alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 27, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-10463 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00088-SCB-EAJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JIMMIE LEE FORD, JR., 

a.k.a. Hood,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(August 27, 2010)

Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

A Middle District of Florida jury convicted Jimmie Lee Ford, Jr. on three
counts of distributing at least five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court sentenced him to prison for 130 months

on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals his convictions

raising one issue:

Whether the district court committed legal error and misled the jury

as to the Government’s burden of proof when it defined ‘reasonable

doubt’ subjectively—that is, when it described the proof required in

terms of what a juror would rely upon in his or her own affairs?

The district court instructed on reasonable doubt in accordance with the

Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, as follows:

[A] real doubt, based on your reason and common sense after you’ve

carefully and impartially considered all the evidence in the case. 

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof so convincing that you

would be willing to rely and act on it without hesitation in the most

important of your own affairs. If you are convinced that the

Defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. 

If you are not convinced, say so.

11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instructions 3. We have repeatedly approved of this

definition of reasonable doubt. See, e.g., United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217,

1249-50 (affirming jury instructions that defined reasonable doubt as “proof of

such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely or act upon it

without hestitation in a decision involving the most important of your affairs.”);

United States v. Daniels, 968 F.2d 451, 457-58 (11th Cir. 1993), op. readopted on

2
reh’g, 5 F.3d 495, 496 (11th Cir. 2003) (rejecting a defendant’s argument that the

“willing to act” language in this Circuit’s reasonable doubt instruction

impermissibly lowers the government’s burden of proof); United States v. Clayton,

643 F.2d 1071, 1074-75 (5th Cir. 1981). 

Since this panel is bound by these prior decisions, United States v. Steele,

147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 1998) (en banc), we are obliged to sustain the

challenged jury instruction and affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

3
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WebSafety, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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.

 

By:  */s/Rowland W. Day II.*

Rowland W. Day II

Chief Financial Officer

 

Dated: August 14, 2012

This certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Manmohan Minhas certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10 QSB of  Minhas  Energy
     Consultants, Inc.;

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

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
     procedures  (as  defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and I have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
          material  information  relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
          consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
          entities,  particularly  during  the  period in which  this  quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c)   presented in this report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
          the disclosure  controls and procedures  based on our evaluation as of
          the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of directors  (or
     persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6.   I have  indicated  in this  report  whether or not there  were  significant
     changes in internal  controls or in other factors that could  significantly
     affect  internal  controls  subsequent  to  the  date  of our  most  recent
     evaluation,  including any  corrective  actions with regard to  significant
     deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 1, 2007


By: /s/ Manmohan Minhas
   ------------------------------
   Manmohan Minhas
   President and CEO
[Cite as Jabr v. Disciplinary Counsel , 2021-Ohio-646.]

{¶1} On January 26, 2021, a special master issued a report and recom mendation in this public-records dispute brought under R.C. 2743.75. The special master recommends that the court (1) find it lacks -matter jurisdictio n over requester’s claim, (2) grant respondent’s motion to dismiss, and (3) assess costs to r equester. {¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the specia l master’s report and recommendation. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects, this court is required to “promptly issue a final order adoptin g the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” The cou rt finds no error of law or other defect is evident on the face of the special master’s report and recommendation. The court therefore adopts the report and reco mmendation, grants requester’s motion to dismiss, and dismisses requester’s claim without prejudice. Court TAREQ R. JABR

Requester

v.

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

Respondent Case No. 2020-00596PQ

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

JUDGMENT ENTRYCase No. 2020-00596PQ -2- ENTRY

costs are assessed to requester. The clerk shall serve upon al l parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Jud g e

Filed February 16, 2021 Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/8/21
#### George E. BUCKNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49988.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 11, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from motion court’s denial of Rule 24.035 motion for relief from conviction of stealing pursuant to section 570.030, RSMo 1986.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of SFN Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Roy G. Krause, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark W. Smith, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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/ ROY G. KRAUSERoy G. KrausePresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 3, 2010/s/ MARK W. SMITHMark W. SmithExecutive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficerMarch 3, 2010


---
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3739

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide, without subsidy, for

enhanced essential air service to remote insular areas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 27, 1996

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide, without

subsidy, for enhanced essential air service to remote insular areas.

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOTE INSULAR AREA DEFINED.

4 Section 41731 of title 49, United States Code, is

5 amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6)

6 and by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:

7 ‘‘(5) ‘remote insular area’ means American

8 Samoa.’’.
2

•HR 3739 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENHANCED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE FOR REMOTE

2 INSULAR AREAS.

3 Section 41735 of title 49, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(f) ENHANCED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE FOR RE6 MOTE INSULAR AREAS.—

7 ‘‘(1) PROPOSALS.—In lieu of submitting a pro8 posal under subsection (a) for enhanced essential air

9 service based on compensation, the government of a

10 remote insular area may submit a request for en11 hanced essential air service based on the award of

12 exclusive authority to serve an eligible point located

13 in such area. A request submitted under this sub14 section shall specify the minimum level of enhanced

15 essential air service which the government considers

16 appropriate.

17 ‘‘(2) DECISIONS.—

18 ‘‘(A) NOTICE.—Within 30 days after re19 ceiving such a request, the Secretary shall pro20 vide notice that applications and service propos21 als may be submitted to the Secretary within

22 30 days by any air carrier which is willing to

23 provide at least the minimum level of air service

24 requested.

25 ‘‘(B) SELECTION.—Within 30 days after

26 the closing date for applications and proposals
3

•HR 3739 IH

1 for service to a remote insular area under sub2 paragraph (A), the Secretary shall select the

3 qualified applicant whose service proposal best

4 meets the air service needs of the remote insu5 lar area and shall award such applicant the ex6 clusive authority to serve the eligible point for

7 a period not to exceed 2 years. The award of

8 such authority shall be subject to the perform9 ance of service in accordance with the appli10 cant’s service proposal and may be renewed

11 under this subsection.

12 ‘‘(3) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—In selecting an

13 air carrier to provide such exclusive service the Sec14 retary shall consider, among other factors, the fac15 tors in subsection (b)(3)(A) and shall also consider

16 the views of the requesting government.

17 ‘‘(4) RENEWALS.—Prior to renewing any award

18 of exclusive service authority under this subsection,

19 the Secretary shall provide notice and opportunity

20 for other air carriers to submit applications and

21 service proposals. Such applications and proposals

22 shall be considered by the Secretary in accordance

23 with this subsection.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-20118

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

BRUCE JARRARD,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR DISCLOSURE OF BRADY MATERIALS AND GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS [DOC. # 12, 13]

Defendant Bruce Jarrard has moved for an order requiring the government to

turn over evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material to guilt

or punishment under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny. The

government has assured defendant and the Court that it will make available all

exculpatory and impeachment evidence that must be disclosed under Brady, and to the

extent any new exculpatory evidence becomes available, the government will make it

available to defense counsel. As such, defendant’s motion to order disclosure of Brady

materials hereby is DENIED AS MOOT.

In addition, defendant has moved for leave to file additional motions, if

necessary, after reviewing discovery documents. Defendant will have thirty (30) days

from the entry of this order to file additional pretrial motions (due June 8, 2009). The

scheduled plea cut-off hearing and trial dates are adjourned without date. 

2:09-cr-20118-GCS-VMM Doc # 15 Filed 05/06/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 65
2

It is so ordered.

Dated: May 6, 2009

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

May 6, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cr-20118-GCS-VMM Doc # 15 Filed 05/06/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 66
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the periodic report of uKarma Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bill Glaser, Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
      Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
      purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that
      to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





Date:
      August 20, 2007


/s/ Bill GlaserBill
              GlaserChief
                Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
              Chief
                Financial Officer (Principal Financial
                Officer)
| **Overview and Nature of Business: Deconsolidation (Details)** | 9 Months Ended |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Details**                                                    |           |
| Deconsolidation, RoxSan Pharmacy, Gain                         | $ 5,079,416    |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Represents the monetary amount of Deconsolidation, RoxSan Pharmacy, Gain, during the indicated time period.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fil_DeconsolidationRoxsanPharmacyGain**Namespace Prefix:**fil_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_TextBlockAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17212]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Division of Research Grants; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Division of Research Grants Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Clinical Sciences.
    Date: July 17, 1996.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 4214, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Dan McDonald, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1215.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
above meetings due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the grant review and funding cycle.
    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: July 22, 1996.
    Time: 8:30 a.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 5142, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Camilla Day, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5142, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1024.

    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: July 22, 1996.
    Time: 1:00 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 5196.
    Contact Person: Ms. Carol Campbell, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5196, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301 453-1257.

    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: July 29-29, 1996.
    Time: 7:00 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Chevy Chase, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Lee Rosen, Scientific Review Administrator, 
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5116, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 
435-1171.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health HHS)

    Dated: June 28, 1996.
Margery G. Grubb,
Senior Committee Management Specialist, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-17212 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Dolores C. CLEMENS, Appellant, v. ECONO LODGE, Respondent.

No. 70510.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 29, 1996.

Dolores C. Clemens, St. Mary, pro se.

Econo Lodge, Ste. Genevieve, pro se.

Ninion S. Riley (Division of Employment Security), Jefferson City, Larry R. Ruhmann (Division of Employment Security), St. Louis, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dolores C. Clemens appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s affirmance of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision finding that she *875voluntarily left her job and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 of Golden Phoenix Minerals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, David A.
Caldwell hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
his knowledge:





1.
            The
      annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.








March 31,
      2008
            /s/ David A.
      Caldwell(Date)
            David
      A. CaldwellChief
      Executive Officer