alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
07-00-0384-CR  

	 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS  

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS  

	AT AMARILLO  

	PANEL D  

	 SEPTEMBER 11, 2000,  

	______________________________  

	MICHAEL D. BURLESON,  

                							Appellant 

 	v.  

	THE STATE OF TEXAS,  

                							Appellee 

	_________________________________  

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. TWO OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;  

 	NO. 98-459,270; HON. DRUE FARMER, PRESIDING  

	_______________________________  

	ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS  

	________________________________  

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. 

	Pending before the court is the motion of Michael Burleson (appellant) to withdraw his notice of appeal.  The motion has been filed before we have rendered a decision in this case.  Furthermore, it is signed by his counsel of record.  Because all the conditions prerequisite to the voluntary dismissal of the appeal have been met, we grant the motion.

	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).  Because the proceeding has been voluntarily dismissed at the request of the appellant, we will entertain no motion for rehearing, and our mandate shall issue forthwith. 

                                               			Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-34-000]


Medical Area Total Energy Plant, Inc., New MATEP, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing

January 26, 2010.
    Take notice that on January 15, 2010, Medical Area Total Energy 
Plant, Inc. and New MATEP, Inc. (Petitioners), pursuant to 18 CFR 
366.7(b) and 385.207(a) (2009), filed a petition for a declaratory 
order requesting a Commission determination that each Petitioner is, or 
will be, an exempt wholesale generator, as defined in section 366.1 of 
the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 366.1.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#682e2d3a2b27060401060d3b1d1818071a1c280e0d1a0b460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c1a190e1f1332303532390f292c2c332e281c3a392e3f723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 16, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2105 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.01


                            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 of Sbarro, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended  October 3, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael O'Donnell,
Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  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.


Date:  November 12, 2004

/s/ Michael O'Donnell
---------------------
Michael O'Donnell
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


NOTE: A signed original of this  certification  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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
KEVIN MICHAEL TAYLOR ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. No. 18

- 10235
D.C. No. 4:09

- cr - 00398

- SBA

- 4

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Saundra B. Armstrong , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 10, 2019 ** San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, ** * District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Defendant

- Appellant Kevin Michael Taylor appeals the district court’s
revocation of his supervised release . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and w e a ffirm.
1. The district court had jurisdiction to revoke Taylor’s supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § § 3583( h)

– ( i ); s ee United States v. Wing , 682 F.3d 861, 864

– 65 (9th Cir. 2012) (“In 18 U.S.C. § 3583, Congress has established a scheme where separate and distinct terms of supervised release may be imposed upon a repeat offender of supervised release conditions.”).
2. Taylor’s due process rights were not violate d by the delay in his revocation hearing. Although a supervised releasee has a due process right to have his revocation hearing held “within a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Crim P. 32.1(b)(2), “relief is not called for unless there was both unreasonable delay and prejudice , ”
United States v. Santana , 526 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2008). E ven if we were to assume that Taylor’s revocation hearing was unreasonably delayed, the delay caused no prejudice. Taylor was not in custody during this time , and he identi fies no concrete way in which the delay prejudiced him or his defense.
3. Balancing Taylor’s interest in confrontation against the Government’s cause for denying it, t he district court did not violate Taylor’s due process rights by considering hearsay evi dence during the revocation hearing. See United States v.
Comito , 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9 th Cir. 1999)

. Although the evidence at issue was3

important to the district court’s ultimate finding, the Government’s interest in presenting this evidence through Ta ylor’s probation officer, rather than divert drug testing and treatment employees from their work, sufficiently outweighed Taylor’s
interest in confrontation , which was lessened by t he fact that he did not contest the authenticity or credibility of the evi dence before the district court, and evidence
like the drug treatment center’s no

- show reports is generally considered reliable.
See United States v. Hall , 419 F.3d 980, 987

– 88 (9 th Cir. 2005); United States v.
Martin , 984 F.2d 308, 31 4 (9 th Cir. 1993)

. AFFIRMED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,297
<SECURITIES>                                   291,750
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,560,603
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               893,801
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,748,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          955,345
<BONDS>                                     15,560,603
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       184,960
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,748,271
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               459,743
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  457,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,956
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 MTC Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  |  |  |        |  |                         
|                     |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Rajesh K. Soin      
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Rajesh K. Soin          
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Michael I. Gearhardt
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Michael I. Gearhardt    
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 of Asia Global Holdings Corp. (formerly known as BonusAmerica Worldwide
      Corp.) of our report dated April 19, 2006, except for Note 11 which is September
      11, 2006, relating to the financial statements as of December 31, 2005 and
      for
      the preceding two years then ended, which appear in the Annual Report to
      Shareholders and incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, as
      amended.





