alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7104]


Notice of Proposal To Extend the Agreement Between the Government 
of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of 
Colombia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on 
Archaeological Material From the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain 
Ecclesiastical Material from the Colonial Period of Colombia

    The Government of the Republic of Colombia has informed the 
Government of the United States of its interest in an extension of the 
Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and 
the Government of the Republic of Colombia Concerning the Imposition of 
Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian 
Cultures and Certain Ecclesiastical Material from the Colonial Period 
of Colombia.
    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for 
Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 
19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Agreement is hereby 
proposed.
    Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of 
the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will 
be requested.
    A copy of the Agreement, the Designated List of restricted 
categories of material, and related information can be found at the 
following Web site: http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/.

    Dated: August 1, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-21285 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANAOP21-0452PAULLEEHAGLER,Petitioner,v.PETERBLUDWORTH,Warden,CrossroadsCorrectionalCenter,Respondent.FILED„SEP232021BowenGreenwoodClerkofSupremeCourtStateofMontanaORDERThroughcounsel,PetitionerPaulLeeHaglerseeksawritofhabeascorpusforhisimmediatereleasefromtheCrossroadsCorrectionCenter,asheargueshewassentencedillegallypursuantto§46-22-101(2019)andinviolationofHouseBill701.Additionally,HaglerrequeststhisCourttoissueasupplementalorderdirectingtheDistrictCourttoexpungetheunderlyingCriminalPossessionofDangerousDrugschargefromhisrecord.Haglerincludeswithhispetitionthefollowingdocuments:PleaAgreement;Information;§45-9-102,MCA(2015);JudgmentandSentence;JudgmentandSentenceFollowingRevocation;PetitionforRevocation;OrderRevokingSuspendedSentence,andSentence;andAffidavitandApplicationforPermissiontoFileanInformation.Uponreview,theCourtdeemsitadvisabletoobtainaresponse.ITISTHEREFOREORDEREDthattheAttorneyGeneral,theDistrictCourt,orboth,areGRANTEDthirtydaysfrornthedateofthisorderinwhichtoprepare,file,andserveawrittenresponsetoHagler'spetitionforwritofhabeascorpus,togetherwithappropriatedocumentaryexhibitsandlegalmemorandainsupport.TheClerkoftheSupremeCourtisdirectedtoprovideacopyofthisOrdertotheAttorneyGeneral,toRichlandCountyAttorneyJanetChristofferson,andtoallcounselofrecord.DATEDthis2-3dayofSeptember,2021.FortheCourt,09/23/2021Case Number: OP 21-0452
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-0429-RBJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

JOHN DOE, aka FARKHAD K. SHARIPOV,

Defendant.

ORDER SETTING TRIAL, DATES AND DEADLINES

This matter has been scheduled for a three-day jury trial on the docket of Judge R. 

Brooke Jackson in the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A702, 7th Floor, 

901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence December 19, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. It is 

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by November 11, 2011and responses 

to these motions shall be filed by November 25, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall be made 

no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such 

experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made one week 

after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such experts shall be made no 

later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is further 

ORDERED that counsel shall jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-

4694 or by email at Jackson_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov within five days after filing of pretrial motions to set the case for Motions Hearing. It is further
ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is scheduled for December 9, 2011 at 

9:00 a.m. in Courtroom A702. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in person. 

During the Trial Preparation Conference the parties should be prepared to address: jury 

instructions, jury selection, witnesses and evidence, anticipated evidentiary issues, stipulations as 

to fact, and any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial.

For additional information, please review my practice standards located at 

www.cod.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judges.aspx.

If the parties reach a disposition, the Trial Preparation Conference will be converted to a 

Change of Plea Hearing. The deadline for submitting the plea agreement and statement of facts 

relevant to sentencing and the statement by defendant in advance of plea of guilty will be 48 

hours prior to the Change of Plea Hearing.

DATED this 28th day of October , 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge
**EXHIBIT 31-1**

Certification pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Dominique Einhorn, President & CEO of Karma Media, Inc., certify that:

1.

Thisannual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in thisannual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant;

2.

I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-KSB of Karma Media, Inc.;

3.

Based on my knowledge, thisannual 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 thisannual report;

4.

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

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisannual report ("Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

1.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors [or persons performing the equivalent function]:

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

1.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisannual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:

March31, 2005

By:

/s/ Dominique Einhorn

Dominique Einhorn, President & CEO
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





The
      Board
      of Directors


Asia
      Global Holdings Corp.:





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 of Asia Global Holdings Corp. of our report dated April 14, 2007, relating
      to the consolidated financial statements of Asia Global Holdings Corp. and
      subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006, and for the year then ended, which report
      appear in the annual report to stockholders and incorporated in this annual
      report on Form 10-KSB.








*/s/
      HLB**Hodgson
      Impey Cheng*


**HLB
      Hodgson Impey Cheng**


*Chartered
      Accountants*


*Certified
      Public Accountants*





Hong
      Kong, S.A.R.


April 14 ,
      2007
Opinion filed March 14, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-18-00264-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF B.W.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C47625

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the 

parental rights of B.W.H.’s mother and father. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001

(West Supp. 2018). The father filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record 

and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The 

brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 
2

Op.] 1978). In light of a recent holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an 

Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under 

the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 

2016). The court in P.M.stated that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied 

by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 

27–28. 

Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the 

motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Appellant of his right to review the 

record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant 

with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. We conclude that Appellant’s 

counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 

We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is 

frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to withdraw that was 

filed by the father’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. 

Accordingly, we deny the motion to withdraw as counsel, and we affirm the 

trial court’s order of termination. 

