alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9949.

#### Leverett *v.*The State.

Decided January 9, 1919.

Indictment for manufacture of *liquor;*from Jasper superior court—Judge Park. June 14, 1918.

*Greene F. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general, Richard B. Russell,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. The defendant was charged with manufacturing whiskyin 1916, which offense was then a misdemeanor, and convicted of an attempt to manufacture the' same. The offense, charged being substantially the same as the offense charged in the case of *'Smith*v. *State,*ante, 140, and growing out of the same transaction, the assignments of error raised in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th, and 12th grounds of the motion for new trial are disposed of in the first and second divisions of that decision. See also *Leverett*v. *State,*20 *Ga. App.*748 (93 S. E. 232).

2. There being evidence tending to show a confession on the part of the defendant, it was not error for the court to charge the law relative to confessions, and the assignment of error set out in the 4th ground of the motion for new trial is therefore without merit.

3. There is no merit in the exceptions taken to the charge of the court as set Out in the 8th and 10th grounds of the amendment to the motion for new trial, nor is there any merit in the exception taken to the ■ failure of the court to charge as set out in the 9th ground of said motion.

4. The charge of the court fairly submitted the ease *to the*jury, and there being evidence to support the verdict, the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
| Exhibit 99.4 **Morgan Stanley 2004-IQ7****Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions to****Certificateholders****for January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004****Ending Principal****Class****Principal****Interest****Balance**A-1 6,479,068.05 1,957,362.39 79,520,931.95 A-2 0.00 2,049,833.31 70,000,000.00 A-3 0.00 1,654,041.69 53,000,000.00 A-4 0.00 17,693,676.26 550,458,000.00 B 0.00 936,245.30 29,127,000.00 C 0.00 728,180.06 22,654,000.00 D 0.00 217,033.29 6,752,000.00 E 0.00 303,113.71 9,430,000.00 F 0.00 173,382.32 5,394,000.00 G 0.00 138,699.44 4,315,000.00 H 0.00 173,382.32 5,394,000.00 J 0.00 138,699.44 4,315,000.00 K 0.00 69,333.66 2,157,000.00 L 0.00 69,365.80 2,158,000.00 M 0.00 69,333.66 2,157,000.00 N 0.00 69,365.80 2,158,000.00 O 0.00 242,744.72 7,551,894.00 X-1 0.00 968,971.95 856,541,825.95 X-Y 0.00 124,250.33 72,596,718.81 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John Swallow, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Annual Report on 10KSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 as 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



2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: January 21, 2006.



/s/ John Swallow



_______________________

John Swallow

(CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors)



























---
IS IT 

PLUGGED IN?

By Denise Lamb
On an Election Day, 

all over the country.....during the hour before the polls open.... the phones are ringing.The first question that has to be asked by the voting system technicians is ...”Is it plugged in?
That que

represenusability most baselection techniciait demonbasic skigroup of users –

p

boards.
Poll workers are recruited solely f

administrative functions. They shexpected to take on technical or duties. Mechanical devices on voshould not be repaired by frantic on election day.
The usability issue, when 

addressed, has been aimed first at the voter, undeniably, a very important user – but not the only user of a voting 

system.

For the technician administrator, usaissues arise durinelection and post-activities.
Set-up and ballot 

configuration are critical to the success of the election. Errors in ballot configuration or programming, will cause election failure before the polls open.

And when errors are discovered, it is inevitably too late to successfully recover. This is one of the most high-risk areas of election administration.
So, what approach should 

be taken in beginning to address usability in configuration issues? Can ballot configuration be intuitive?

What doeCan softwintuitive inot workesimilar soProbably 
Should we look at 

functionality and apply basic data processing principles? 

Ballot definition that requires multiple data entry points for the same candidate will maximize probability of human error. 
Likewise, during postelection activities, any 

system should allow users to perform a limited number of relatively simple tasks to retrieve results.

Post-election diffretrieving electioarouse suspicion public confidencelectoral system
SUMMARY

• Ease of use for poll workers ie.. not 

technical- try to limit use to adminisno mechanical or technical repairs.

• Ease of use for voters• Ease of use for technicians and ad

pre-election functions.

• Minimal data entry for ballot configu• Limited tasks to retrieve data post-e
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M AR SHALL C HARL ES R IC HM OND, a .k.a . M arsha ll C ha

rle s R ic hm ond, III, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30341

D.C . No. 3:03-c r-00370-KI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Garr M . King, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . M arsha ll C ha

rle s R ic hm ond a

ppe a ls from

the re voc at ion of supe rvise d re le a se and the 24-m o nth se nte nc e im pose d upon re voc ation. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), R ic hm ond’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stat ing tha

t 

# F IL ED AUG 19 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l of re c o rd. R ic hm o nd ha s file d two pro sesupple m e nta l brie fs. No a nswe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. All othe r pe nding m otions a re de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 0 3 4 1 2
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3884

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United

Courthouse’’.F. Garcia Federal Building and United StatesStreet in San Antonio, Texas, as the ‘‘HipolitoStates courthouse located at 615 East Houston

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3884

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 615 East Houston Street in San Antonio, Texas, as the ‘‘Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building

and United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3884 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse

3 located at 615 East Houston Street in San Antonio,

4 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Hipolito F.

5 Garcia Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hipolito

11 F. Garcia Federal Building and United States Court12 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 21, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
---

Exhibit 32

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 Newport Gold, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, [to such officer's knowledge], that:

The Form 10-KSB for the nine-month period ended December 31, 2006 (the "Form
10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: April 16, 2007 | /s/ Derek Bartlett                     
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                      | Derek Bartlett, Chief Executive Officer
|                      |                                        
|Dated: April 16, 2007 | /s/ John Arnold                        
|                      | John Arnold, Chief 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.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,740,806
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,250,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,105,814
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     33,759,351
<ALLOWANCE>                                    507,440
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,918,167
<DEPOSITS>                                  43,671,098
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            289,964
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       512,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,445,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              48,918,167
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                923,735
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               39,344
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                33,177
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               996,256
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             431,159
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          565,097
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   51,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                332,897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                254,666
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   209,666
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     4.7
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               481,035
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   25,036
<RECOVERIES>                                       441
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              507,440
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           507,440
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Jose F.S. SIMOY, et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 04-5136.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 6, 2004.

Jose F.S. Simoy, Fort Leavenworth, KS, Pro Se.

Stephen E. Boone, Jr., Fort Leavenworth, KS, Pro Se.

Michael P. Paalan, Fort Leavenworth, KS, Pro Se.

Douglas Anderson, Jr., Fort Leavenworth, KS, Pro Se.

Fernando Garcia, Pro Se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SENTELLE, HENDERSON, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellants Jose F.S. Simoy, Douglas A. Anderson, Jr., and Michael P. Paalan. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment filed January 9, 2004, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the claims of appellants Simoy, Anderson, and Paalan for military pay and allowances because the judgments on the merits in the prior suits (as cited in the complaint and the record on appeal) bar claims involving the same parties based on the same cause of action. *See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore,*439 U.S. 322, 326, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 N.5 (1979). Appellants’ attack on those decisions cannot be considered by this court; this circuit has no authority to review collaterally the decisions of a sister circuit. *See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452*U.S. 394, 398, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981) (“Nor are the res judicata consequences of a final, unappealed judgment on the merits altered by the fact that the judgment may have been wrong ... ”); *Dynaquest Corp. v. U.S. Postal Service, 242*F.3d 1070, 1075 (D.C.Cir.2001). Contrary to appellants’ contention, the Thirteenth Amendment claims of Simoy and Paalan were decided on the merits based on a determination that involuntary active duty does not violate the Constitution. *Simoy v. United States,*No. 01-*130489C (Fed.C1.2002), *aff'd,*64 Fed.Appx. 745 (Fed.Cir.2003); *Paalan v. United States,*51 Fed. Cl. 738 (2002). The pendency of an appeal does not diminish the preclusive effect of the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. *See Hunt v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*707 F.2d 1493, 1497-98 (D.C.Cir.1983); *see also Paalan v. United States,*57 Fed. Cl. 15 (2003) (dismissing back pay claim based on res judicata).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en bane. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 27, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian W. Bethers, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
|   | /s/  Brian W. Bethers         |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | Chief  Financial Officer      |
|   | Date:  November 10, 2003 |

 

----
**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/ Donna Goral                                                              |
|--|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  |   |   | Donna                GoralChairman                of the Board and President |
|  |   |   |                                                                              |

----
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


## 136256 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136256 COA: 282506 Wayne CC: 06-011806-FC DARNELL L. SAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
EXHIBIT
10.26


 


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE CONFIDENTIAL LICENSE AGREEMENT


FOR GAME
BOY, GAME BOY COLOR AND GAME BOY POCKET


HANDHELD
VIDEO GAME SYSTEMS


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (“Second Amendment”) amends that certain
Confidential License Agreement for Nintendo Game Boy, Game Boy Color and Game
Boy Pocket Handheld Video Game Systems dated March 9, 1999, and amended by the
First Amendment dated March 8, 2002, between Nintendo of America Inc.
(“Nintendo”) and THQ Inc. (“Licensee”) (“Original Agreement”).


 


RECITALS


 


The Original Agreement expired on March 8, 2004, and the parties desire
to extend the Term of the Original Agreement for an additional two (2) years.


 


The definitions in the Original Agreement are incorporated by reference
into this Second Amendment and shall be deemed to have the same meanings as
those ascribed to them in the Original Agreement unless otherwise set forth
herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.                                       The
definition of “Term” as set forth in Section 2.19 of the Original Agreement is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“‘Term’ shall mean
seven (7) years from the Effective Date.”


 


2.                                       All
other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.  This Second Amendment may
be signed in counterparts and by facsimile, which together shall constitute one
original Second Amendment. This Second Amendment shall be effective as of March
8, 2004.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Second
Amendment.


 


	
  NINTENDO:

  	
  LICENSEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Nintendo of America Inc.

  	
  THQ Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Its:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date:
Exhibit 32.2 

 

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, 

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Douglas P. Rosefsky, as Chief Financial Officer of North Atlantic Holding Company, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the U.S. 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, as amended; and 

 

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

 

Dated: March 31, 2005