alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

════════════

No. WR-84,565-01

════════════

EX PARTE KERRY MAX COOK,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cause No. 1-77-179-A in the 114th District Court

Smith County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

I agree with Presiding Judge Keller that Applicant has failed to 

demonstrate that he is actually innocent, and that he has also not shown 

that he is entitled to relief pursuant to the standard announced by this 

Court’s opinion in Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1996). But I also conclude that Applicant is not entitled to a new trial. I 

would simply deny relief. 
COOK – 2

“Only the use of material false evidence amounts to a due-process 

violation.” Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). False evidence is “material” only if there is a “reasonable 

likelihood” that it affected the judgment of the jury. Ex parte Chaney, 

563 S.W.3d 239, 263–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). The applicant also has 

the burden to show the materiality of the false evidence by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Id. 

The Court is convinced that, not only was materially false 

evidence used against Applicant to induce his plea in this case, but also 

that he has shown himself now to be actually innocent of the 

unimaginable crime for which he was convicted by a jury twice and upon 

his own plea once. Wow! I hope they are right since their judgment wins 

the day in this Court. I agree with both Applicant and the Court that 

there is now new evidence showing that some of the evidence relied upon 

by the State to induce Applicant’s latest plea of nolo contendere has 

turned out to be false. I simply cannot conclude however, like the Court 

does, that the false evidence was material. In all humility, I may be 

wrong about my assessment of the evidence in this case, but I remain 

convinced today that, even being put on notice of the false evidence 

pointed to by Applicant, on balance, a rational jury would still have 

found Applicant guilty. 

I respectfully dissent. 

FILED: June 19, 2024

PUBLISH
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe quarterly report of Santa Fe Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not inits individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Trust.
|                           | /s/ Mike  Ulrich                 |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                      | Mike Ulrich,                     |
| Date: August 6, 2004 | Vice President and Trust Officer |

 

----
----

----

**Exhibit        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. §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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial                  condition                  and results of operations of the                  Company. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |                                                        |   |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | /s/                    Alexander L.                    Weis |   |
|   |   |   | Alexander                    L.                    Weis     |   |
|   |   |   | Chief                    Executive Officer                  |   |
|   |   |   |                                                        |   |
|   |   |   | September 14,                    2007                  |   |
Exhibit 32.1

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

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Sheffield Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Michael F. Manion, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, 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) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Michael F. Manion

Michael F. ManionChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDated: July 19, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sheffield Pharmaceuticals, Inc. andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FRESH AMERICA CORP. FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 3, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-3-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JAN-3-1997
<CASH>                                           4,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,579
<PP&E>                                           5,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,408
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,207
<SALES>                                        239,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               239,177
<CGS>                                          215,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  215,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (176)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,043
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,043
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
TWIN CITIES PUBLIC TELEVISION, INC.

SciGirls in Space: Exploring the Moon, Mars 

and NASA Careers

Kristin Pederson

9/01/19 - 8/31/23

SciGirls in Space combines NASA lessons, subject 

matter experts, missions, technologies and facilities 

with the Emmy Award-winning PBS SciGirls project, 

which includes a television series, digital resources, 

educator professional development and outreach for 

middle school-aged girls and families. Across two new 

and four previous episodes, real girls team up with 

adult STEM professional role models to learn about 

traditional Indigenous star knowledge, how to combat 

isolation in space and on Earth, explore light pollution, 

learn about clouds, how sensors can help us observe 

the natural world and space, and use the engineering 

design process. SciGirls videos are offered to public 

media stations across the country and available on 

multiple streaming platforms. The SciGirls educational 

outreach team also empowers youth-serving 

organizations nationwide to implement new 

programming around space science. All outreach 

content is available in English and Spanish and 

available at scigirlsconnect.org.

List of Partners:

• Ames Research Center

• Goddard Space Flight Center

• Johnson Space Center

• Langley Research Center

The SciGirls of the "Super Sensors" episode

Credits: TPT

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC19M0157, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gary Tomlinson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00235-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: February 19, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 860 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gaitri L. Lachhman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03506-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/30/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8670 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8670 Filed 11/07/17 Page 2 of 2
#### ALECIA M. ZUPO v. CNA INSURANCE COMPANY.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification granted.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63  Of Title 18 of the United States Code

In connection with the periodic report of MIVA, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K and Form 10-K/A for the
period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (collectively, the "Report"), I, Peter A. Corrao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, 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 Company.

This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ PETER A. CORRAO President and Chief Executive Officer, MIVA, Inc.Date: April 7, 2009


1

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)

PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), William D. Young, the Chief Executive Officer of Monogram Biosciences, Inc. (the Company), and Alfred G. Merriweather, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



|1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; 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.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 9, 2007





|                        |  |  |  |                              
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|/s/    WILLIAM D. YOUNG |  |  |  | /s/    ALFRED G.
MERRIWEATHER
|William D. Young        |  |  |  | Alfred G. Merriweather       
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Matthew Lee Lacey, * From the 104th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 15182-B.

Vs. No. 11-14-00144-CV * April 29, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  Penn  Octane  Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned,  Jerome B. Richter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ian
T.  Bothwell,  Chief  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,  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 Company.

                                            /s/  Jerome  B.  Richter
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Jerome B. Richter, Chief Executive Officer
                                      June  16,  2003


                                           /s/  Ian  T.  Bothwell
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Ian T. Bothwell, Chief Financial Officer
                                      June  16,  2003


<PAGE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1084** 

In re: DEMETRIUS HILL , Petitioner
.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus . ( 7:08

- cv - 00283

- JCT

- RSB )

Submitted : June 2 8 , 2012 Decided: August 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition s denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Demetrius Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Demetrius Hill petitions for a writ of mandamus asking this court to award attorney’s fees to his counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act after a jury returned a verdict in Hill’s favor in his action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He has filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus requesting this c ourt to intervene and stop the district court from conducting a new trial. We conclude that Hill is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Hill is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition s for writ of mandamus. We further deny Hill’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in t he materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

PETITION S DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damon Johnson, Also Known as Damon Lucky, Appellant.

[786 NYS2d 850]

Peters, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered January 30, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

On November 15, 2000, a police-controlled confidential informant allegedly purchased cocaine at an apartment located on Lincoln Avenue in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. Based on this evidence, the police applied for and received a search warrant, the execution of which resulted in the seizure of crack cocaine, marihuana and drug paraphernalia. Defendant, present at the apartment, was charged in a five-count indictment with various drug-related offenses. Defendant subsequently moved to suppress the evidence as obtained in violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Supreme Court denied the motion and defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. In exchange, defendant signed a written waiver of his right to appeal and was sentenced as a second felony offender to 3 to 6 years in prison. Defendant now appeals challenging the denial of his suppression motion.

Inasmuch as the record reveals a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of defendant’s right to appeal, he may not now challenge the denial of his suppression motion *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v O'Donnell,*3 AD3d 599, 599 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 764 [2004]; *People v Reid,*2 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2003], *lv denied*3 NY3d 646 [2004]). Notably, here, the written waiver of the right to appeal specifically stated that defendant was precluded from appealing County Court’s suppression ruling. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.