PER CURIAM

March 14, 2019

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Queen Mining
  Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September
  30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
  2004 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
  indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|  

|Dated: November 12, 2004 | /s/ Lutz Klingmann                             
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------
|                         | Lutz Klingmann                                 
|                         | President and Principal Financial
      Officer

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50862

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THURMAN D. PAYNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CR-899-3

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thurman D. Payne, prisoner number 16992-180, moves this

court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his

appeal from the district court’s denial of his motions to view

grand jury materials and for production of audiotapes. Payne

argues that he should be permitted to proceed IFP due to his

poverty. Payne further argues that he should be granted access

to grand jury materials because these items might show

irregularities in his grand jury proceedings. Payne will not be
No. 05-50862

-2-

permitted to proceed IFP unless he shows that he is impecunious

and that his appeal is taken in good faith. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d

562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). To establish good faith, Payne must

show that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate claim. See

Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. 

The record does not support Payne’s assertion of

improprieties in relation to his grand jury proceedings and

indictment. Payne’s arguments on this issue amount to no more

than a thinly veiled request for authorization to conduct a

fishing expedition in relation to grand jury materials. This is

an improper use of these materials, and Payne has not shown that

he should be permitted to examine them or that the district court

erred in denying his request for such an examination. See United

States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1993); United

States v. Carvajal, 989 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1993). Payne likewise

has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. 

Payne’s request to proceed IFP is DENIED, and this appeal is

DISMISSED as FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

We note that Payne has presented his claim concerning the

purported problems with his indictment in several filings with

both the district court and this court, and there is no

indication that he intends to cease his attempts to relitigate

this frivolous claim. Payne is WARNED that he could receive

sanctions if he files any other pleadings challenging the
No. 05-50862

-3-

purported irregularities in his grand jury proceedings and

indictment in either the district court or this court. See

Coughlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 (5th Cir. 1988); Farguson

v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). IFP

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


United States Mint

ACTION:  Notification of Pricing for 2010 United States Mint 
Presidential $1 Coin Proof Set. \TM\

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

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing the price of the 2010 
United States Mint Presidential $1 Coin Proof Set.
    The 2010 United States Mint Presidential $1 Coin Proof Set, 
featuring $1 coins honoring Presidents Millard Fillmore, Franklin 
Pierce, James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, will be priced at $15.95. 
This set will be released February 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B.B. Craig, Associate Director for 
Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.

    Dated: January 27, 2010.
Edmund C. Moy,
Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2010-2131 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Lewis Junior LOVE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46512.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Melvin Carson Bruder, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John E. Rapier, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vol-lers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

JACKSON, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of rape with punishment being set by the jury at life imprisonment. In a companion case which can be found at 499 S.W.2d 104, the appellant was convicted of statutory rape of this prosecutrix’s daughter.

During the early morning hours of September 1, 1969, appellant, accompanied by several other individuals, broke into the home of the victim, J.Y.B. During the course of events, the victim herein and her daughter were repeatedly raped. Appellant was arrested on September 10, 1969, and on the following day gave the Garland police a statement in writing implicating himself in the offense.

On this appeal, appellant urges two grounds of error, the second of which involves the voluntariness of his confession. We have previously overruled this contention in the companion case and, therefore, will not consider it herein.

Appellant’s only other ground of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction because of the prosecutrix’s failure to make an immediate outcry.

The record reflects that after the attack the prosecutrix and her daughter bathed and went back to bed. The police were notified that afternoon.

Immediate outcry is not one of the elements of the offense charged. However, it is well established that it is relevant as bearing upon the issue of consent to the act of sexual intercourse, if there is an issue of consent.

> *109“Failure of the prosecutrix to make prompt outcry or complaint of an outrage may be proved by defendant as tending to show consent on her part, that is, in those cases where consent is an issue.” 48 Tex.Jur.2d, “Rape,” p. 696, § 59.

The prosecutrix testified that the act of intercourse with the individuals involved was without her consent and that she would not have so participated but for fear for her own life and the lives of her children. Both the prosecutrix and her daughter testified that they were raped at gun point. The appellant did not testify nor did he offer any witnesses at the guilt-innocence stage of the trial.

The evidence did not raise the issue of consent, and we hold the evidence amply sufficient to support the verdict.

Appellant’s second ground of error is overruled.

We find no reversible error and affirm the judgment.

Opinion approved by the Court.
* 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40912 Conference Calendar

PHILLIP MCCAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HERBERT SCOTT, Warden, Beto I; DELTON W. ATWOOD, Captain, Beto I; ALFONSO CASTILLO, Captain, Beto I; WELDON A. HODGE, Major, Beto I, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-662

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The district court dismissed Phillip McCain’s, Texas inmate #622721, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). McCain appeals, but does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dismissal. This court will not raise and discuss legal issues that the appellant has failed toNo. 97-40912 - 2 - assert. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court's analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because McCain does not address on appeal the district court's reasons for dismissing the complaint, he has abandoned the only issue on appeal before this court. McCain’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. As noted by the district court in its order of dismissal, this is not the first complaint filed by McCain which has been dismissed as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(g). See McCain v.
Scott , No. 6:96-CV-539 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 1996) (civil rights complaint dismissed by district court as frivolous; no appeal taken). A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g). Including the dismissal of this suit by the district court and the dismissal of the appeal as frivolous by this court,No. 97-40912 - 3 - McCain has three strikes. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 386-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Therefore, except for cases involving an imminent danger of serious physical injury, § 1915(g) bars McCain from proceeding further under § 1915. He may pursue the merits of subsequent civil actions and appeals should he choose to pay the filing fee in full. §§ 1911-14. APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR ORDERED.