alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40012 (f rev)

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Sean M. DALEY

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Upon Further Review

Decided 16 May 2022

________________________

Military Judge: Colin P. Eichenberger.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 3 December 2020 by GCM convened at Holloman 

Air Force Base, New Mexico. Sentence entered by military judge on 12 January 

2021: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 24 months, forfeiture of all pay 

and allowances, and reduction to E-1.

For Appellant: Captain David L. Bosner, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Major Abbigayle C. Hunter, USAF; Major John P. Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen 

Payne, Esquire.

Before JOHNSON, KEY, and MEGINLEY, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

Appellant’s case is before our court for the second time. Our court previously remanded this case to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, 

to resolve Appellant’s sole assignment of error, a substantial issue with the 
United States v. Daley, No. ACM 40012 (f rev)

2

completeness of the record of trial—specifically, attachments to the stipulation 

of fact, Prosecution Exhibit 1, were missing. United States v. Daley, No. ACM 

40012, 2022 CCA LEXIS 7, at *5 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 5 Jan. 2022) (unpub. op.). 

On 14 January 2022, the military judge signed a certificate of correction to the 

record of trial and the record of trial was returned to this court for completion 

of its appellate review on 1 February 2022. We find the military judge followed 

the procedures of Rule for Courts-Martial 1112(d) to reconstruct the missing 

parts of the record, that the defects in the record of trial have been corrected, 

and Appellant’s assignment of error is now moot. 

The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d), Manual for CourtsMartial, United States (2019 ed.). 

Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as interim principal financial officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of SRI.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 3, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark R. Faris                                                  
|                     |  |     |  | Mark R. Faris                                                      
|                     |  |     |  | Controller and Vice President (interim principal financial officer)
THEA~TORNEYGENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable Zollle C. Steakley Opinion 290. UW-91 

Secretary of State 

Capitol Station Re: Can the Secretary of 

Aus tin, Texas . State authorize the use 

of the Great Beal of 

Texas as a lounge car 

decoration on a new Texas 

Dear Sir: Zephyr passenger train? 

This is in response to a request concerning the use of the 

Great Seal of Texas in which you asked the question, substantially 

as follows : 

Does the Secretary of State have the authority 

to authorize the use of the Great Seal of Texas 

as a lounge car decoration on a new Texas Zephyr 

passenger train? 

Section 1 of Chapter 350, Acts of the 54th Legislature, 

which has been codlfled~as Article 157a, Vernon’s Penal Code, reads 

in part as follows: 

‘Art. 157a. Advertising and other prohibited uses of Great Seal of Texas. 

“IJo person, firm, or corporation, or 

any agent, servant, representative, employee, 

or receiver, of any firm or corporation, shall 

use any facsimile, imitation, label, trademark, 

deslkn, device, imprint or form of the &eat 

Seal of Texas for the purpose of advertising or 

giving publicity to any goods, wares, or merchandise or any commercial undertaking, f 

trade or commercial purpose. . . . “(i&hiiitnadded) q 

e 

It Is our opinion that the use of the Great Seal of Texas 

In the manner set forth In your question clearly falls within the 

prohibition of the’ Act which denies the u8e of the Seal for the 

purpose of advertising or giving publicity to any commercial undertaking or for any trade or commercial purpoao. For this reason 

your question must be answered in the negative. 
Honorable Zollle C. Sterkley, Pwe 2 w-91 

SUMMARY 

Seation 3; of Chapter 350, Acts 

of the 54th Legislature, which ‘. 

has been codified as Article 

157a, Vernon’s Penal Code, grohlbits the we of the Great 

Seal of Texas ,as a louuge oar 

decoration on a new Texas 

Zephyr psssenger train. 

Yours very truly, 

WCR:pf ;rh 

AFTROVIP): 

0P1I?10Ip COMMITTIm: 

8. Grady ChandleP, 

Chsirmn 

J. C; J&vie, Jr. 

John Reeve8
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1592

OTIS O. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK

COMPANY; LOCAL UNION 8888, UNITED STEELWORKERS

OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,

District Judge. (CA-97-46-4)

Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 21, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otis O. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Dean C. Berry, NEWPORT NEWS

SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO., Newport News, Virginia; Kenneth

Michael Reiss, NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Arlington, Virginia;

David I. Goldman, Associate General Counsel, Daniel Martin Kovalik,

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; James J.

