alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jermar Jamie Fuller, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00142

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 30th District Court of Wichita County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 59,981

- A ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and

Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jermar Jamie Fuller, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 1 4 , 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debr a K. Autrey, Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134728 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

MICHELE KASETA, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 134728 

 COA: 273215 

Macomb CC: 05-001971-NO 

THEODORE BINKOWSKI and CAROL 

BINKOWSKI, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 12, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, for 

the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion, and we REMAND this case 

to the Macomb Circuit Court for entry of a judgment of summary disposition in favor of 

the defendants. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

t1114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 21, 2007 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive license to Taoglas USA, Inc. of San Diego, CA. The proposed license is a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice the invention embodied in U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 15/267,219: BROADBAND CIRCULARLY POLARIZED ANTENNA in the fields of use of automotive and Internet of Things (IoT) throughout the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all other United States territories and possessions. The Secretary of the Navy has an ownership interest in this invention.

# 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 the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St., Bldg. 102T, Code 00T2, Newport, RI 02841.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. Theresa A. Baus, Head, Technology Partnerships Office, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St., Bldg. 102T, Code 00T2, Newport, RI 02841, telephone 401-832-8728, or Email                         *Theresa.baus@navy.mil.*

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

Dated: October 17, 2017.

A.M. Nichols,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-23009 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
**Exhibit
      99.4**








CERTIFICATE
      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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-KSB of Grosvenor
      Explorations Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick
      N.
      Grant, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, 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 and
      belief:





1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
      the
      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
      The
      information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.








July
      23,
      2007


PATRICK
      N. GRANT


Patrick
      N. Grant


Chief
      Accounting
      Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director










-1-
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 Quarterly Report of Baroque Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Dietrich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


By:     /s/Robert Dietrich
        -------------------------
Name:      Robert Dietrich
Title:     Chief Financial Officer
Date:      February ___, 2005



                                       20
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

-0326 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

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 February 11, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 5 2022

01/05/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0326
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francis Harold COMBS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10175

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 30, 2010.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Matthew Kyle Belcher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Francis Harold Combs appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He complains that the district court improperly considered the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) in imposing his sentence because sub-section (a)(2)(A) is not among the provisions of § 3553 that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) directs courts to weigh in fashioning a revocation sentence. Because Combs’ general objection “to the sentence being unreasonable” failed to adequately apprise the district court of the particular claim he now pursues on appeal, we review Combs’ sentence for plain error. *See United States v. Dunigan,*555 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir.2009). To the extent Combs claims that the district court’s written Judgment of Revocation and Sentence reflects a basis for the district court’s determination that is different than the district court’s reasons announced at sentencing, our review of the record reveals no such inconsistency. Therefore, Combs had adequate opportunity to “consider, comment on, and object to” the reasonableness of the district court’s sentence. *See United States v. Bigelow,*462 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir.2006).

At the time Combs was sentenced, this circuit’s law did not clearly establish that a district judge could not consider the § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors in reaching a decision on a revocation sentence, and decisions of the other federal circuits on this issue remain at odds. *See United States v. Rodriguez,*369 Fed.Appx. 608 (5th Cir.2010); *compare United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006), *with United States v. Lewis,*498 F.3d 393, 399 (6th Cir.2007). Therefore, Combs cannot show that the district court plainly erred in considering the factors of § 3553(a)(2)(A). *See United States v. Salinas,*480 F.3d 750, 759 (3d Cir.2007) (“Because this circuit’s law remains unsettled and the other federal circuits have reached divergent conclusions on this issue, ... Salinas cannot satisfy the second prong of the plain error test — that the error be clear under existing law.”). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The *961Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

*

 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 99

Certification of  Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, that the accompanying Form 10-KSB of Cecil Bancorp, Inc. ("Bancorp") for the annual period ended December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and that the information contained in this Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bancorp.

|By: |  | /s/MARY B. HALSEYMary B. Halsey President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer) |  | March 31, 2003Date
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.52





July 20, 2010





Pine Capital Enterprises, Inc. and


Taiyuan Yiwei Magnesium Industry Co., Ltd.





Ladies and Gentlemen,





This letter will serve as an amendment to the July 13, 2010 Equity Transfer Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into among CDI China, Inc., (“CDI China”), Pine Capital Enterprises, Inc. (“Pine Capital”) and Taiyuan Yiwei Magnesium Industry Co., Ltd. (“Yiwei Magnesium”) to acquire an 80% interest they own in Taiyuan Ruiming YiWei Magnesium Industry Co., Ltd. (“Ruiming Magnesium”)





In connection with the above referenced agreement, Pine Capital and Yiwei Magnesium hereby agree that if in Fiscal 2011 Ruiming Magnesium’s revenues are more than RMB100 million and EBITDA per metric ton of goods produced is no less than RMB 1,200 per ton in that fiscal year, Party A’s obligation to deliver 622,172 shares CDII’s common stock shall be contingent upon CDII obtaining shareholder approval of the issuance of such shares at an annual meeting of its shareholders.





The defined terms in this letter shall have the same meaning as the defined terms in the Agreement.





If the terms set forth in this letter meet with your approval, please sign a copy and return it to me.





CDI China, Inc.Signature:
/s/ Yuejian (James) WangPrinted Name:
Yuejian (James) WangEnglish Name:
James WangTitle:
PresidentPine Capital Enterprises Inc.Signature:
/s/ Lifei HuangPrinted Name:
Lifei HuangEnglish Name:
Lifei (Maggie) HuangTitle:
PresidentTaiyuan Yiwei Magnesium Industry Co. Ltd.Signature:
/s/ Yuwei HuangPrinted Name:
Yuwei HuangEnglish Name:
Yuwei HuangTitle:
Chairman and President
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3352 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand certain restrictions relating 

to the overhaul and repair of vessels in foreign shipyards to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2009 

Mr. SABLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand certain 

restrictions relating to the overhaul and repair of vessels 

in foreign shipyards to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OVERHAUL, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE OF 

4 VESSELS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 

5 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS. 

6 Subsection (a) of section 7310 of title 10, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3352 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘the United States or Guam’’ 

2 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘the United 

3 States, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the North4 ern Mariana Islands’’; and 

5 (2) in the heading for such subsection, by strik6 ing ‘‘UNITED STATES OR GUAM’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘UNITED STATES, GUAM, OR COMMONWEALTH OF

8 THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                     UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:
      1. I have  reviewed  this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
         required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
         Form 10-K of RAMP Series  2006-RZ1  Trust (the  "Exchange  Act periodic
         reports");
      2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic  reports,  taken as a
         whole,  do 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 report;
      3. Based on my  knowledge,  all of the  distribution,  servicing and other
         information  required  to be  provided  under  Form 10-D for the period
         covered  by this  report  is  included  in the  Exchange  Act  periodic
         reports;
      4. I  am  responsible  for  reviewing  the  activities  performed  by  the
         servicers  and  based  on  my  knowledge  and  the  compliance  reviews
         conducted in preparing the servicer  compliance  statements required in
         this report under Item 1123 of  Regulation  AB, and except as disclosed
         in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,  the  servicers  have  fulfilled
         their  obligations  under  the  servicing  agreements  in all  material
         respects; and
      5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing  criteria
         for asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation  reports on
         assessment  of  compliance  with  servicing  criteria for  asset-backed
         securities  required to be included in this report in  accordance  with
         Item 1122 of  Regulation  AB and  Exchange  Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
         have been  included as an exhibit to this  report,  except as otherwise
         disclosed in this  report.  Any  material  instances  of  noncompliance
         described in such  reports  have been  disclosed in this report on Form
         10-K.

         In  giving  the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied  on
         information  provided  to me by  the  following  unaffiliated  parties:
         JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.

      Date:  March 26, 2007
      By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
            --------------------
            Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
            Title: Managing Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Cherry, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 871]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered February 15, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury had ample basis upon which to reject defendant’s testimony. Even if that testimony were accepted, his own explanation negates his claim of temporary lawful possession *(People v Banks,*76 NY2d 799; *People v Snyder,*73 NY2d 900).

Defendant’s challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, the argument lacks merit.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Rose S. Mancini, Respondent, v Edmond R. Mancini, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 493]

—In proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 4 and 6 for support and custody, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered April 5, 1996, which granted the mother’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees in the sum of $934 in connection with his article 4 support proceeding and in the sum of $3,382 in connection with his article 6 custody proceeding, and (2) an order of the same court also entered April 5, 1996, which granted the mother’s separate motion to impose a sanction against him, and imposed a sanction against him in the sum of $2,500 in each of the proceedings.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The court did not err in awarding the mother attorney’s fees, and it did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing sanctions against the appellant *(see,*22 NYCRR 130-1.2; *McMurray v McMurray,*157 AD2d 773).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
#### In re Jason E. ANDERSON; Erica L. Anderson, Debtors. Ruth A. Slone, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason E. Anderson, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

BAP No. 13-8047.

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit.

Filed May 15, 2014.

ON BRIEF: Tyler W. Kahler, Law Office of Joseph C. Lucas, LLC, Canton, OH, for Appellants. Harry B. Zornow, Hamilton, OH, for Appellees.

Before: EMERSON, HARRISON, and LLOYD, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.

OPINION

GEORGE W. EMERSON, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

The issue before the Panel on appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in avoiding the transfer of $74,102.60 to 1st National Cash Refund pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 549 and ordering recovery of transferred property from 1st National Cash Refund and Carl Woodford pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, the Panel concludes that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statutes of limitation found in 11 U.S.C. § 549 and 11 U.S.C. § 550 were equitably tolled and that the bankruptcy court properly found that the trustee had power to avoid and recover the transferred property. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the bankruptcy court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion entered on September 9, 2013, *Ruth A. Slone v. Jason E. Anderson, et al., (In re Anderson),*Ch. 7 Case No. 10-30064, Adv. No. 10-3361 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2013) ECF No. 97, we affirm.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3485 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that monetary benefits 

paid to veterans by States and municipalities shall be excluded from 

consideration as income for purposes of pension benefits paid by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2009 

Mr. HIGGINS (for himself and Mr. CROWLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that 

monetary benefits paid to veterans by States and municipalities shall be excluded from consideration as income 

for purposes of pension benefits paid by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Veterans Pensions Protec5 tion Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3485 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM CONSID2 ERATION AS INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF VET3 ERANS PENSION BENEFITS. 

4 (a) EXCLUSION.—Section 1503(a) of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

7 (9); 

8 (2) by redesignating paragraph (10) as para9 graph (11); and 

10 (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the fol11 lowing new paragraph (10): 

12 ‘‘(10) payment of a monetary amount to a vet13 eran from a State or municipality that is paid as a 

14 veterans’ benefit; and’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to determinations 

17 of income for calendar years beginning after the date of 

18 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS