alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilbert F. Biggs v. State.

No. 24845.

June 23, 1950.

Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) October 11, 1950.

*129
      *Merrill & Scott,*Houston, for appellant.

*A. C. Winborn,*Criminal District Attorney, *E. T. Branch,*Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Houston, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for theft with a fine of $100.00, and six months in jail.

The proceedings appear to be regular. There is no question about the sufficiency of the evidence. There is but one bill of exception. Appellant’s very excellent brief says: “The lone question presented in defendant’s bill of exception is the right of the officer to search the automobile of defendant.” This is the condition of the record.

The state’s attorney has called attention to the fact that the bill fails to show that the car belonged to the appellant. We call attention to Pedigo v. State, 143 Tex. Cr. R. 639, 160 S.W. 2d 963 and Chambless v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 5, 216 S.W. 2d 203.

The officer arresting appellant testified without objection, “We arrested him and he told us he took the clothes. We arrested the defendant around midnight.” As the record thus stands, the theft of the goods was admitted to the officers, the evidence was in without objection, and the testimony was undenied.

We have frequently held in search and seizure cases where the appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf and admitted possession of the liquor involved that an irregularity in the search could not then be availed of to reverse the case. The same rule should apply here. It will not be necessary, therefore, to consider further the argument presented in behalf of the appellant.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**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 Sonic Solutions (the “Company”) on Form
      10-K for the year ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, A. Clay Leighton,
      Chief 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.




This
      certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.




Date: June 14, 2006 By:
                /s/ A.
                  Clay
                  LeightonName: 
A.
                  Clay LeightonTitle:    Executive Vice President and Chief
                  Financial Officer
#### Richard Sippell v. Max Salmowitz.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Webco Industries,
Inc. (the Company) for the year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael P. Howard, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer) of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on my knowledge:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. This certification is deemed to accompany this Annual Report on Form 10-K,
but is not deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise. Dated: October 29, 2004 /s/ Michael P. Howard  Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Lamonte Jermaine Haskett v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00581-CR

Trial court case number: CR 29991

Trial court: 75th District Court of Liberty County

 On May 2, 2014, counsel for appellant filed a motion to dismiss. The motion is 

DENIED, as it is not signed by appellant as required by TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

The motion, however, indicates a Motion for New Trial was granted by the trial court on 

September 4, 2013. The granting of a motion for new trial restores the case to its position before 

the former trial and renders any appeal moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b).

Our record, however, does not contain an order or transcript of a hearing granting a 

motion for new trial. The clerk of the trial court is ORDERED, within 30 days of the date of 

this order, to file a supplemental record containing the order granting a new trial, or verify that 

no such order exists.

The court reporter is ORDERED, within 30 days of the date of this order, to file a 

transcript of the September 4, 2013 hearing, or verify that no transcript was taken.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 8, 2014
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.4

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Patrick J. Lavelle,
constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them,
his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, each with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen
Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2000, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of
Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission granting unto
each of said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and
about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated this 26th day of June 2000
          ------


Signature



/s/ Patrick J. Lavelle
---------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Lavelle, Director
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6172 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6172

   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
               unique ZIP Code for Kinnelon, New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2021

Ms. Sherrill (for herself, Mr. Norcross, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Sires, Mr. 
Pascrell, Mr. Payne, and Mrs. Watson Coleman) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
               unique ZIP Code for Kinnelon, New Jersey.

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

SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR KINNELON, NEW JERSEY.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
section, the United States Postal Service shall designate a single, 
unique ZIP Code applicable to the area encompassing solely the 
municipal boundaries of the Borough of Kinnelon, New Jersey.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles H. Carter, Respondent, v. The Village of Waterford, Appellant.

Impleaded with Anthony J. Weaver and Others.— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 742

To amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act to limit the application of

that Act to meetings between Federal officers or employees and representatives of State, county, and local governments and Indian tribes,

and to limit the application of that Act to activities of the Department

of the Interior related to consultations of the Department with Indian

tribal organizations with respect to the management of funds held in

trust by the United States for Indian tribes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 30, 1995

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

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act to limit the

application of that Act to meetings between Federal officers or employees and representatives of State, county,

and local governments and Indian tribes, and to limit

the application of that Act to activities of the Department of the Interior related to consultations of the Department with Indian tribal organizations with respect

to the management of funds held in trust by the United

States for Indian tribes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 742 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON APPLICATION OF FEDERAL AD2 VISORY COMMITTEE ACT TO CERTAIN MEET3 INGS AND CONSULTATIONS.

4 Section 4 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

5 U.S.C. App.) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (c) by inserting before the pe7 riod the following: ‘‘, or to any meeting between a

8 full-time officer or employee of the Federal Govern9 ment and one or more representatives of any com10 bination of one or more State, county, or local gov11 ernments or Indian tribes’’; and

12 (2) by adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(d) This Act does not apply to any activity of the

14 Department of the Interior related to consultation of the

15 Department with an Indian tribal organization with re16 spect to the management of funds held in trust by the

17 United States for an Indian tribe.’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7072

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SIMON CHOW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-219-A, CA-96-1641-AM) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: August 24, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Simon Chow, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Simon Chow seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Chow , Nos. CR-94-219-A; CA-96- 1641-AM (E.D. Va. July 3, 1997). Additionally, we hold that neither trial nor appellate counsel were “gross[ly] incompeten[t]” for failing to attack either the sufficiency of the evidence for Chow’s heroin importation convictions, the venue for the prosecution of the importation and distribution charges, or the jury instructions. See Kimmelman v. Morrison , 477 U.S. 365, 382 (1986) (discussing standard of proof for ineffective assistance of counsel). We deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, F. William Weber, Chief Executive Officer (Principal ExecutiveOfficer), certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of WebcoIndustries, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:        a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 theregistrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and        c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant'sauditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):        a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare 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, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 4, 2004

/s/ F. William Weber F. William WeberChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of FGX
International Holdings Limited (the "Company") certifies that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 29, 2007 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: March 13, 2008 |  | /s/ANTHONY DI PAOLAAnthony Di Paola Chief Financial
Officer
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 10.6.14.3**

February 11, 2008 

Thomas May 

717 Texas Ave 

Houston, TX 77002 

Dear Mr. May:

As you are aware, on May 15, 2006, Calpine Corporation (“Calpine”) and its debtor affiliates (collectively, the“Debtors”) received Bankruptcy Court approval of the Emergence Incentive Plan (the “EIP”), which provides variable cash awards to approximately select senior employees. Pursuant to the terms of the EIP, an incentive pool will becreated according to certain metrics related to the valuation of Calpine both under the Debtors’ plan of reorganization and based on market value during a certain period after the effective date of the plan (the “EIP Pool”), which,once created will be distributed to eligible employees solely at my discretion as chief executive of Calpine. 

As communicated to youearlier, you have been chosen to be a participant in the EIP. This letter confirms my final intentions regarding distribution under the EIP. Accordingly, as of the date hereof, you are eligible to receive 3.50% of the EIP Pool once the EIP Pool isfunded. 

This proposed distribution percentage is a final and binding decision and cannot be altered except in the event that you areterminated by Calpine for “Cause” or you voluntarily terminate without “Good Reason”, in which case you will forfeit any right to any distribution from the EIP Pool. You will remain eligible to receive the proposed distributionset forth herein if you resign for “Good Cause” or are terminated without “Cause”. The distribution out of the EIP Pool is expected to be made around May 9, 2008. 

I believe the Emergence Incentive plan recognizes and rewards our efforts toward a successful exit from bankruptcy. Fortunately for all of us, ourcombined efforts created a higher than expected adjusted enterprise value which will result in payments from the EIP that are more than competitive. 

I look forward to our continued shared success. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Robert P. May 

Robert P. May 

Chief Executive Officer
#### Richard H. MUTCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard MORGAN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-35820. D.C. No. CV-99-01476-MJP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies appellant’s request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Washington state prisoner Richard H. Mutch appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenges his conviction and life sentence for rape and kidnaping. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, *Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we vacate and remand.1

*641The district court dismissed Mutch’s federal habeas petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). However, the district court did not consider whether Mutch is entitled to statutory tolling for the motion for relief from judgment he filed in state court in December 1998. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In addition, the district court did not resolve the dispute between the parties as to whether Mutch mailed an additional motion for relief from judgment to the state court in January 1999 and, if so, whether that motion was “properly filed.” *See id.; Artuz v. Bennett,*531 U.S. 4, 8, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000) (explaining that “[a]n application is ‘filed,’ as that term is commonly understood, when it is delivered to, and accepted by, the appropriate court officer for placement into the official record”).

Thus, we vacate and remand for the district court to consider whether Mutch is entitled to statutory tolling for his December 1998 motion, his January 1999 motion, or both, and whether his federal petition is therefore timely.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We grant appellant’s motion to expand the record on appeal and therefore take judicial notice of Mutch’s December 1998 and March 1999 state court filings. *See Smith v. Duncan,*297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir.2002) (taking judicial notice of state court documents relevant to the issue of statutory tolling).
**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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David J. Kvapil, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 
 /s/
DAVID J. KVAPIL
 Name:
David J. Kvapil
 Title:
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 Date: May
10, 2005
 
 
 
 
 This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
197 La. 713

#### In re SUBURBAN COAST REALTY CO., Inc., et al.

No. 36142.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1941.

Fred A. Middleton, of New Orleans, for relators.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., J. Bernard Cocke, Dist. Atty., of New Orleans, and W. C. Perrault, Asst. Atty. Gen. (James J. Morrison and L. F. Wingerter, both of New Orleans, of counsel), for respondents.

PONDER, Justice.

This is a companion case to In re Louisiana Coastal Lands, Inc., et al., 2 So.2d 184. The issues and facts in both cases are identical and the only difference between them is that different defendants are involved.

For the reasons assigned in In re Louisiana Coastal Lands, Inc., et al., 2 So.2d 184, handed down this day, this cause is remanded to the lower court in order that the subpoena duces tecum may be modified consistant with the views therein expressed.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice

(concurring).

I concur in the opinion that the judge of the criminal district court should modify his order to produce the books and records of the corporation, so as to make the order a reasonable one; but, inasmuch as this investigation is in the nature of a criminal proceeding, being conducted under the provisions of article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not consider the articles of the Code of Practice, relating to writs of subpoena duces tecum, as being applicable to this case.