alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Abraham Hunter *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 3-473A42.

Filed July 31, 1973.]

*Dale J. Myers,*Deputy Public Defender of Allen County, of Fort Wayne, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert F. Colker,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Sharp, J.

In a bench trial the Appellant, Abraham Hunter, was convicted of the offense of aggravated assault and battery. The affidavit charged the offense under IC 1971, 35-13-3-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-410 (Burns 1972 Supp.), which provides, in part:

> “Whoever intentionally or knowingly and unlawfully inflicts great bodily harm or disfigurement upon another person is guilty of aggravated assault and battery. . . .”

The Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to a term of one to five years. The sole issue raised on this appeal from *153that sentence is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

It is elementary that on appeal we will consider only the evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences therefrom to determine if this offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. *Hash*v. *State*(1973), 259 Ind. 683, 291 N.E.2d 367 and *McAfee*v. *State*(1973), 259 Ind. 687, 291 N.E.2d 554. Likewise, it is the proper province of the trial court to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses.

There is evidence that on January 5, 1972, at about 2:15 P.M. the victim, John Poindexter, was with the Appellant and two females, Mary Ware and Lydia Teague, in the latter’s apartment in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Poindexter left the apartment to go to the grocery store. A short time later Poindexter was returning to the apartment when he was approached by the Appellant on the stairs. The Appellant shoved Poindexter backwards down the stairs, then stabbed him in the shoulder, in the leg and on the side of the head with a butcher knife.

Lydia Teague testified she heard the Appellant say to his sister, Mary Ware, “Must I get him now”, to which Ware replied, “Yeah”. Teague said she then saw Appellant stab Poindexter with a butcher knife in the hall of said apartment.

Another witness, Chester Wilms, testified he saw the Appellant stab the victim on the right shoulder with a knife.

Dr. William E. Brandt testified that on January 5, 1972, he treated Poindexter with chest and lung wounds, deep stab wounds to the right shoulder and a laceration to the right side of his head.

The elements of this offense are (a) intentionally, (b) unlawfully, and (c) inflicting great bodily harm or disfigurement upon another person.

*154It is hard to visualize a more clear-cut case of sufficient proof of all of the elements of this offense. The Appellant’s argument emphasizes the contradictions in the evidence and bases it primarily on the testimony of the Appellant and his sister. The relative weight and credibility was determined by the trial court and the Appellant has presented no basis on which this determination should be reversed.

The Appellant has presented no basis for reversal. Therefore, the conviction is hereby affirmed.

Hoffman, C.J. and Staton, J., concur.

Note. — Reported at 299 N.E.2d 209.
# Sean Gallagher

Deputy CIO for Operations

**Sean Gallagher** is NASA’s Deputy Chief Information Officer for Operations. He is responsible for the delivery of a large and diverse portfolio of Information Technology (IT) products and services to over 60K end users located in the U.S. and abroad in support of NASA’s international partnerships. Prior to this role, Gallagher served as the Senior Advisor for Transformation within the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). In this position, he was responsible for working with all NASA Centers to implement a more efficient and effective Information and Technology operating model supporting NASA’s missions. Prior to his appointment to agency positions, Gallagher was the Chief Information Officer for Glenn Research Center.

As Glenn CIO, Gallagher led the center’s information technology (IT) initiatives in direct support of the center’s aeronautics, space, research and engineering, and test missions.  Directing IT services across Lewis Field in Cleveland and Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, he guided a management team delivering a portfolio of locally managed, enterprise and shared services.  He led an IT workforce that delivered infrastructure services, information services and applications, and robust IT security capabilities. Gallagher also managed the center’s IT investments and ensured that its services and security aligned with federal and legal standards. 

Gallagher joined NASA in 2012 as Glenn’s Deputy CIO.  In this position, he led the Office of the CIO through a reorganization and transformation of IT services.  Prior to joining NASA, he supported federal, defense, and commercial customers as a senior associate at Booz Allen Hamilton in Cleveland and Northern Virginia. 

Gallagher developed his leadership and management experience as a Signal Corps officer in the United States Army.  He also served as a platoon leader managing the combat service support readiness of a tactical communications unit, a human resource manager for the 40th Signal Battalion, and as a network engineer for the 11th Signal Brigade.  Gallagher has a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from John Carroll University and a Master of Science degree in Computer Information Systems from the University of Phoenix.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy A. Larkin,Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of 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 the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Timothy A. Larkin               |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |
| Timothy A. Larkin                   |
| *Executive Vice President,*         |
| *Chief Financial Officer*           |
| *And Principal Accounting  Officer* |
|                                |
| November 5, 2008               |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 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 Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 11, 2008



|                                                                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                                            
|Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 24, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER R. SALEH,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-1099

v. (D. Colorado)

GEORGE DUNBAR; THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02070-ZLW)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

This is a pro se appeal from the denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 relief. The

petitioner was convicted in Colorado state court, following a jury trial, of seconddegree assault and was sentenced to thirty-two years’ imprisonment as a habitual

offender. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, People v. Saleh, 25 P.3d 1248

(Colo. Ct. App. 2000), but the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the Court of

Appeals and reinstated the conviction, People v. Saleh, 45 P.3d 1272 (Colo.

Appellate Case: 10-1099 Document: 01018483011 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

2002). Petitioner did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court. A

subsequent state motion for post-judgment relief was filed on February 16, 2005,

and was denied on appeal on December 18, 2008.

In his § 2254 petition, the petitioner alleged that he was denied his right to

due process by the Colorado Supreme Court in his direct criminal appeal

proceedings, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that trial

counsel was ineffective, and that his Sixth Amendment rights were denied when

he was denied counsel at sentencing. The district court denied the petition

because it was untimely. The court concluded that the state post-conviction

proceedings did not toll the time to file the § 2254 petition. 

The district court also denied the petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability and application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The

petitioner now requests a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed ifp

from this court.

After reviewing the petitioner’s filings on appeal and the trial court’s

thorough and extensive order, we conclude that the petitioner has not shown that

reasonable jurists would debate whether the district court was correct in denying

the petition as untimely. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Appellate Case: 10-1099 Document: 01018483011 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

We therefore DENY the application for a certificate of appealability and

DISMISS this appeal. The application to proceed ifp is also DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 10-1099 Document: 01018483011 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Page: 3
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 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 Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 11, 2010



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                              
|Dean L. Cash                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer of      
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### BLAINE C. BOYD v. DAVID D. KELLY.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1999             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          23,593                  23,593
<SECURITIES>                                    16,806                  16,806
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,015                  11,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,175)                 (2,175)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,966                  50,966
<PP&E>                                          33,723                  33,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                (23,596)                (23,596)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,524                  64,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,580                  24,580
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        87,341                  87,341
<OTHER-SE>                                    (47,397)                (47,397)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,524                  64,524
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,073                  29,083
<CGS>                                            4,657                   9,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,235                  34,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (330)                   (591)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    170                 (4,360)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        55                     254
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                115                 (4,614)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       115                 (4,614)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00                  (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00                  (0.13)


</TABLE>
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 Alpine Air Express, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), we, Eugene R. Mallette, CEO and Rick C. Wood, Accounting Manager and Principal 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:  (1)  The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date:October 12 , 2010By:/s/ Eugene R. MalletteEugene R. MalletteCEODate:October 12 , 2010By:/s/Rick C. WoodRick C. WoodPrincipal Financial Officer     1
#### Hottle and Wife *v.*Kindle and Others.—In error.

THAT one of two plaintiffs in error is under a disability, is no answer to a plea of the statute of limitations to the writ of error. *Shannon et al.*v. *Dunn et al., May*term, 1846.

The statute in such case cannot be evaded by procuring a severance as to the plaintiff in error who is not under a disability.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# DATES AND TIMES:

Thursday, November 11, 2010, at 10:30 a.m.; and Friday, November 12, at 8:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.

# PLACE:

Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

# STATUS:

Thursday, November 11 at 10:30 a.m.—Closed; Friday, November 12 at 8:30 a.m.—Open; and at 11:30 a.m.—Closed

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

## Thursday, November 11 at 10:30 a.m. (Closed)

1. Strategic Issues

2. Financial Matters

3. Pricing

4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues

5. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance

## Friday, November 12 at 8:30 a.m. (Open)

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings

2. Remarks of the Chairman of the Board

3. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO

4. Committee Reports

5. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2010 10K, Financial Statements, and Postal Service Annual Report

6. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2011 Integrated Financial Plan

7. Consideration of Final Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriation Request

8. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2010 Comprehensive Statement and Annual Performance Plan

9. Quarterly Report on Service Performance

10. Tentative Agenda for the December 6-7, 2010, meeting in Washington, DC

11. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors

## Friday, November 12 at 11:30 a.m. (Closed—if needed)

1. Continuation of Thursday's closed session agenda

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-27653 Filed 10-28-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### H. B. Culver *v.*Jas. Clark.

Laches.

The court’s aid cannot be invoked to reopen a suit, where it is shown that the defendant, more than a year after a judgment of confession, and writ of possession awarded, filed a petition for a new trial, it being held that he was guilty of gross *laches.*

APPEAL OFROM CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 26, 1867.

OPINION OE THE COURT BY

Judge Williams :

The original suit by appellee against appellant for a recovery of the land was brought March 1, 1861, and summons executed May 5, 1861; appellant paid no attention to this suit either by employing a counsel to defend it or even so much as telling his son and agent, whom he left on the land when he removed to Arkansas, of the pendency of the suit.

*22
      *Stubblefield & Brother, for appellant.*

All the rebel armies were surrendered early in 1865, and free communication was soon thereafter established with the seceded States.

The judgment of confession was not taken until December 18, 1865, when upon the writ of possession being awarded, and executed appellant filed his petition for a new trial June 18, 1866, to which a demurrer was sustained and from which judgment he appealed.

The petition sets out no single cause known to the Code for a new trial nor recognized by the common law, but exhibits a case of culpable negligence. If the appellant shall unjustly have lost his land it is neither the fault of the law nor its courts as he has had a most ample opportunity of presenting his defense, and it is .far better that injustice should be done in a single case than that .those great rules sanctioned by the experience and wisdom of ages as well as the positive legislative will made to preserve the rights of all, and to give stability, repose, and confidence to society should be either violated or evaded, wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.