/s/
      Clancy and Co., P.L.L.C.


Scottsdale,
      Arizona





April
      10, 2007
#### Mamie E. BINKLEY, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 9307.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

Jan. 30, 1973.

Ted M. Henson, Jr., Poplar Bluff, for movant appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Allan Sei-del, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Butler County, Missouri, denying appellant’s motion to vacate his ten-year sentence for manslaughter under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.

The trial court ruled adversely to appellant’s contentions that his guilty plea was *29induced by a promise of probation from the sheriff, and, ineffective assistance of counsel.

We have reviewed and carefully examined the transcript of the evidentiary hearing conducted by the trial court, including a transcript of the record of the appellant’s guilty plea, and conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous; that no error of law appears; that an opinion would have no precedential value.

We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.-16, V.A.M.R.

All concur.
#### DUNCAN v. PARISH (two cases).

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code)





Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Petro River Oil Corp., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:





Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2019 (the
“Form
10-K/A”) of the Company
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in
the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the
dates and for the periods indicated.





September 27,
2019/s/ Scot CohenScot
CohenExecutive
Chairman/s/ David BrionesDavid
BrionesChief Financial
Officer





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.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21066]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Coconino Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Coconino Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Flagstaff, Arizona. The purpose of the meeting is for the committee 
members to discuss committee protocols, operating guidelines, and 
project proposal requirements.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 23, 2010, beginning at 1 p.m. 
to approximately 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Ponderosa Room of the 
Coconino County Health Department, 2625 N. King, St., Flagstaff, 
Arizona 86004. Send written comments to Brady Smith. RAC Coordinator, 
Coconino Resource Advisory Committee, do Forest Service. USDA, 1824 5. 
Thompson St., Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 or electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82e0f0e3e6fbf1efebf6eac2e4f1ace4e7e6acf7f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5c7d7c4c1dcd6c8ccd1cde5c3d68bc3c0c18bd0d6">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brady Smith, Coconino National Forest, 
(928) 527-3490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda items for this meeting include 
discussion about (1) Whether or not projects will need to be NEPA-
ready; (2) Possible limits on proposals; (3) Roles and responsibilities 
of the Coconino RAC; (4) Meeting structure, voting processes and 
agendas; (5) Budget; and (6) Project solicitation. The meeting is open 
to the public.

    Dated: August 17, 2010.
Carol Boyd,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Coconino National Forest.
[FR Doc. 2010-21066 Filed 8-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 2, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00717

- CV

Jose Richard GONZALEZ and Elda E. Gonzalez,

Appellants

v.

CITY OF PREMONT, TEXAS

,

Appellee

From the 79th Judic ial District Court

, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20

- 09

- 60606

- CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was originally due October 18, 2022, but was not filed. On October 27, 2022, the district clerk filed a notification of late record, stating the clerk’s record was not filed because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

We th erefore order appellant provide written proof to this court by November 16, 2022 indicating either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal with out paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See

T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(b).

_______________ __________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of November, 2022

.

_________ __________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In
connection with the Annual Report of Adamant DRI Processing and Minerals Group, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Dr.
Larry L. Eastland, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), 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 result of operations of
the Company.



Dated:
April 17, 2023



|/s/
    Dr. Larry L. Eastland                                     | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Dr.
    Larry L. Eastland                                         | 
|Chief
    Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer           | 
|(Principal
    Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) | 



[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.]
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1728 

To amend the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to reauthorize 

the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2007 

Mr. AKAKA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 

to reauthorize the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokohau 

Advisory Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko5 Honokohau Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act of 

6 2007’’. 

7 SEC. 2. NA HOA PILI O KALOKO-HONOKOHAU ADVISORY 

8 COMMISSION. 

9 Section 505(f)(7) of the National Parks and Recre10 ation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 396d(f)(7)) is amended by 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 1728 IS

1 striking ‘‘ten years after the date of enactment of the Na 

2 Hoa Pili Kaloko-Honokohau Re-establishment Act of 

3 1996’’ and inserting ‘‘on Decmber 31, 2017’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-136063 on Form S-8 of ourreport dated March 16, 2007 (which report expresses an unqualified opinionon the consolidated financial statements and included an explanatory paragraphrelating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(revised 2004), *“Share-Based Payment,”*effectively January 1, 2006), relating to the consolidated financialstatements of Techwell, Inc. and subsidiaries, appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Techwell, Inc. and subsidiaries for theyear ended December 31, 2006.
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| San Jose, California               |
| March 16, 2007                |

 

----