Vergara, Jr., VERGARA & ASSOCIATES, Hopewell, Virginia, for

Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Otis O. Edwards appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his

employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Edwards v. Newport News

Shipbldg. & Dry Dock Co., No. CA-97-46-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2004).

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
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
this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Jean-Pierre Dallaire Chief Accounting 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:

The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 9, 2009



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Pierre Dallaire    
|Jean-Pierre Dallaire        
|Principal Accounting Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000487

21-OCT-2016

07:44 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0132

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW ROBERT ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 20, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 12 2022

12/12/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0132
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) of TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James P. Labe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) 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 Registrant.

 

|   | /s/ James P. Labe  |
|--------|-------------------------|
| Name:  | James P. Labe           |
| Date:  | March 14, 2016          |
Amendment to the Alcoa Stock Acquisition Plan



 Exhibit 10.M(5) 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

ALCOA STOCK ACQUISITION PLAN 

Due to the restructuring of the Alcoa Retirement Savings Plan program, and to comply with legally required changes, the plan is amended as follows:

 1.    The definition of “Nonforfeitable Circumstance” is amended by adding the following sentence: 

Effective January 1, 2011, all Matching Company Credit Awards become fully vested and the term “Nonforfeitable
Circumstances” ceases to apply to the Plan. 
 2.    Effective January 1, 2011, the definition of “Savings
Plan” is amended as follows: 
 “Savings Plan” means the Alcoa Retirement Savings Plan for Salaried Employees,
the Alcoa Retirement Savings Plan for Hourly Non-Bargaining Employees, the Alcoa Retirement Savings Plan for Mill Products Employees, and/or the Alcoa Retirement Savings Plan for Fastening Systems and Commercial Windows Employees, as they are now in
existence or as hereafter amended. 
 3.     Section 5.3 is amended by adding the following sentence: 

Effective January 1, 2011, the term “as soon as administratively practical” means within the later of:
(a) 90 days of Retirement or (b) 2 1/2
months after the year of Retirement. 
 4.    Section 5.5 is amended by adding the following sentence:

 Effective January 1, 2011, the term “as soon as administratively practical” means within
the later of: (a) 90 days of death or (b) 2 1/2 months after the year of death. 
 5.    In all other respects, the
Plan is ratified and confirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43789-43790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

[NPS-WASO-(2220)-NPS0023067; PPWOPCADC0/PNA00RT14.GT0000]


Notice of Availability of Application by the Governor of 
Connecticut To Include Portions of the Housatonic River in the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Governor of Connecticut has requested that the Secretary 
of the Interior add a 41-mile segment of the Housatonic River to the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The National Park Service will 
conduct an evaluation of the Governor's request and make a 
recommendation to the Secretary about whether to include the proposed 
segments in the System after public and agency comment on the 
evaluation.

ADDRESSES: Materials submitted by the Governor are available online at: 
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=70346.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Fosburgh, Northeast Region 
Rivers Program Leader, National Park Service, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9af0fbf7f3ffc5fcf5e9f8efe8fdf2daf4eae9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4329222e2a261c252c30213631242b032d33306d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at 617-223-5191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 16, 2016, Connecticut Governor 
Dannel P. Malloy requested the Secretary of the Interior to add a 41-
mile segment of the Housatonic River from the Massachusetts--
Connecticut border downstream to Boardman Bridge, New Milford, 
Connecticut, to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System pursuant to 
Section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90-542;

[[Page 43790]]

16 U.S.C. 1273(a)(ii)). Application materials are available at: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=70346.
    Under the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the 
Secretary of the Interior is directed to notify the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission upon receipt of an application and to publish 
such application in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1273(a)(ii)). The 
purpose of this notice is to ensure that no actions are taken by 
departments or agencies of the United States, including the FERC, that 
might render the candidate river ineligible for designation during the 
one year period required for the Secretary's review of the Governor's 
application (16 U.S.C. 1278(b)), in this case until November 22, 2017.

