alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.3





STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sam H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-Q/A Report for the six months ended June 30, 2013(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Sam H. Lindsey, Jr.,


Sam H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer


Dated: December 30, 2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mIniteb ~tate5' qcourt of ~eaI5'

for tbe jfeberaI qcircuit

IN RE ANTHONY JEREMIAH BAYNE

2012-1640

(Serial No. 11/871,992)

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves for an extension of time, until January

11, 2013, to file his principal brief. Anthony Jeremiah

Bayne opposes.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

Case: 12-1640 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2012
IN RE ANTHONY BAYNE

The motion is granted.

s27

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

2

Case: 12-1640 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 11/29/2012
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

I, John Hiner, President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director of
Crown Oil & Gas Inc. (the Company), 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:

| | (a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal period ended February 29, 2008, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                            

|By:    | /s/ *John Hiner*                                                                                               
|------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:  | John Hiner                                                                                                     
|Title: | President (Principal Executive Officer),
      Secretary, Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer) and Director
|       |                                                                                                                
|Date:  | April 14, 2008                                                                                                 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of this Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
#### Robert Kenneth SCHOULTZ, Appellant, v. Carl HOCKER, Warden, etc., Appellee.

No. 72-2390.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 24, 1972.

*682Robert L. Valencia, Berkeley, Cal., for appellant.

Robert List, Atty. Gen., Herbert F. Ahlswede, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, Nev., for appellee.

Before ELY, HUFSTEDLER, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Schoultz is a Nevada state prisoner. After exhausting his state remedies, he filed a petiton for habeas corpus in the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We have concluded that this was error. In his appeal, Schoultz presents three contentions, but we now reach only one. This contention is based upon one of Schoultz’ allegations in his petition, that he was induced to plead guilty in the state court because the prosecuting attorney made the promise that if Schoultz did so plead, he would be sentenced to a period of confinement not exceeding five to seven years. Following his plea, the sentence imposed by the state judge was a period of confinement of ten years.

It is well-established that if an accused enters a plea of guilty upon the basis of a promise made by an official representing the prosecution, and the promise is unequivocal, then he is entitled to withdraw his plea if the promise is unfulfilled. *See, e. g.,*Hilliard v. Beto, 465 F.2d 829 (5th Cir. 1972); *cf.*San-tobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). Accordingly, Schoultz is entitled to an evidentiary hearing for the determination of the truth or falsity of the allegation as to the alleged promise. If the allegation is true, then he’ is entitled to plead anew in the state court. Macon v. Craven, 457 F.2d 342 (9th Cir. 1972). Upon remand, the District Court may either conduct its own evidentiary hearing or, should it choose, hold Schoultz’ petition in abeyance for a reasonable time, not exceeding sixty days, within which to allow the Nevada state courts to conduct the necessary evidentiary hearing in the first instance. Since Schoultz is confined, we suggest that the District Court consider the advisability of appointing counsel to assist Schoultz in the presentation of his claim for habeas relief.

Reversed and remanded.
cbmg_ex1038.htm


Exhibit 10.38


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 




  





10











  






 


 




  





11











  






 


 




  





12











  






 


 




  





13











  






 


 




  





14











  






 


 




  





15











  






 


 




  





16











  






 


 




  





17











  






 


 




  





18











  






 


 




  





19











  






 


 




  





20











  






 


 




  





21











  






 


 




  





22











  






 


 




  





23











  






 


 




  





24











  






 


 




  





25











  






 


 




  





26











  






 


 




  





27











  






 


 




  





28











  






 


 




  





29











  






 


 




  





30











  






 


 




  





31











  






 


 




  





32











  






 


 




  





33











  






 


 




  





34











  






 


 




  





35











  






 


 




  





36











  






 


 


37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CRIMINAL NO. 09-20473

v. DISTRICT JUDGE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

RAFAEL CORNELL MURREY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

CHARLES A. DAVIS, JONATHAN 

A. DAVIS, BRANDI N. DAVIS and

AMBER KINGSLEY,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER REQUIRING SUBMISSION OF

PROPOSED QUESTIONS RE: DKT. NO. 71

On July 20, 2010, this court held a hearing on several pretrial motions filed by Defendants

Rafael C. Murrey and Charles A. Davis in the above-referenced criminal case. In particular, with

respect to Defendant Davis’ motion to require disclosure and production of informants, or in the

alternative, an in camera hearing (Dkt. No. 71), the Court determined that an in camera hearing

would be held with respect to a confidential source (“CS2"). 

Prior to this in camera hearing, the parties agreed to submit a joint list of proposed questions

to the Court within two weeks (by August 4, 2010). (Hearing Tr., pp. 11-12 ad 61-62) To date,

however, the Court has not received these questions. Accordingly,

- 1 -
IT IS ORDERED that a joint list of proposed questions shall be submitted to the Court by

Wednesday, September 15, 2010. If the parties cannot reach agreement on the proposed questions,

both parties may submit a list of proposed questions by that date. If the court does not receive

proposed questions from either party by said date, the court will recommend that defendant Davis’

motion (Dkt. No. 71) be denied.

SO ORDERED.

s/Mark A. Randon

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: September 8, 2010

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties of record on this date,

September 8, 2010, by electronic and/or first class U.S. mail.

s/Melody R. Miles 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

(313) 234-5542

- 2 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS LITTLETON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-13727

v. HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEBRA SCUTT,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

JUDGMENT

The above entitled matter having come before the Court on a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, Honorable Denise Page Hood, a United States District Court Judge,

presiding, and in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on

December 30, 2011.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall be granted leave to appeal In

Forma Pauperis.

Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 30th, day of December, 2011.

DAVID J. WEAVER 

CLERK OF THE COURT

APPROVED:

BY: s/Julie Owens

DEPUTY CLERK 

s/Denise Page Hood

HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-13727-DPH-MJH Doc # 12 Filed 12/30/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1702
#### Dennis WILDHABER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69779.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 18, 1997.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Dennis Wildhaber, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Order entered November 21, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01448-CR

CARIS DENELL BRYANT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1523635-J

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s November 20, 2017 second motion for extension of time 

to file brief. We GRANT the State’s motion and ORDER the brief received November 20, 2017 

filed as of the date of this Order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE SAIEG,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

 09-CV-12321

vs.

 PAUL D. BORMAN

CITY OF DEARBORN and RONALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

HADDAD, CHIEF OF POLICE 

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER REGARDING UPCOMING HEARING

The Court is scheduled to hear oral argument on the parties’ cross motions for summary

judgment on May 21, 2010. Prior to the upcoming hearing, Defendants shall designate, for the

parties’ and the Court’s consideration, where Plaintiff’s booth/table would be located at this year’s

Dearborn Arab International Festival.

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 10, 2010
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

May 10, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

                    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 4, 2008.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Steve Foley, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:                

*1. Altrust Financial Services, Inc.*, Cullman, Alabama, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Generation Bank, Centre, Alabama (in organization).                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 5, 2008.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-18366 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           19854
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5848
<ALLOWANCES>                                       112
<INVENTORY>                                      11594
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 38037
<PP&E>                                            9947
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   48812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9844
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            18286
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           346
<OTHER-SE>                                       20336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     48812
<SALES>                                          38784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 40436
<CGS>                                            30571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    30571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 20322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (72)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (19)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10404)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10404)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (895)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11299)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        


</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4255

To encourage the States to streamline the adoption process and make their

adoption laws more uniform.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Mr. KLINK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To encourage the States to streamline the adoption process

and make their adoption laws more uniform.

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 ‘‘Model Adoption Act

5 of 1996’’.
2

•HR 4255 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF CERTAIN LAWS REQUIRED AS A CON2 DITION OF RECEIVING GRANTS TO STATE

3 COURTS TO ASSESS AND IMPROVE HANDLING

4 OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO FOSTER

5 CARE AND ADOPTION.

6 Section 13712(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconcili7 ation Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 670 note) is amended to

8 read as follows:

9 ‘‘(b) APPLICATIONS.—

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In order to be eligible for

11 a grant under this section a highest State court shall

12 be in an eligible State and shall submit to the Sec13 retary an application at such time, in such form,

14 and including such information and assurances as

15 the Secretary shall require.

16 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE STATE DEFINED.—As used in

17 paragraph (1), the term ‘eligible State’ means a

18 State that the Secretary of Health and Human

19 Services determines has in effect and operation the

20 following provisions of the Uniform Adoption Act ap21 proved and recommended by the National Con22 ference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

23 for enactment in all the States at its annual con24 ference meeting in 1994:

25 ‘‘(A) Article 1.

26 ‘‘(B) Parts 1 and 4 of Article 2.
3

•HR 4255 IH

1 ‘‘(C) Parts 1, 2, 5, and 7 of Article 3.

2 ‘‘(D) Article 7.

3 ‘‘(E) Article 8.

4 ‘‘(3) REFERENCES TO EXCLUDED PROVISIONS

5 NOT REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN EFFECT.—To the ex6 tent that a provision of the Uniform Adoption Act

7 encompassed by paragraph (2) contains a reference

8 to a provision of the Act not so encompassed, a

9 State shall not be considered not to be an eligible

10 State for purposes of this subsection by reason of

11 the failure of the State to have such provision in ef12 fect and operation.’’.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 500

To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 13, 1995

Mr. BALLENGER (for himself, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. DELAY, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr.

ARCHER, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.

BASS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BONO, Mr. BURR, Mr.

CANADY of Florida, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COX of California, Mr. CRANE, Mr.

DORNAN, Mr. DREIER, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. FUNDERBURK, Mr.

GOODLATTE, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. GOSS, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HANCOCK,

Mr. HERGER, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr.

ISTOOK, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. LINDER,

Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. PACKARD, Mr.

PORTER, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. SCHAEFER, Mr. SKEEN, Mr.

TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. CHRISTENSEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Economic Opportunity

A BILL

To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. DAVIS-BACON ACT.

4 (a) REPEAL.—The Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C.

5 276a et seq.) (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon

6 Act) is repealed.
2

•HR 500 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law to a

2 wage requirement of the Act of March 3, 1931, shall after

3 the date of the enactment of this Act be null and void.

4 SEC. 2. COPELAND ACT.

5 Section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C.

6 276c) (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Copeland Act’’) is

7 repealed.

8 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 The amendments made by sections 1 and 2 shall take

10 effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act

11 but shall not affect any contract in existence on such date

12 of enactment or made pursuant to invitation for bids out13 standing on such date of enactment.

Æ