alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Craig CANON, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 09-50655, 10-50681.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 31, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marie Eisela Galindo, Esq., Galindo Law Firm, Midland, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*399Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas Canon appeals his conviction on several counts related to trafficking in cocaine. We have reviewed the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law and have heard the arguments of counsel. Because there is no reversible error, we affirm.

Canon claims the district court gave an erroneous jury instruction, before the government put on its case, regarding circumstantial evidence. Because Canon did not object to the instruction, we review for plain error. There was nothing plainly wrong with the instruction, and in its final instruction to the jury, after both sides had rested, the court gave instructions from this circuit’s pattern jury charges. Even if there was error, it was harmless.

Canon claims insufficient evidence in regard to several counts. Because he properly preserved the claim, we ask whether a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence favorably to the verdict. There is easily enough evidence of Canon’s conduct to satisfy this burden on appeal.

Canon claims the government presented insufficient evidence to establish venue in the Western District of Texas. Although some of the acts took place in the Northern District of Texas, there is ample evidence of acts in the Western District that initiated, perpetuated, or completed the crimes of conviction. Canon’s assertion that venue was not properly established in the Western District is meritless, as is his assertion that the district court improperly took judicial notice that Midland is in the Western District.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit
      32.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002











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 Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. ("the Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, David S. Lerner,
      President and Principal Executive Officer, hereby 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.








Dated:
      November 18, 2005





/s/
      David S. Lerner


David
      S.
      Lerner


President
      and Principal Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Frederick W. McTaggart, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Date: April 14, 2004                    By: /s/ Frederick W. McTaggart
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                 Name: Frederick W. McTaggart
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit****Number 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSpectrum Bancorporation, Inc. (“Spectrum”) on Form 10-Q for the nine monthperiod ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Clark, ChiefFinancial Officer of Spectrum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 operation of Spectrum.

 
| */s/  James R. Clark*                    |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| James R. Clark,  Chief Financial Officer |

 

21

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henderson L. HINTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7504.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 23, 2011.

Henderson L. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Henderson L. Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for recusal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Hinton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3250 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3250

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, New York, as the ``Private First 
           Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PRIVATE FIRST CLASS GARFIELD M. LANGHORN POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Private First Class Garfield M. Langhorn 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 ``Private 
First Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 21, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3250

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, New York, as the ``Private First 
           Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office Building''.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                               4,909
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                          642
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     5,551
<PP&E>                             404,966
<DEPRECIATION>                     (18,392)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     400,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               11,786
<BONDS>                            100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               155
<OTHER-SE>                         272,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       400,295
<SALES>                             15,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    15,894
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        4,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     3,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   2,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      5,772
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  5,772
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         5,772
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.38
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48499-48500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22576]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Visible 
Welding, LLC

AGENCY: Department of the Navy; DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license in the United 
States to Visible Welding LLC, to practice the Government owned 
invention described in U.S. Patent No. 9,307,156:

[[Page 48500]]

LONGWAVE INFRARED IMAGING OF A HIGH TEMPERATURE HIGH INTENSITY LIGHT 
SOURCE.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has 
fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to file written 
objections along with supporting evidence, if any.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with Carderock Division, 
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Code 00L, 9500 MacArthur Boulevard, West 
Bethesda, MD 20817-5700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Teter Ph.D., Director, 
Technology Transfer Office, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare 
Center, Code 00T, 9500 MacArthur Boulevard, West Bethesda, MD 20817-
5700, telephone 301 227-4299.

(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404)

    Dated: October 12, 2017.
A.M. Nichols,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-22576 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Patent

Cascade Financial Corporation


<Table>
<Caption>
                                           Percentage       Jurisdiction or
Subsidiaries(a)                           of Ownership    State of Incorporation
---------------                          -------------    ----------------------
<S>                                      <C>              <C>
Cascade Bank                                  100%              Washington
Cascade Capital Trust I                       100%               Delaware
Cascade Investment Services, Inc.(b)          100%              Washington
</Table>

-------------
(a)  The operation of the Corporation's wholly owned subsidiaries are included
     in the Corporation's Financial Statements contained in the Annual Report
     attached hereto as Exhibit 13.

(b)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Cascade Bank.



                                      -32-
**EXHIBIT
24.1**
 
 **POWER
OF ATTORNEY**
 
 
 
 The
undersigned, a member of the Board of Directors or an officer of MIDAMERICAN
ENERGY COMPANY, an Iowa corporation (the "Company"), hereby constitutes and
appoints Douglas L. Anderson and James D. Stallmeyer and each of them, as
his/her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for and in his/her stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign on his/her behalf the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 and to execute any amendments thereto
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and all other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and applicable
stock exchanges, with the full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing necessary or advisable to all intents and purposes as he/she
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney-in-fact and agent, or his/her substitute or substitutes, may lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
 Executed
as of February 28, 2005.
 
 
 /s/
      Steven R. Weiss
    
    /s/
      Todd M. RabaSTEVEN
      R. WEISS
    
    TODD.
      M. RABA/s/
      Brian K. Hankel
    
    /s/
      Thomas B. SpecketerBRIAN
      K. HANKEL
    
    THOMAS
      B. SPECKETER
#### In the Matter of 80 E. 116th Street Corp., Appellant, v City of New York Department of Housing Preservation *108and Development et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 137]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered May 23, 1996, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying, in part, petitioner’s challenge to certain emergency repair liens against its premises, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The four-month Statute of Limitations began to run upon petitioner’s receipt of respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD) letter of November 15, 1994, advising petitioner of the results of HPD’s item-by-item review of objections to its statement of emergency repair charges, and clearly notifying petitioner that its review procedures had been completed *(see, Matter of Edmead v McGuire,*67 NY2d 714). Petitioner fails to identify any issues of fact that might have warranted a hearing under 28 RCNY 17-05 (d) (1), and there is otherwise no merit to its claim that it is entitled to further administrative review. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of Tracy Wilcher, Appellant, v Denise McDonald, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 717]

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Braslow, J.), entered October 4, 1996, which denied its objections to an order of the same court (Herold, H.E.), dated June 27, 1996, which, after an inquest held upon the respondent’s default in appearing, set the respondent’s child support obligation at $0.

Ordered that the order entered October 4, 1996, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the objections are sustained, the order dated June 27, 1996, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a new determination of child support consistent herewith.

Since the respondent mother defaulted in appearing, her child support obligation should have been determined pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (k) *(see, Matter of New York City Commr. of Social Servs, v Hills,*203 AD2d 574). Although *507the respondent mother was receiving public assistance, that fact did not conclusively establish her inability to pay child support *(see, Matter of Ludwig v Reyome,*195 AD2d 1020; *see also, Matter of Edwards v Johnson,*233 AD2d 884).

Although a respondent parent must be given the opportunity to rebut the presumption that the application of the child support guidelines results in the correct amount of child support to be awarded *(see,*42 USC § 667 [b] [2]; *Matter of Rose v Moody,*83 NY2d 65, *cert denied sub nom. Attorney Gen. of N. Y. v Moody,*511 US 1084), in this case the respondent never took advantage of that opportunity. Accordingly, upon remittal, “the court shall order child support based upon the needs or standard of living of the child, whichever is greater” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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 subsidiary, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    /s/ John J. DeeJohn J. DeeChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President(Principal Financial Officer)
Memorandum Opinion Withdrawn; Reinstated; and Order filed August 15, 

2013. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-01117-CV

____________

MORLOCK, L.L.C., Appellant

V.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-13507

ORDER

On July 23, 2013, this court dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution 

because no appellant’s brief had been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). On 

August 13, 2013, appellant filed its brief and advised this court that it had 

attempted to file its brief in response to this court’s order on June 25, 2013, but its 

e-filing was rejected.
2

On the court’s own motion, we order our opinion of July 23, 2013, 

WITHDRAWN, and our judgment of the same date VACATED, and the appeal 

REINSTATED. Appellee’s brief shall be due on or before September 16, 2013, 

subject to any extensions of time that may be granted.

PER CURIAM
Filed 11/29/05 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2005 ND 197

Robert L. Johnson, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20050168

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Susan Schmidt, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, ND 58502-2155, for petitioner and appellant.

Lloyd Clayton Suhr, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 E. Thayer Ave., Bismarck, ND 58501, for respondent and appellee.  Submitted on brief.

Johnson v. State

No. 20050168

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Robert L. Johnson appealed from the order denying his request for post- conviction relief.  Johnson pled guilty to one count of contact by bodily fluids in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-11, at the reduced level of a class A misdemeanor.  Johnson filed an application for post-conviction relief.  The trial court issued an order denying the relief.  Johnson appealed that order and this Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.  Johnson v. State, 2005 ND 19, 691 N.W.2d 288.  After remand, a hearing was held and the trial court again dismissed Johnson’s application for post-conviction relief.  Johnson argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea.  We summarily affirm the district court’s order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
<PAGE>




                                                                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 Annual Report of Mymetics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Christian J.F. Rochet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ernst Luebke,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, 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 my 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 operations of the Company.



By: /s/ Christian J.F. Rochet
    -----------------------------
Christian J.F. Rochet
Chief Executive Officer



By: /s/ Ernst Luebke
    -----------------------------
Ernst Luebke
Chief Financial Officer

March 30, 2004




                                       89