts Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 8. And all who may be concerned in the commission of such offense are ^principals. Cases above cited. _ Accordingly, the person designated as “ A ” by the Court of Appeals, in the circumstances stated in the question propounded, committed the offense of having, possessing, or controlling the prohibited liquor in the county of Gwinnett, and was there subject to indictment. See *Carter*v. *State,*143 *Ga.*632 (3) (85 S. E. 884), and cases cited.

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Edward L. NEWBOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41400.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 31, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 2, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.

Robert G. Duncan, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before GAITAN, J., Presiding, and MANFORD and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial, after an eviden-tiary hearing, of a Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. A jury convicted Edward L. Newbold of murder in the second degree (§ 565.004, RSMo 1978), and he was sentenced to life imprisonment as a persistent offender (§ 558.016.2, RSMo 1978). The conviction was affirmed by this court in *State v. Newbold,*731 S.W.2d 373 (Mo.App.1987). The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135502 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JACQUELINE RILEY, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135502 

 COA: 279307 

Kalamazoo CC: 05-000441-NH 

CHRISTOPHER STEELE, CRNA, 

RICHARD A. STARK, M.D., KALAMAZOO 

ANESTHESIOLOGY, P.C., and BRONSON 

METHODIST HOSPITAL, 

Defendants, 

and 

JOEL H. REINOEHL, M.D. and ADVANCED 

CARDIAC HEALTHCARE, P.L.C., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0317 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 24, 2008 

 Clerk
#### In the Interest of J.P.V., Jr., a Minor Child.

No. 64603.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.

June 28, 1994.

Edward Rex Bradley, Louisiana, for appellant.

Mark Steven Fisher, John M. Mcllroy, Joseph A. Brannon, Bowling Green, for respondent.

Before CRIST, P.J., and SIMON and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Father and Mother appeal the order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights in Minor Son, pursuant to § 211.447, RSMo Supp.1993. We find the juvenile court’s order which found clear, cogent and convincing evidence to support the termi*521nation of Father and Mother’s parental rights is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Rule 84.16(b)(1). We further find no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

An opinion in this case would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). Therefore, we affirm by written order. A memorandum has been issued to the parties for their use only.
**EXHIBIT 32**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SoftBrands, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.**                                       The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

**2.**                                       The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|        | /s/ RANDAL B. TOFTELAND                                               |             |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
|   | Randal B. Tofteland, President, Chief Executive  Officer and Director |             |
|   |                                                                  |             |   |
|   | Date:                                                                 | August 14 , 2006 |   |   |
|        |                                                                       |                  |        |  |

 
|        | /s/ Gregg A. Waldon                                                            |             |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
|   | Gregg A. Waldon, Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |             |
|   |                                                                           |             |   |
|   | Date:                                                                          | August 14,, 2006 |   |   |
|        |                                                                                |                  |        |  |

 

1

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5835 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to increase the mileage of the 

Appalachian Development Highway System to provide for improvements 

to and expansion of Corridor K in North Carolina, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to increase the 

mileage of the Appalachian Development Highway System to provide for improvements to and expansion of 

Corridor K in North Carolina, 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. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYS4 TEM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 14501(a) of title 40, 

6 United States Code, is amended, in the second sentence, 

7 by striking ‘‘three thousand and ninety miles’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘3,105 miles’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5835 IH

1 (b) PURPOSE.—The increase in mileage to the Appa2 lachian Development Highway System made by the 

3 amendment made by subsection (a) shall be for improve4 ments to and expansion of Corridor K in North Carolina. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 595 

To extend the right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board to 

certain employees of the United States Postal Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2023 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself, Mr. GARBARINO, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Mr. KILMER, and Mr. LYNCH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To extend the right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board to certain employees of the United States 

Postal Service. 

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 ‘‘Postal Employee Ap5 peal Rights Amendment Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RIGHT OF APPEAL TO MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC7 TION BOARD. 

8 Section 1005(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I) of title 39, United States 

9 Code, is amended to read as follows: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 595 IH

1 ‘‘(I) is an officer or employee of 

2 the Postal Service who— 

3 ‘‘(aa) is not represented by a 

4 bargaining representative recog5 nized under section 1203; and 

6 ‘‘(bb) is in a supervisory, 

7 professional, technical, clerical, 

8 administrative, or managerial po9 sition covered by the Executive 

10 and Administrative Schedule; 

11 and’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB