alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Martin HOOD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 72-1134.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1972.

*722Robert T. Dawson, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

Bethel B. Larey, U. S. Atty., and James A. Gutensohn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., for appellee.

Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, and LAY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Martin Hood appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify or set aside a fifteen-year sentence imposed for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (bank robbery by use of force, violence and intimidation). Hood, convicted upon a plea of guilty, contends that the sentence was so excessive as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment and also a gross abuse of the discretion afforded the trial judge under Rule 32, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1

Appellant Hood, acting with others pursuant to a well-laid plan, robbed a bank in Arkansas while armed with a deadly weapon and through the use of threats. The bank’s president or manager was taken as a hostage. Hood made a confession following his capture which implicated others. He entered a plea of guilty and received a fifteen-year sentence, well within the authorized penalty of not more than a $10,000 fine or 25 years imprisonment or both. We find the assertion of cruel and unusual punishment wholly without merit.2

In United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972) the Supreme Court observed: “ * * * that a sentence imposed by a federal district judge, if within statutory limits, is generally not subject to review.” We fail to find any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the motion to modify or set aside the sentence.

Affirmed.

1

. We considered this appeal while screening cases for assignment under 28 U.S.C. Local Rule 6 (CA8 1971). After examining the briefs and the original district court records in this case, it was our view that the issue on appeal was appropriate for summary disposition under 28 U.S.C. Local Rule 9.

2

. See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), in which the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition was held applicable to legislative power to impose punishment for crime. Here we are involved solely with judicial power to impose a sentence well within the limitations prescribed by Congress.
Exhibit 32.1

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

 

 

I, Tony N. Frudakis, President and Treasurer of Skyview Holdings Corp. (the “Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:

 

1.  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (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 Corporation.

 

 
|  

Skyview Holdings Corp.

 

 

 

 

 

Date: April 11, 2011

By:

/s/ Tony N. Frudakis

 

 

 

Tony N. Frudakis

 

 

 

President and Treasurer

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

 

 

  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc L. Baker, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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


Date: February 15, 2012
  /s/ Marc L. BakerMarc L. BakerActing Chief Financial Officer





Dated: February 15, 2012





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Electric Car Company, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:

(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

(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 19, 2010

| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| |                                                      
| |                                                      
| | /s/ Gary Spaniak                                     
| | Gary Spaniak                                         
| | Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41128 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MICHAEL ALAN SMARR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-901-1
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Alan Smarr appeals the revocation of his supervised release imposed following his conviction for transporting illegal aliens. He argues that the district court’s denial of his motion for a continuance of the revocation hearing violated his due process right to a fair hearing. Smarr argues that he
was denied adequate disclosure of the evidence against him, adequate time to investigate and interviewwitnesses, the right topresent evidence, and the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-41128

2 Although Smarr did not receive the supplemental report until the day of the revocation hearing and the Government did not object to the continuance, Smarr has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a c

ontinuance or violated his due process rights. Smarr had approximately seven weeks after counsel was appointed to investigate the charges, conduct discovery, locate any potential witnesses or exculpatory evidence, and prepare for the hearing. Smarr did not file for a continuance before the hearing. He moved orally for a continuance at the hearing because he did not receive the probation department’ssupplemental report until the day of the revocation hearing. Smarr does not explain why he could not have investigated the charges and discovered whether a videotape or witnesses existed prior tothe date ofthe final revocation hearing. Smarr does not identify any specific favorable evidence or favorable witnesses that would have been discovered if a continuance had been granted. Because he has not shown that he suffered “specific and compelling or serious prejudice” due to the district court’s denial ofhis motion for a continuance, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion. See United Statesv. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir. 1999). Further, because Smarr has not shown that he suffered prejudice as a result of the denial of the continuance, he has not shown that the denial of the continuance violated his due process rights. See United States v. Tippens, 39 F.3d 88, 90 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Ayers, 946 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1991). AFFIRMED.
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CFO





I, Arthur J. Ayres, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of MIGENIX Inc.;



2.

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



4.

The companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:



a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;



c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.





|Date: | October 31, 2005  |                              
|----- | ----------------- | -----------------------------
|      |                   | Arthur J. Ayres              
|By:   | Arthur J. Ayres |                              
|      |                   | (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 23.01

 

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-115918, 333-85608, 333-15429, 333-211735, and 333-197201) and Form S-3 (No. 333-217991) of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2019 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 25, 2019 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina

March 18, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Jonathan Wilkof, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 2:09−cv−12830−AJT−DAS

Hon. Arthur J Tarnow

Caraco Pharmaceutical

Laboratories, Ltd., et al.,

Defendant(s).

NOTICE TO APPEAR

 You are hereby notified to appear before the Honorable Arthur J Tarnow, Theodore Levin

U.S. Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, for the following

proceeding(s):

• STATUS CONFERENCE: April 27, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Certification

 I hereby certify that on this date a copy of the foregoing notice was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record by electronic means or first class U.S. mail.

By: s/ L. Ware 

Case Manager

Dated: April 18, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 30 Filed 04/18/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BENNIE BRYANT,

Petitioner,

Case No. 09-12824

v.

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

DAVID BERGH,

Respondent.

____________________________/

JUDGMENT

On July 17, 2009, Bennie Bryant (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On this date, the Court entered an Opinion

and Order holding that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Petitioner’s application

for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated: September 19, 2011 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Bennie Bryant, #359946

West Shoreline Correctional Facility

2500 South Sheridan Drive

Muskegon Heights, MI 49444

Andrea M. Christensen, A.A.G.

2:09-cv-12824-PJD-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 09/19/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1032
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.146 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.147 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.148 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.149 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.151 Filed 01/26/23 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.152 Filed 01/26/23 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.153 Filed 01/26/23 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.154 Filed 01/26/23 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.155 Filed 01/26/23 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.156 Filed 01/26/23 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.157 Filed 01/26/23 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:09-cr-20254-TLL-PTM ECF No. 47, PageID.158 Filed 01/26/23 Page 13 of 13
Exhibit








Exhibit (10.26)
Amendment to 
S&P Global Inc. Employee Retirement Plan Supplement


The S&P Global Inc. Employee Retirement Plan Supplement (the “SPG ERP Supplement”), amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008, unless otherwise provided, is amended as provided below. 


1.Effective January 1, 2020, Section 8.02 of the SPG ERP Supplement is amended by adding the following to the end thereof:
For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Plan, to the extent permitted by 409A of the Code, a distribution shall be made from the Plan to an individual other than the Participant to the extent necessary to comply with a domestic relations order (as defined in Code Section 414(p)(1)(B)) as determined by the Plan Administrator in his or her sole discretion.


*               *               *
Except as set forth herein, the SPG ERP Supplement remains in full force and effect.
#### Frank. C. Campbell, Respondent, v. Montclair Hotel Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46633-46634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18271]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    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 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, Special Emphasis Panel, R13 Scientific Conference Grants.
    Date: August 20, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, Office of Scientific Review, Building 45, 
Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Margaret Weidman, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific

[[Page 46634]]

Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National 
Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN18B, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-594-3663, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99eefcf0fdf4f8f7f4f8d9f7f0fef4eab7f7f0f1b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0374666a676e626d6e62436d6a646e702d6d6a6b2d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 1, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18271 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Paul Brown *alias*Bully Brown v. State.

No. 25771.

March 26, 1952.

*128Hon. N. L. Dalby, Judge Presiding.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for cattle theft; the punishment, 2 years in the penitentiary.

There are no formal bills of exception, and no index to exceptions in the statement of facts.

Riley Scales, the owner of the calf in question, testified that he fed his milk calf on Friday evening, but discovered that it was missing when he went to milk his cow the following morning. Upon investigation, he found a place where his fence was broken or pushed down. Nearby he found a rope which he identified as one he owned and had left in his barn. He discovered his calf in the afternoon of the same day in a neighbor’s field.

Before daylight on this Saturday morning, James Phillips and his brother Robert, with a tractor, pulled a Ford car out of a ditch and down a public road for a mile to a point east of the Stroop place. Robert testified that he saw a calf in the Ford car between the front seat and the back. Charlie White and appellant were identified as the occupants of the Ford car.

After sunup, O.B. Stroop took his tractor to a place west of his home and pulled the car out of the mud.

Near the place where the car had last been stuck was found a yoke which was identified as being that which had been placed on the calf by Scales.

*129Mr. Stroop testified that he heard a calf bawling before Charlie White came to his home and asked him to pull the car out. He saw a calf near the back of his house at that time, which was identified as being the Scales calf. Tracks were observed leading from the place where the car had last stalled to the place where Mr. Stroop saw the calf near his home. The testimony shows that it was raining during the night, including the time when Phillips was pulling the car, and there were no other tracks on the road in the vicinity. Cow manure was found on the floor of the car when it was examined after appellant’s arrest.

Appellant did not testify and offered no witnesses in his behalf.

The court submitted the case to the jury as one of circumstantial evidence, and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on the law of voluntary return of stolen property, Art. 1424, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., there being no testimony that appellant voluntarily returned the calf to its owner before prosecution was commenced.

No error appearing, the júdgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit 31.2
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
      (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date:  May 15, 2009
    /s/ Michael LeslerExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer