alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HARRIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-2859.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 14, 1976.

Jack Paul Leon, San Antonio, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

John E. Clark, U. S. Atty., Jeremiah Handy, W. Ray Jahn, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

*307Before COLEMAN, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.

William Harris, Jr. was indicted, in four counts, as follows:

1. Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, heroin and cocaine, 21 U.S.C., § 841(a)(1);

2. Distribution of six ounces of heroin on August 15,1974, and aiding and abetting such distribution, § 841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C., § 2;

3. Distribution of approximately one pound of heroin; aiding and abetting the same; on August 27, 1974;

4. Aiding and abetting one Milciades Sosa, on September 12,1974 in the unlawful possession of large quantities of heroin and cocaine.

The trial jury considered the case for the better part of two days.

At 11:30 A.M. of the second day the jury reported in writing, “The jury is hung”. It was given the Allen charge and sent to lunch.

At 1:45 P.M. the jury asked for a repetition of the charge as to prior good reputation (good character) for truth, veracity, and as a law abiding citizen. The charge on this subject as originally given was then repeated.

At 4:30 P.M. the jury returned its verdict. Harris was acquitted on the substantive counts (2, 3, and 4) and convicted of conspiracy, Count 1.

The charge on good reputation, twice given the jury, concluded with this language:

> “In arriving at your verdict, you must consider all of the evidence in the case. However, evidence of good reputation should not constitute an excuse to acquit this defendant if the jury after weighing all the evidence including the evidence of good character is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of any one or more of the crimes charged in the various counts of the indictment.”

In *United States v. Leigh,*5 Cir., 1975, 513 F.2d 784, 785, the following language at the conclusion of a good reputation charge was held to be reversible error:

> “However, evidence of good reputation should not constitute an excuse to acquit the defendant if you, the jury, after weighing all of the evidence in the case, is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment.”

Harris testified in his own behalf. Thus his truth and veracity was a critical issue. Several citizens of Laredo testified to Harris’ good reputation in the community as a law abiding citizen.

At the charge conference, appointed counsel had submitted two proposed charges concerning good reputation. They were rejected and another form was used, which included the language quoted above.

On the authority of *United States v. Leigh, supra,*the conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial on Count 1.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
Exhibit
32.1
  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 Orient Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhenyong Liu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350 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.
 
 A signed
original 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.
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
 
 Dated:
      March 27, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Zhenyong LiuZhenyong
      Liu
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                (principal
      executive officer)
#### GRAY v. JOHNSON et al.

No. 20162.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 7, 1954.

*37John D. Nix, Jr., New Orleans, for appellant.

Bloch, McCloskey & Dennery, Moise W. Dennery, New Orleans, for appellees.

McBRIDE and NABORS, JJ., and MARKS, Jr., Judges ad hoc.

NABORS, Judge ad hoc.

Plaintiff, Nathaniel Gray, and his common law wife, Celestine Baptice, a sister of the defendant, Edward Johnson, lived in the same house with defendant, Edward Johnson, and his common law wife, the defendant, Rose Green. Plaintiff alleges that on Christmas night, December 25, 1951, Johnson maliciously threw scalding water on his back while he was in a kneeling position for the purpose of replacing a turkey in the oven of the stove. The defendants contend that in the course of a fight started by plaintiff, he struck Johnson causing him to fall back on the stove and spill the hot water on plaintiff’s back. The 'Charity Hospital record establishes that plaintiff suffered second and third degree burns. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered damages of $1,008 for loss of wages and $3,500 for pain and suffering. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing: his suit.

In a written opinion, dictated at the close of the trial, while the testimony was fresh in his mind, the trial judge foun4 that the testimony was conflicting, that the parties were of equal credibility and that the plaintiff’s testimony was not corroborated, and held that since the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, his case must be regarded as not proven. The judge’s opinion reads in part as follows:—

> “In a conflict of testimony, equally balanced, the rule is that plaintiff must prove his case by making it certain. When the testimony is in conflict and plaintiff fails to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and the story told by defendant sounds reasonable, the only conclusion to reach is that plaintiff has not proved his case . and sustained the burden of proof.

> “All the parties in this case are colored people. They apparently were living peacefully together in the same house without any trouble prior to this instance. I just don’t believe that when people are so friendly, living together, one would deliberately, with malice aforethought, put a pot of boiling water on the stove for the purpose of wilfully scalding another, especially his sister’s common-law husband.”

Since the record contains no evidence which justifies disagreement with the trial judge’s opinion, the judgment of the district court is affirmed at plaintiff’s cost.

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
Neuralstem, Inc. (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Conron, 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, 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, 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: October 4,
2010






/s/ John Conron


John Conron


Chief Financial
Officer


(Principal Accounting
Officer)
#### Jacob S. Hovland v. McNeill & Higgins Co.

1. *Practice—Where Judgment of Superior Court is Reversed and*Remanded.—Where the Appellate Court orders that the judgment of the Superior Court be reversed and wholly for nothing esteemed,” and that the cause be remanded “ for such other and further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain,” the parties are entitled to introduce evidence and to a trial of the case *de novo,*the trial court applying therein the law enunciated in the opinion of this court.

Garnishment.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1901.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed November 11, 1902.

Herbert S. Buncombe, attorney for appellant.

Oscar B. McGlasson and Pease & Polkey, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the court.

The twentieth day of November, A. B. 1899, in the Superior Court of Cook County, the issues made up between *150appellant, as garnishee of one Andrew P. Johnson, and appellee, were tried. At the conclusion of the evidence offered by appellee, appellant moved the court to discharge the garnishee. This the court did. Upon appeal to the Appellate Court, that court ordered that the judgment of the Superior Court be reversed and “ wholly for nothing esteemed,” and that the cause be remanded “ for such other and further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain.”

The case being thereafter called in the Superior Court, that court, by a misunderstanding of all parties as- to what the order of this court was, entered judgment against appellant without allowing him to introduce any evidence.

Under the order of this court the parties were entitled to introduce evidence and to a trial of the case *de novo,.*the trial court applying therein the law enunciated in the opinion of this court.

The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7642 

ROBERT ALLAN PAYNE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director of Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CA-03-257)

Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Allan Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Allan Payne, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Payne has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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
Document

Exhibit 10.3


FIRST AMENDMENT
to the
Dover Corporation
Executive Officer Annual Incentive Plan
(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)


            WHEREAS, Dover Corporation has heretofore adopted the Dover Corporation Executive Officer Annual Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009 (the "Plan"); and


            WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Dover Corporation deems it advisable to amend the Plan in the manner set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the power granted to the Compensation Committee under Section 9(a) of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new Section 10 of the Plan effective as of the date below written:


"10. Clawback Policy. All Awards shall be subject to such clawback requirements and policies as may be required by applicable laws or Company policies as in effect from time to time."


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of Dover Corporation, this 7th day of November, 2019.


Dover Corporation 


                                                            By: /s/ Ivonne M. Cabrera                                   
       Its: Senior Vice President, General Counsel   
       and Secretary
EXHIBIT 11

                      SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


                                                    QUARTER ENDED
                                                February 1, February 2,
                                                    2003        2002
NET EARNINGS
  Basic net earnings                               $ 6,158    $  4,862
  Add: Distributions on Preferred Securities,
        net of tax                                       -           -
                                                   -------    --------
  Diluted net earnings                             $ 6,158    $  4,862
                                                   =======    ========

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING
  Basic weighted average common shares
        outstanding                                 29,249      26,751
  Add:  Shares issuable from assumed conversion
        of Preferred Stock                               -           -
  Add: Shares issuable from assumed exercise
        of options                                     254         468
                                                   -------    --------
  Diluted weighted average shares                   29,503      27,219
         outstanding
                                                   =======    ========


NET EARNINGS PER SHARE:

  Basic                                            $   .21     $   .18
                                                   =======    ========

  Diluted                                          $   .21     $   .18
                                                   =======    ========
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6042 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6042

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 213 William Hilton Parkway in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, as 
           the ``Caesar H. Wright Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CAESAR H. WRIGHT JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 213 William Hilton Parkway in Hilton Head Island, South 
Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ``Caesar H. Wright Jr. 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Caesar H. 
Wright Jr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6042

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 213 William Hilton Parkway in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, as 
           the ``Caesar H. Wright Jr. Post Office Building''.
```
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 

ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST 
 IN 

REGENCY AT RIDGEGATE, LLC 

CENTURY COMMUNITIES COLORADO, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Assignor”), hereby conveys, transfers, and assigns
to Daro Ventures III, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Assignee”), on behalf of Daro Ventures, LLC and Daro Ventures II, LLC, Assignor’s entire interest (the “Assigned Interest”) in Regency at
Ridgegate, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Ridgegate”). In connection with such assignment, Assignor and Assignee agree as follows: 

Assignor hereby represents and warrants to Assignee that as of the execution of this Assignment by the two parties, that Assignor owns a 22.5%
membership interest in, to and of Ridgegate. 
 This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assignees,
personal representatives, heirs and legatees of all the respective parties hereto. 
 This Assignment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original for all purposes, and all of which when taken together shall constitute a single counterpart instrument. Executed signature pages to any counterpart instrument may be detached and affixed
to a single counterpart, with such single counterpart with multiple executed signature pages affixed there to constituting the original counterpart instrument. All of those counterpart pages shall be read as though one, and they shall have the same
force and effect as if all the signers had executed a single signature page. 
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 







 This Assignment is effective as of the 9th day of September,
2012. 
  

	
	ASSIGNOR
	
	CENTURY COMMUNITIES COLORADO, LLC
	
	




	  

	Dale Francescon, CO-CEO
	
	ASSIGNEE
	
	DARO VENTURES III, LLC
	
	




	  

	Robert J. Francescon, Manager
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

     I,  Dennis  Sunshine, Chief Executive Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarterly period ended
September  30,  2008  (the  "Periodic  Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.

Dated: November 19, 2008
                                   /s/ Dennis Sunshine
                                   -------------------
                                   Dennis Sunshine
                                   Chief Executive Officer

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
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 Orbit International Corp. and will
be  retained  by  Orbit  International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
#### PRUITT v. ROBERTSON et al.

No. 6114.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 10, 1940.

Edward S. Robertson, of West Monroe, for appellants.

■ A. S. Drew, of Minden, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

No appearance has been made in this case by appellant. It is presumed that the appeal has been abandoned.

It is ordered, therefore, that the appeal be dismissed.

DREW, J., recused.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 10, 2022

No. 04-22-00562-CV

Virley-Leroy SESSION & Donieka-Lenise Session,

Appellants

v.

RIATA LAND ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNERS, INC.,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21-2100-CV-E

Honorable Heather H. Wright, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 29, 2022, Appellant Virley-Leroy Session filed a notice of appeal challenging 

the trial court’s final judgment entered on August 8, 2022. When he filed the notice of appeal, 

this court notified appellant in writing that his notice of appeal had been conditionally filed 

because the $205.00 filing fee had not been paid. We instructed appellant to pay the fee by 

September 12, 2022 and cautioned if the fee was not paid, the appeal was subject to being 

stricken by this court. Appellant has not paid the fee. We therefore order appellant to show 

cause in writing by October 25, 2022 stating either: (1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) he is 

entitled to appeal without paying the $205.00 filing fee. If appellant fails to respond within the 

time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

5, 42.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending the payment of the filing fee. 

Appellant is further advised he, as a pro se party, cannot represent another party in litigation or 

on appeal. Accordingly, we identify only Virley-Leroy Session as an appellant in this 

proceeding. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of October, 2022.

FILE COPY
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY