alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00129-CR 

ROBERT TYRONE LILLY, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 104th District Court 

Taylor County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 21263-B, Honorable Lee Hamilton, Presiding 

 

July 15, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Robert Tyrone Lilly, appellant, appeals his conviction for evading arrest, enhanced. 

After an open plea, appellant was found guilty and punishment was assessed at thirty

years’ imprisonment by the trial court. Appellant filed an appeal and counsel was 

appointed.1

 

1 Because this appeal was transferred from the Eleventh Court of Appeals, we are obligated to 

apply its precedent when available in the event of a conflict between the precedents of that court and this 

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2

Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders2 brief in the cause. 

Through those documents, counsel certified that, after diligently searching the record, the 

appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter 

informing appellant of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s 

right to file a response, pro se. So too did the letter indicate that a copy of the appellate 

record was provided to appellant. By letter dated June 7, 2019, this Court also notified 

appellant of his right to file his own response by July 8, 2019. To date appellant has not 

filed a response.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel 

discussed several potential areas for appeal, which included whether the indictment was 

proper, the voluntariness of appellant’s guilty plea, whether the sentence was proper, and 

ineffective assistance of counsel. However, counsel then explained why the issues

lacked merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the 

accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No such error was uncovered. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.3

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

 

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 

3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals.
From: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ALEXIS RIVERA, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. CDC-06-577 DECISION

On February 17, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with five (5) years suspended, for the offense of Count I: Theft, a felony. Said sentence shall run concurrent with the sentence received in Cause Nos. ADC-08-007 and CDC-03-276.

On May 7, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the *41sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 7th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended November 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vitaly Melnikov, 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. |

 

 

By: /s/ Vitaly Melnikov

Vitaly Melnikov

Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer

October 30, 2013
#### Barbara H. PETTIT, a minor, by her Guardian, Robert Pettit, v. CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 35867.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Jan. 6, 1965.

Milford J. Meyer and Norman H. Abrahamson, Meyer, Lasch, Hankin & Poul, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Robert M. Landis, Richard G. Schneider, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

GRIM, District Judge.

Defendant railroad operates trains and locomotives on tracks located generally north and west of Chicago. Minor plaintiff was injured in an accident in Chicago. Through her guardian she has *455brought this diversity personal injury action against the railroad. Contending that the service on it was defective, defendant has filed a motion to quash the service on it and also to dismiss the action against it.

Rule 4(d) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service on a corporation may be made “ * * * by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process * *

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2180(a), 12 P.S. Appendix, which is applicable to this federal suit by the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d) (7), provides that personal service on a corporation may be made by delivering a copy of the process:

> “(1) to an executive officer, partner or trustee of the corporation or similar entity; or

> “(2) to an agent or person for the time being in charge of, and only at, any office or usual place of business of the corporation or similar entity; or

> “(3) to an agent, authorized by appointment to receive service of process * *

The only facts in the case in reference to the service of the summons and complaint come from the marshal’s return and an affidavit of one John C. White, an employee of defendant. The marshal’s return states that service of the summons and complaint was made “by handing to and leaving a true and correct copy thereof with man in charge of office—refused to give name and refused to accept service”. On the other hand, the clear implication of White’s affidavit, which is uneontradicted by plaintiff, is that the attempted service by the marshal was not made upon the man in charge of the office, nor upon any other person with authority in fact or in law to receive service of process. Consequently, the facts in reference to service of process are unclear and also it is unclear as to whether any of the methods of service mentioned in Rule 4(d) (3) of the Federal Rules or Rule 2180(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules have been followed.

In view of this, the motion to quash the service will be granted. However, the motion to dismiss will be denied. See Thompson v. Trent Maritime Co., 149 F.Supp. 468 (E.D.Pa.1957); Kruli-kowsky v. Metropolitan Dist. Council, 30 F.R.D. 24 (E.D.Pa.1962).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2518 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2518

 To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide budget information for 
 incinerators and waste-to-energy waste disposal alternatives to burn 
                                 pits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2023

   Mr. Ruiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Defense to provide budget information for 
 incinerators and waste-to-energy waste disposal alternatives to burn 
                                 pits.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Exposure to Burn Pits 
Act''.

SEC. 2. BUDGET INFORMATION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO BURN PITS.

    The Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget submission of 
the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
for fiscal year 2024 a dedicated budget line item for incinerators and 
waste-to-energy waste disposal alternatives to burn pits.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Bull Run Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as
of February 28, 2005 (the Evaluation Date) and presented in this quarterly report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; andc)
    
    disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 Date:
    
    September 12, 2005Signed:
    
    /s/ FREDERICK J. ERICKSONFrederick J. EricksonVice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### Bernard H. Glatzer, Appellant, v Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. Bernard H. Glatzer, Appellant, v Michael A. Cardozo et al., Respondents.

Decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 2009 NY Slip Op 70935(U).

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, JeffreyD Cushman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350),that to my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/    Jeffrey D. Cushman     |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |
| Jeffrey D.  Cushman                               |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

May 24,2006

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by 18 USC Section 1350has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lucky Strike Explorations
Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael
Noble, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


Date: February 21, 2013                      By: /s/ Michael Noble
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Michael Noble
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (120)
<INVENTORY>                                         13
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,264
<PP&E>                                             334
<DEPRECIATION>                                     199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        144
<COMMON>                                         1,507
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,948
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,924
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,476
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,116)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,116)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,845)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Artiom Balykin, Chief Executive Officer of Tag Events Corp., certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Tag Events
Corp., for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Tag Events Corp.


/s/ Artiom Balykin
- --------------------------
Artiom Balykin
Chief Executive Officer
November 29, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Laronn BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4291.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 8, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.

Lisa S. Costner, Lisa S. Costner, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*475PER CURIAM:

Christopher Laronn Brown appeals the sentence imposed after we affirmed his conviction, vacated the sentence and remanded to the district court for resentenc-ing. Brown contends the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on facts not found by the jury or admitted by him. Finding no error, we affirm.

Brown’s sentence was vacated and remanded because the district court used the guidelines in a mandatory fashion. The sentence was not imposed in accordance with the rules announced in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). At resentencing, the district court properly calculated the guidelines range of imprisonment, considered the statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), and imposed a sentence within the guidelines range of imprisonment.

We review a sentence to determine whether it was within the statutory range of imprisonment and reasonable. *United States v. Moreland,*437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.2006). *Post-Booker,*the district court is still required to consider the sentencing guidelines range of imprisonment and the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. The court is also required to consider the factors under § 3553(a). *Id.*at 432. The court determines the appropriate guidelines range of imprisonment by making factual findings. *Id.*A sentence that falls within the properly calculated range of imprisonment is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. *Id.*at 433.

We find the sentence reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We deny Brown’s motion to dismiss counsel and appoint new counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<PAGE>
                                    Form 6-K


                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION



                            Report of Foreign Issuer
                      Pursuant of Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
                       The Securities Exchange Act of 1934


For the month of July 2004                    Commission File Number: 1-14242



                        ROYAL GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
                              (Name of registrant)


                             1 Royal Gate Boulevard
                               Woodbridge, Ontario
                                     L4L 8Z7
                                 (905) 264 0701


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files of will file annual reports
under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F:

         Form 20-F______   Form 40-F___X___

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the SEC
pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

         Yes______         No___X___

If "YES" is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): N/A


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT INDEX





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit                    Description of Exhibit                       Page
-------                    ----------------------                       ----

<S>                   <C>                                               <C>
                           Material Change Report

1                      Royal Group Technologies Limited-                 3
                         Press Release June 29th 2004
</TABLE>