alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10708.

#### Walton *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Conviction of assault with intent to rape; from Stewart superior court—Judge Littlejohn. May 30, 1919.

*N. B. Butt, G. Y. Ilarrell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jule Felton, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, O. J.

1. No opinion as *to what had been*proved in *the case was*expressed or intimated in the following excerpt from the charge of the court: “Assault with intent to commit a rape is an assault made with the intent to have carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. If a person should make an assault upon a woman with the intent to have carnal knowledge of her, forcibly and against her will, if he entered upon that assault and should seize the woman with that intention and.that was his intention, then if he desisted by reason of fear or from an inability to commit the offense, why then that would not acquit him of the offense of assault with intent to commit a rape.”

2. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial other than the ground dealt with above, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 8

- 5 0 2 6 8 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,
P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.
C A S E Y L E O N F O R G E ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o

. 6 : 0 2

- C R

- 2 5

- A L L

B e f o r e J O L L Y , G A R Z A a n d S T E W A R T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *
C a s e y L e o n F o r g e , f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r # 6 0 9 7 2

- 0 8 0 , p l e a d e d g u i l t y i n 2 0 0 2 , p u r s u a n t t o a w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t , t o p o s s e s s i o n o f c r a c k c o c a i n e w i t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e

. H e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o 1 6 0 m o n t h s o f i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d f i v e y e a r s o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e

. F o r g e a p p e a l s t h e d e n i a l o f h i s p r o s e 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2

m o t i o n i n w h i c h h e a r g u e d t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e s h o u l d b e r e d u c e d b a s e d o n

r e t r o a c t i v e a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e G u i d e l i n e s f o r c r a c k c o c a i n e

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 18, 20 10
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 08-50268 Document: 00511298878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2010N o

. 0 8

- 5 0 2 6 8

F o r g e ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t v i o l a t e d h i s S i x t h A m e n d m e n t

r i g h t t o c o u n s e l w h e n i t d e n i e d h i s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n w i t h o u t f i r s t a p p o i n t i n g

c o u n s e l b e c a u s e t h e r i g h t t o c o u n s e l a t t a c h e d u n d e r t h e a d v i s o r y s e n t e n c i n g

s c h e m e i s u n a v a i l i n g

. A § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g i s n o t a f u l l r e s e n t e n c i n g

. D i l l o n v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 2 6 8 3 , 2 6 9 1

- 9 4 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. D o u b l i n , 5 7 2 F

. 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 8 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 9 )

. A m o t i o n f o r r e d u c t i o n o f s e n t e n c e i s n o t a n a n c i l l a r y m a t t e r u n d e r t h e C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e A c t , a n d F o r g e “ h a s n o

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f b r i n g i n g a § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

. ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. W h i t e b i r d , 5 5 F

. 3 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 0

- 1 1 ( 5 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 5 )

. A F F I R M E D

.

2 Case: 08-50268 Document: 00511298878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2010
NO. 07-06-0210-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JULY 27, 2006

		______________________________

	LESLIE C. CHEW, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2006-411688; HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pursuant to a plea of guilty, appellant Leslie C. Chew was convicted of theft, in an amount less than $1,500, enhanced by two prior convictions, and punishment was assessed at 18 months incarceration in a state jail facility.  Proceeding pro se, appellant filed notice of appeal challenging the conviction.

	We have received a certification of right of appeal by which the trial court certified that the underlying case was a plea-bargain case with no right of appeal.  By letter, dated June 1, 2006, this Court notified appellant that the certification indicated that he had no right of appeal.  In this letter, we further notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless he provided this Court with an amended certification providing that he has the right of appeal or otherwise demonstrates that there exists other grounds for continuing the appeal by June 16, 2006.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); Stowe v. State, 124 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2003, no pet.).  No amended certification reflecting a right to appeal has been filed and appellant has failed to demonstrate other grounds for continuing the appeal.1 

	Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

							Mackey K. Hancock

							         Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit 32

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


      I, Vahan V. Basmajian, the chief executive officer and chief
financial officer of Megatech Corporation, certify that

      (i)   This annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
            December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
            and

      (ii)  The information contained in this annual report on Form 10-K
            fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
            condition and results of operations of Megatech Corporation.

Date: March 15, 2004

                                       By: /s/ Vahan V. Basmajian
                                           ----------------------
                                           President, Treasurer & Chairman
                                           of the Board Chief Executive
                                           Officer & Chief Financial
                                           Officer


This certification accompanies this annual report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.


<PAGE>
#### *J.*R. B. Parsons *v.*H. C. Gartrell's Adm'r.

Executors and Administrators — Presentation of Claim — Waiver.

Where an administrator, when a claim had been presented to him, declared his intention not to pay it, he thereby waived any right to require a literal compliance by the claimant with the statute, and invited litigation thereon, and can not complain that plaintiff did not duly comply with the statute in presenting the claim.

APPEAL FROM BOYD' CIRCUIT COURT.

December 30, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The object of the statute in requiring an account against the estate of a deceased person to be verified by the creditor and established by proof, and payment thereof demanded of the personal representative before suit, is to secure to’ such representative an accredited voucher and to save the expense of litigation.

In this case the appellee declined even to examine the account when presented, and avowed her intention not to pay it under any circumstances. She thereby waived any right to require a literal *181compliance with the statute and invited the litigation, which she is now seeking to escape upon the ground that appellant failed to do that which was wholly unnecessary, and which could have resulted in no practical good either to himself or to the appellee. As the statute was enacted for the benefit of personal representatives to enable them to protect the estates committed to their hands, they have the power as between themselves and the creditors of these estates to consent either expressly or by implication that suits against them may be commenced and prosecuted without complying with its terms.

*Pritchard, for appellant.*

*Moore, for appellee.*

In this case the appellee by her conduct induced the appellant to begin his suit without marking proof of his account before demand, and she must be held to have consented thereto.

The order striking appellant’s petition from the docket is therefore reversed.

Upon the return of the cause the rule will be discharged and appellee required to answer.
Exhibit 10.26



|       |  |                                                                    
|------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Mellon |  | Lisa B. Peters Executive Vice President Director of Human Resources



December 1, 2004



James P. Palermo

12 Stouffer Circle

Andover, MA 01810-5300



Dear Jim:



This letter will confirm that the phrase engaged in was inadvertently omitted from (iv) in the Definition of Other than Cause in the November 22,
2004 letter that I sent to you and that (iv) is to be interpreted as if the phrase is included.



|                  
|------------------
|Sincerely yours,  
|                  
|/s/ Lisa B. Peters
|Cc: S.G. Elliott  



One Mellon Center
 Pittsburgh, PA 15258-0001

(412) 234-8254 Office  (412) 234-9495 Fax
Argonne National Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy 

laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC.

MACHINE LEARNING FORCE FIELDS FOR LI-ION 

CATHODES

NIST ATOMISTC SIMULATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL NEEDS, 2020

VIRTUALLY AT GAITHERSBURG, MD, AUGUST 5, 2020

Argonne National Laboratory

Lemont, IL

JOSHUA J GABRIEL, JUAN GARCIA, NOAH H. PAULSON, JOHN J. LOW, MARIUS STAN, AND HAKIM IDDIR
2

NMC (Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide) is a common choice cathode in 

Lithium ion batteries. However, it is susceptible to fracture at low Li content upon 

discharging, evidenced by a large change in the c lattice constant. We illustrate 

this collapse through a machine learning force field trained to 1 ps of ab initio

molecular dynamics (AIMD) for the specific composition NMC-111 that contains 

equiatomic proportions of nickel, manganese and cobalt. We find the collapse 

occurs at a Li-content of 0.25% at 298 K in the O3 phase. 

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND

DELITHIATION OF NMC-111 

3

▪ NMC-111 is a popular cathode that undergoes a well known ‘collapse’ 

of the interlayer spacing in the O3 and O1 structure on delithiation

▪ We develop a force field to simulate this collapse at operating 

temperatures for application to other cathodes such as NMC-811

Li=1.0 Ni Co Mn O Li=0.6 Ni Co Mn O Li=0.25 Ni Co Mn O Li=0.04 Ni Co Mn O
MLFF TRAINED TO 1 PS OF AIMD PREDICTS 

ENERGIES TO WITHIN 1 MEV/ATOM

4

Training over 1 ps AIMD snapshots calculated with DFT level that takes

care of van-der Waals interactions and strong correlation in oxides 

(SCAN+rvv10) 
MLFF TRAINED TO 1 PS OF AIMD PREDICTS 

ENERGIES TO WITHIN 1 MEV/ATOM

5

Li=1.0 Li=0.6

Li=0.04 Li=0.25
6

FORCE ERRORS AND PREDICTED LATTICE 

CONSTANTS AT 298 K

DeePMD-kit: A deep learning package for many-body potential energy 

representation and molecular dynamics, Comput. Phys. Commun., 228, 2018, 178-

184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2018.03.016

1Chem. Mater. 2006, 18, 1901-1910

Li-content C-lattice 

parameter 

(MD)

C-lattice

parameter

(Expt.1)

1.0 14.51 14.22

0.6 13.94 14.46

0.25 13.79 Experimental 

transition, 

mixture of O1

and O3 phase

0.04 10.89 

(O3 phase)

4.48 

(O1 phase)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by:

7

Vehicle Technologies Office
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                         455
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    9
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   726
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                60
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   16
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 44
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             44
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    44
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 4.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50268

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CASEY LEON FORGE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CR-25-ALL

Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Casey Leon Forge, federal prisoner # 60972-080, pleaded guilty in 2002,

pursuant to a written agreement, to possession of crack cocaine with intent to

distribute. He was sentenced to 160 months of imprisonment and five years of

supervised release. Forge appeals the denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582

motion in which he argued that his sentence should be reduced based on

retroactive amendments to the Guidelines for crack cocaine.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 18, 2010

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: 08-50268 Document: 00511298878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2010
No. 08-50268

Forge’s argument that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment

right to counsel when it denied his § 3582(c)(2) motion without first appointing

counsel because the right to counsel attached under the advisory sentencing

scheme is unavailing. A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing.

Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-94 (2010); United States v.

Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 2009). A motion for reduction of sentence

is not an ancillary matter under the Criminal Justice Act, and Forge “has no

constitutional right to appointed counsel for the purpose of bringing a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion.” United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir.

1995).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 08-50268 Document: 00511298878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2010
<PAGE> 1

                       INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Mercantile Bancorporation Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
No. 2-78395, No. 33-15265, No. 33-33870, No. 33-35139, No. 33-43694,
No. 33-48952, No. 33-57543, and No. 333-47713, each on Form S-8; and No.
33-45863, No. 33-52986, No. 33-50981, No. 33-55439, No. 33-58467,
No. 33-63609, No. 333-09803, No. 333-23607, No. 333-27431, and No. 333-42557,
each on Form S-4; and No. 333-37547 on Form S-3, of Mercantile Bancorporation
Inc. of our report dated January 21, 1998, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Mercantile Bancorporation Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995, and the related consolidated statements
of income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report
appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mercantile Bancorporation Inc.
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997.

                                              /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 30, 1998
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc Urbach,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





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




August
      23, 2010
                          /s/
      Marc UrbachMarc
      Urbach (Principal
      Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         641,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  190,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               831,767
<PP&E>                                      13,595,640
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,541,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,885,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,885,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,885,420
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               598,792
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  433,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   113,892
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 6

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-6 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:16951
2

Accused Product A — Top View Comparison

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Arts 

D’906 Patent

Accused Product A

D’857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-6 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:16952
3

Accused Product A — Ornamental Design Comparison 1

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Accused Product A D’857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-6 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:16953
4

Accused Product A — Bottom View Comparison

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Arts 

D’906 Patent

Accused Product A

D’857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-6 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:16954
5

Accused Product A — Front/Back View Comparison

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Arts 

D’906 Patent

Accused Product A

D’857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-6 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:16955
6

Accused Product A — Perspective View Comparison

Patents-in-suit D’723 Patent Patents-in-suit D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit D’195 Patent Patents-in-suit D’112 Patent

Prior Arts D’906 Patent

Accused Product A

D’857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-6 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:16956
7

Accused Product A — Side View Comparison

Patents-in-suit D’723 Patent Patents-in-suit D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit D’195 Patent Patents-in-suit D’112 Patent

Accused Product A D’857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-6 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:16957
8

Accused Product A — Ornamental Design Comparison 2

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Accused Product A D’857 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-6 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:16958