    Dated: September 12, 2017.
Jeffrey P. Reinbold,
Assistant Director, Partnerships and Civic Engagement.
[FR Doc. 2017-19719 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4312-52-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NO. 07-08-0339-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JANUARY 13, 2009

	______________________________

	KEITH A. BARBER, 

									Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2007-418,534; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Opinion

	_______________________________

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

	Keith A. Barber appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).  He does so in one issue in which he claims error on the part of the trial court in allowing a Department of Public Safety chemist to testify from a report of another chemist.  We affirm the judgment. 

	Whether or not the testimony was admissible, appellant only objected when the State propounded its first question about the report’s content.  Yet, that was not the only question propounded by the State on that subject.  And, when it asked its other questions, appellant raised no complaint.  Nor had he requested and received a running objection after the trial court overruled his first objection or sought to attack the testimony outside the jury’s presence.  Consequently, his complaint was not preserved.  Ethington v. State, 819 S.W.2d 854, 859-60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  

	Accordingly, appellant’s issue is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#### Willard *against*Sperry.

A plaintiff can-entire^contract k£nttb| of money, ex-amount cognizable before a justice of the ?eraf’ smaller bringa'distfnct just°¿be&rfor each: and if an entire demand has been divided m this manner, and ders judgment (iff in each'of the actions, all the judgments ”d* be rever* an\trk"hment ^sued^out^of Court, stating merely that the constable cmtahTgoodsTM them.^'errofur(he'r be stated, that a copy of the attachment had been left at the dwelling last place of defendant. * e

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error brought an action in the Court he-low against the plaintiff in error, which was commenced by attachment. The constable, who executed the attachment, merely returned, that he had, by virtue thereof, levied upon / ’ . , „ , , r, certain articles, enumerating them. On the return day the defendant did not appear, and the plaintiff below declared on a promissory note drawn by the defendant for 125 dollars, payable in eight days after date. There were, also, four other attachments, in suits between the same parties; 7 **■*’ and all the five were returnable at the same time, and the plaintiff declared m all, upon the same note. The five causes were heard *ex parte,*and the Justice rendered judgment in each cause, for 25 dollars, with costs.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is erroneous. The note forming one indivisible contract, cannot be the foundation of several suits. It is a usurpation of jurisdiction, and a justice might, if this be tolerated, take cognizance of con- , , , tracts to any amount.

There is, besides, error in the proceedings in regard *to*the return of the attachment. The 24th section of the *act for the recovery of debts to the value of twenty-five dollars,*enacts, “ that it shall be the duty of the constable to attach 7 *J*and keep the goods, &c. and to leave a copy of such at- , 1 ° rv tachmentat the dwelling house, or other last place of abode of the defendant; and shall return the same to the justice who issued the same, and the manner of executing the same, &c.’’ In this case the return merely states, that the constable had seised the goods, without stating that he left a copy, &c. To bring a defendant in default, so as to justify a trial and judgment *ex parte,*it must expressly appear, that the process of attachment has been served, by leaving a copy at the dwelling-house or other place of abode of the " *122defendant. For aught that appears, he might have left a fam¡]y; an(j an attorney to defend against all claims.

On both grounds, therefore, the judgment must he reversed.

Judgment reversed.

The judgments rendered by the Justice, in the other actions upon the same promissory note, were also reversed forithe same reasons.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 12

- 00873

- CV

Style: Texas Municipal Power Agency

v Kirk A. Johnston

Date motion filed * : December 27, 2012

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file reply brief filed

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Re ply Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: December 27, 2012

Number of previous extensions granted:

- 0

- Current Due date: December 27, 2012

Date Requested: January 7, 2013

Order ed that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: January 7, 2013

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _______________________

______________

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: January 28 , 2013
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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:






1.           The
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 operation of the Company.









Date:
August 12,
2009                                                   By:/s/ Joseph M.
Cummins


Joseph M.
Cummins


President,
Chief Executive Officer









Date:
      August 12, 2009
            By:/s/ Gary
      W. Coy


Gary W.
Coy


Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2561 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2561

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1 Warrior Drive in Tuba City, Arizona, as the ``Lori Piestewa Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2011

  Mr. Gosar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1 Warrior Drive in Tuba City, Arizona, as the ``Lori Piestewa Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LORI PIESTEWA POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1 Warrior Drive in Tuba City, Arizona, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lori Piestewa Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lori 
Piestewa Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```