alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Daniel E. WHELAN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44197.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Ray, Kirkpatrick, Grant & Dennis by C. L. Ray, Jr., Marshall, for appellant.

Charles A. Allen, Dist. Atty., Bailey C. Moseley, Asst. Dist. Atty., Marshall, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction on a plea of guilty to the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated. Punishment was assessed by the court at 120 days in the county jail and a fine of $50.

The appellant’s one ground of error is that the trial court did not admonish the defendant of the consequences of his plea of guilty and further states that Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., requires such admonishment.

This being a misdemeanor conviction, there is no necessity for the trial court to admonish the defendant on his plea of guilty. Gallegos v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 425 S.W.2d 648; Foster v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 447; Albrecht v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 447.

There being no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### McHenry *v.*Medusa Portland Cement Co.

(No. 25705

Decided December 26, 1935.)

*Mr. Maurice H. Grant*and *Mr. F. E. Stearns,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. McKeehan, Merrick, Arter S Stewart*and *Mr. G. M. Horn,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
#### Spencer A. HILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44132.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1971.

*125Quon D. Lew, San Antonio, for appellant.

Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Bob Spicer, Fred Rodriguez and Lucien B. Campbell, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary with intent to commit theft, with the punishment, enhanced under the provisions of Article 62, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., being assessed at 12 years.

In his sole ground of error appellant contends the prior 1967 burglary conviction in the 144th District Court alleged for enhancement was improperly used for that purpose since he was not represented by his counsel at the time of the formal sentencing in such cause.

Following the guilty verdict in the instant case on appeal the punishment was assessed by the court. At such penalty hearing the State offered the authenticated prison packet containing a certified copy of the judgment and sentence in the prior conviction alleged, a set of fingerprints and photographs, etc. A fingerprint expert then testified that the fingerprints included were identical to a set of known fingerprints taken from the appellant by the witness.

Appellant objected to the introduction of evidence of the prior conviction, contending the sentence reflected that on July 31, 1967, the appellant “appeared in person and by counsel Claude Bailey for David Evans.” Appellant’s brief acknowledges that David Evans represented him at the time of his guilty plea on July 10, 1967, which resulted in his prior conviction as is reflected by the judgment but contends that Evans was not present at the time of the sentencing and he does not know who Claude Bailey is or whether he was even a lawyer. Although appellant objected on this ground, he offered no proof either at the penalty stage of the trial or at the hearing on the motion for new trial.

It being established that appellant was represented by counsel at the sentencing, any defect therein not apparent on the face of the formal sentence became a matter of proof for him to show. In absence of such proof, no error is presented. Ojeda v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 428 S.W.2d 811.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 13.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

CFO 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)
in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of BHP Billiton Plc and BHP Billiton Limited, (the Companies) for the annual period ended 30 June 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned officer of the Companies, hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, 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 Companies.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|               
|/s/ Graham Kerr
|Name:           |  | Graham Kerr            
|Title:          |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:           |  | 18 September 2012      

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of World Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, being the principal executiveofficer and the principal financial officer, respectively, of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of September30, 2002 (the last date of the period covered by the Report).

 
| Dated:  November 8, 2002 |   |                     |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                          |   |                     |
|                          | By     | /s/  Harvey D. Aman |
|                          |   | Harvey D. Aman           |
|                          |   | President                |

 

 

 
|   | By     | /s/  Joel W. Albrecht |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   |   | Joel W. Albrecht           |
|   |   | Secretary/Treasurer        |
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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. 96-40081

Conference Calendar

__________________

MITCHELL TEMPLETON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JUAN GARZA; SARGENT GUTIERREZ,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-L-93-121

- - - - - - - - - -

August 21, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mitchell Templeton, a Texas state prisoner (#331690),

appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights

complaint as frivolous. He argues that the district court should

not have dismissed his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim as

frivolous because the court found that the Webb County Detention

Center did not have adequate library facilities. The district

court held that Templeton failed to allege any legal prejudice as
No. 96-40081

-2-

a result of the deficient library facilities, thus his claim

lacked an arguable basis in law. See Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct.

2174, 2180 (1996). To the extent that Templeton attempts to

allege legal prejudice for the first time in his reply brief, we

decline to review these allegations. We have reviewed the record

and perceive no abuse of discretion by the district court and

thus no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY LOCKHART, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-93-136, CA-96-111-3-MU) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Lockhart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lockhart , Nos. CR-93-136; CA-96-111-3-MU (W.D.N.C. June 24, 1996). 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
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

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

 

The undersigned herebycertifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belrose Capital FundLLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

 

(a)                    the AnnualReport of the Fund on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)                   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations ofthe Fund for such period.

 

 

Date: February 29,2008

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr. |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Thomas E. Faust Jr.     |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fundand will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUDY HICKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-89-BR-5) Submitted: May 13, 2004 D ecided: May 18, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Baumgarten, Buffalo, New York, for Appellant. David J. Cortes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Rudy Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). An appellant 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. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 (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 Hicks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hicks 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form
10-K Annual Report of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  |                                                                                                             
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 28, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ GARY L. CARANO
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Gary L. Carano, Chief Executive Officer of Circus and Eldorado Joint Venture and Silver Legacy Capital Corp.
216 La. 461

#### ANGELETTE v. HARDIE.

No. 37335.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1950.

*795Andrew H. Thalheim, Gretna, for plaintiff and appellant.

Louis H. Gosserand (deceased), New Orleans, for appellee.

FRUGE, Justice.

In this suit plaintiff has joined a claim for $1,000 sounding in tort, with an action to annul an act of sale by which his maternal grandmother conveyed a certain piece of real property to the defendant for the recited sum of $1,000. The plaintiff sets up three alternative grounds for annulling the sale; first, that the sale was made as a result of duress and undue influence and without consideration; second, that if there was consideration given as recited in the act that the same was a subterfuge and was returned to the purchaser; and third, that there was lesion beyond moiety as the property was actually worth more than $2,500. The case comes before us on plaintiff’s appeal from a judgment of the district court directing him to elect upon which of the alternate grounds he would rely in his suit for the nullity of the sale.

We considered this case once before on appellee’s motion to dismiss, which we denied. Angelette v. Hardie, 204 La. 972, 16 So.2d 537. At that time it was not suggested, and we overlooked the fact, that this is an appeal from an interlocutory judgment (as distinguished from a final judgment in Articles 538 and 539 of the Code of Practice) and that appellant has failed to show that the judgment will cause him irreparable injury as required by Article 566 of the Code of Practice.

“538. Interlocutory judgments do not decide on the merits; they are pronounced on preliminary matters, in the course of the proceedings.”

“539. Definitive or final judgments are such as decide all the points in controversy, between the parties. Definitive judgments are such as have the force of res judicata.”

“566. One may likewise appeal from all interlocutory judgments, when such judgment may cause him an irreparable injury.”

That being the case, the appeal is not properly before this court and we are constrained to dismiss it on our own motion. See Reeves et al. v. Barbe, 200 La. 1073, 9 So.2d 426, where the same question was presented and the court dismissed the appeal ex proprio motu despite the fact that the appellant and appellee filed a joint brief contending that the appeal should not be dismissed. Cited with approval in State ex rel. Land v. Martin et al., 207 La. 410, 21 So.2d 481, and Carmody v. Land et al., 207 La. 625, 21 So.2d 764.

The appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost.
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF SOLTA MEDICAL, INC.

A DELAWARE CORPORATION



|                                            |  |             
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Subsidiaries                                |  | Jurisdiction
|Reliant Technologies, LLC                   |  | Delaware    
|Solta Medical International, Inc.           |  | Delaware    
|Reliant Medical Lasers, Inc.                |  | California  
|Reliant Medical Lasers, LLC                 |  | California  
|Aesthera Corporation                        |  | California  
|CLRS Technology Corporation                 |  | California  
|Reliant Technologies Kabushiki Kaisha       |  | Japan       
|Aesthera Corporation Kabushiki Kaisha       |  | Japan       
|Solta Medical International BV              |  | Netherlands 
|Solta Medical Australia Proprietary Limited |  | Australia   
|Solta Medical International Limited         |  | Hong Kong   
|Solta Medical Singapore Private Limited     |  | Singapore   
|Aethera Europe Ltd.                         |  | UK
2014-05-15 Exhibit - Interim Term Lease



















	
			
	First National Capital, LLC
	 
	Miller Energy Resources, Inc., and all Affiliates

	 
	 
	and Subsidiaries 

	 
	 
	 

	By: /s/ Keith Duggan
	 
	By: /s/ Scott M. Boruff

	Name: Keith Duggan
	 
	Name: Scott M. Boruff

	Title: Manager
	 
	Title: Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hickory Tech Corporation(HickoryTech) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I, David A. Christensen, Chief Financial Officer of HickoryTech,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of HickoryTech.

 

 
| /s/ David A. Christensen |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| David A. Christensen     |
| Chief Financial Officer  |
| May 5, 2005         |

 

----
#### HUME v. GAMSE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
Exhibit 23
  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  The Board of Directors
 HSBC Finance Corporation
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-138404 and No. 333-138404-01) on Form S-3 of HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I of our attestation report dated March 28, 2011 with respect to each of HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, HSBC Card Services Inc., HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc., HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited and HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Philippines) Inc. (the “HSBC Companies”) and its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB applicable to the servicing of private label credit card receivables related to the HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I’s asset-backed securitization transactions and securities publicly issued on or after January 1, 2006 (the Platform), except for the servicing criteria identified in Schedule I of the “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Management's Report) as “Not Applicable”, which each of the individual HSBC Companies has determined are not applicable to the activities performed with respect to the Platform, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010. Our attestation report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I.
  /s/ KPMG
 
 March 28, 2011
Exhibit
32.1











Certifications
Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18
U.S.C. Section 1350)








In
connection with the Annual Report (the “report”) of Radiant Logistics, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Bohn H. Crain, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my
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.








Date:  October
5, 2009


By:  /s/ Bohn H.
Crain


Bohn H.
Crain


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Officer