alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. C. Steele *v.*Capitol Hotel Co.

Bill of Exceptions.

In the absence of a bill of exceptions certifying the evidence heard by the circuit judge on the trial of the exceptions *to*the award, the Court of Appeals cannot adjudge an error was committed by overruling them.

APPEAL PROM PRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 23, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

■ In the absence of any bill of exceptions certifying the evidence heard by the circuit judge on the trial of the exceptions to the award, we cannot adjudge he committed any error by overruling them. The presumption of correctness is in favor of the judgment.

: Because we do not know what was proven before the judge who tried the exceptions to the award of the arbitrators we cannot investigate the numerous questions raised hy said exceptions; nor can we determine that the time of making the award was not enlarged- by the consent of the parties, either expressly or tacitly given.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**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 June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman F. Swanton,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the 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/ Norman F. Swanton         |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| Norman F. Swanton             |
| ***Chairman of the Board***   |
| *And Chief Executive Officer* |
|                          |
| August 6, 2008           |

 

1

----
**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**

|   | (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 fully presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Stan Vashovsky          |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Stan                Vashovsky              |
|   | Principal                Executive Officer |
|   | March                28, 2008              |

----
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00277

- CR
AERIAL MONIQUE SIMON , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- 413

- C1

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due January 27, 2022. After three extensions of time to file a brief were granted, appellant’s brief was due April 29, 2022

. Appellant requested another 30 days to file a brief which was denied by the Court because t he Court could not , in good

consc ience , grant appellant over five times the amount of time permitted to file a brief. Appellant’s brief was ordered to be filed by May 27, 2022. On May 27, 2022, appellant requested yet another extension of time, to June 10,
2022, to file her brief because counsel discovered that counsel did not receive sealedSimon v. State Page 2

exhibits with counsel’s copy of the reporters record, and has requested pe rmission from the trial court to receive a copy of these sealed exhibits. Counsel “believes the trial court will sign an order permitting him to receive the sealed exhibits in the next week ,” and

“a nticipates that [counsel] will be able to review the exhi bits quickly and file a brief shortly thereafter. ”

Counsel has had ample time to discover that exhibits were missing from the reporter’s record. Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED to the trial court to determine, at the same

time the trial court is considering whether trial counsel is permitted to have access to the

sealed exhibits , 1 no later than 14 days from the date of this ORDER, whether appellant is receiving affective assistance of counsel, and if not, whether to appoint new or additional counsel to represent appellant effectively. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the

trial court’s written determination must be filed within 2 1 days from the date of this

Order.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Appeal abated Order issued and filed June 2 , 2022 [RWR]

1 We take no position upon the issue of whether the procedure counsel has decided to use is the proper procedure to obtain access to sealed exhibits in the appellate record

.
EXHIBIT 32

                                   CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      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 Russian Athena, Inc.
(the  "Company)  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004,  Jehu
Hand 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 the best of
his knowledge:

            (1)   The annual  report fully complies with the  requirements of
                  Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Jehu Hand

Jehu Hand
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal executive and financial officer
November 30, 2004





<PAGE>
* 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. 96-30234 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus FELIX COLON-VALIERO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-250 - - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felix Colon-Valiero has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, Colon-Valiero’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the Federal Public Defender is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JASON BEAM AND HIS WIFE, KRISTIE

BEAM,

 Respondents

 v.

THIELE MANUFACTURING, LLC,

FORMERLY KNOWN AS THIELE INC.,

FORMERLY KNOWN AS TYT HOLDING,

INC.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 206 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 210 (Monday, November 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67086-67087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27499]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement 
under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear 
Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the 
European Atomic Energy Community.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 441,176.5 kg 
of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (68.00% U), 300,000 kg of 
which is uranium, from Areva Resources Canada, Inc. (Areva Resources) 
in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, to URENCO in Capenhurst, United 
Kingdom. The material, which is currently located at Areva Resources,

[[Page 67087]]

will be transferred to URENCO-Capenhurst for enrichment and use as fuel 
in civilian nuclear power programs in the United States and France. The 
material was originally obtained by Areva Resources from the Feed 
Component Substitution Implementing Contract.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: October 1, 2010.

    For the Department of Energy.
Thomas P. D'Agostino,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-27499 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Starbuck *v.*Lazenby.—In error.

*Thursday, November*28.

THE declaration in assumpsit contained a count on a promissory note and a general count for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default. Held, that a writ of inquiry was necessary. M'F*all et al.*v. *Wilson et al.*6 Blackf. 260.
2 min read

# NASA Television to Air Boeing Starliner Spacecraft Landing

### NASA

Dec 22, 2019

MEDIA ADVISORYM19-143

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

**Credits: NASA Television**

NASA and Boeing will provide live coverage of the landing on Sunday, Dec. 22, of the company’s CST-100 Starliner spacecraft, on return from its Orbital Flight Test for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

Starliner will execute a deorbit burn at 7:23 a.m. EST to begin its return to Earth, headed for a parachute-assisted landing at 7:57 a.m. at White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico. NASA Television and the agency’s website will provide mission coverage ahead the spacecraft reentry and landing beginning at 6:45 a.m.

NASA and Boeing will host a postlanding news conference at 10 a.m. with:
            - NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine
            - Jim Chilton, senior vice president of Boeing’s Space and Launch Division
            - Steve Stich, deputy manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program

To participate in the postlanding news conference via phone bridge, media must contact the newsroom at NASA’s Johnson Space Center at 281-483-5111 no later than 9:45 a.m. The news conference will air live on NASA TV and the agency’s website.

The uncrewed Starliner spacecraft launched on a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket Friday, Dec. 20, from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

Though Starliner did not reach the planned orbit or dock to the space station as planned, Boeing still was able to complete a number of test objectives. Teams from NASA, Boeing and ULA worked quickly to ensure the spacecraft was in a stable orbit and preserved enough fuel for multiple landing opportunities.

Learn more about NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at:

Get the latest information from Boeing at:
> 
Home

-end-

Josh Finch / Stephanie Schierholz​Headquarters, Washington202-358-1100joshua.a.finch@nasa.gov/stephanie.schierholz@nasa.govDan Huot​Johnson Space Center, Houston281-483-5111daniel.g.huot@nasa.gov
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jul 26, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Mark A. Garcia								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,234,458
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,624,493
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               200,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               594,479
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 21,738,614
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      21,823,608
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        21,632,663
<LOANS>                                    100,345,131
<ALLOWANCE>                                    688,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             152,423,984
<DEPOSITS>                                 130,780,591
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,800,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,569,824
<LONG-TERM>                                    748,598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,469,333
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,055,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             152,423,984
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,140,969
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,373,563
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                79,493
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,594,025
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,145,191
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,226,618
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,367,407
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   86,559
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               8,665
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,355,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                258,300
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     258,300
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   163,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.33
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   209,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,400,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               671,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   70,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              688,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        688,000
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40237

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IRYS DENIESSE NINO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-641-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Irys Deniesse Nino has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Nino has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 16, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 12-40237 Document: 00512021087 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2012
No. 12-40237

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

2

Case: 12-40237 Document: 00512021087 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William Fred COLEMAN, Jr., Appellant.

No. 98-2334.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 7, 1999.

Decided Jan. 20, 1999.

*1182Howard A. Shalowitz, St. Louis, Missouri, argued, for appellant.

Antoinette Decker, St. Louis, Missouri, argued (Edward L. Dowd, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, on the brief), for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

William Fred Coleman, Jr. was convicted in 1996 for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count I); use of tire and explosive material to destroy property used in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 844(1) (Count II); and destruction of property to prevent seizure of evidence, 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) (Count III). The District Court1 applied a total offense level of 38 and a criminal history Category II, resulting in a Guidelines imprisonment range of 262-327 months, sentencing Coleman to 21 years and 10 months imprisonment and five years supervised release on Count I, and additional, concurrent sentences of 20 years on Count II and five years on Count III. On appeal, we affirmed Coleman’s conviction and declined to consider his arguments based on ineffective assistance of counsel; we also rejected most of Coleman’s sentencing challenges but, noting that the government conceded Coleman should have been placed in criminal history Category I for sentencing purposes, remanded “for resentencing according to his correct Criminal History Category.” See *United States v. Coleman,*148 F.3d 897, 900-01, 904-05 (8th Cir.), *amending*138 F.3d 344 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 228, 142 L.Ed.2d 188 (1998).

On remand, the District Court noted that this Court had remanded “for the sole purpose of resentencing Mr. Coleman [to correct] the error in the calculation of his criminal history category,” and without considering the merits of any other issues, re-sentenced Coleman to 19 years and 7 months imprisonment on Counts I and II and five years imprisonment on Count III. On appeal, Coleman argues, as he did before the District Court, that he should have been resentenced de novo.

We disagree. The District Court’s decision in this case was based upon this Court’s mandate in the previous appeal. The District Court correctly interpreted our prior opinion and properly limited the scope of resentencing in accordance with our instructions. See *United States v. Behler,*100 F.3d 632, 635 (8th Cir.1996) (all issues decided by appellate court become law of case on remand, and 'sentencing court is bound to proceed within limitations imposed by appellate court). Accordingly, we affirm. This action is without prejudice to Coleman’s right to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming that his former lawyer failed to provide him with effective assistance of counsel at sentencing before the first appeal. See our opinion on the former appeal, 148 F.3d at 904.

It is so ordered.

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 25, 2015

Order 

Clerk

March 25, 2015

150206(66)

JENNY N. GLAUBIUS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 150206

v COA: 318750

Macomb CC Family Division:

 2012-004307-DM

JOHN A. GLAUBIUS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time 

for filing her brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if 

submitted on or before April 2, 2015.
EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY

IT’S THE LAW | KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

It is against the law for recipients of NASA Federal financial assistance, 

such as educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and private 

corporations, to discriminate on the basis of:

Race | Color | National Origin (including limited English proficiency) | 

Sex | Disability | Age | Retaliation/Reprisal for a Previously Filed 

Discrimination Complaint

To receive more information or to report discrimination under any 

program or activity receiving NASA financial assistance, contact:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Office of the Assistant Administrator

for Equal Opportunity Programs

300 E Street SW

Washington, DC

Complaints Hotline: 866-654-1440

Telephone: 202-358-2167

TDD: 202-358-3748

Fax: 202-358-3336

E-mail: AssistedProgramComplaint@NASA.gov or

LEP@NASA.gov

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration