alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Edward WINGO, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13187.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 31, 1957.

James Rutherford, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

Fred Elledge, Jr., and James R. Tuck, Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, in this proceeding under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.Code, seeks to vacate judgment imposed in the U. S. District Court on the ground of prejudicial newspaper publicity during the overnight recess of the jury, during which the jurors separated and went to their respective homes. Briggs v. United States, 6 Cir., 221 F.2d 636, 638. Following a *hearing in which*appellant introduced the newspaper articles complained of but no other evidence on the issue, the District Judge dismissed the proceeding.

The question presented could have and should have been raised by motion for mistrial in the trial of the case in the District Court. No appeal was taken from the judgment on the verdict. Compare Briggs v. United States, supra; Krogmann v. United States, 6 Cir., 225 F.2d 220, 228. The provisions of Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.Code, cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 178-179, 67 S.Ct. 1588, 91 L.Ed. 1982; Ford v. United States, 6 Cir., 234 F.2d 835, 836.

The appellant is in custody under a state sentence, not the sentence in the federal court, which he is attacking in this proceeding. If the sentence under attack should be held invalid, it would not result in appellant’s release from confinement. The present proceeding is premature and will not lie. Duggins v. United States, 6 Cir., 240 F.2d 479.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1660 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1660

         To suspend temporarily the duty on rosachloride lumps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 1993

  Mr. Tauzin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on rosachloride lumps.

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

SECTION 1. ROSACHLORIDE LUMPS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12   1 amino-2 chloro-4 hydroxy               No change      No change      On or before     
                         anthraquinone 9.10-                                                    12/31/97      ''
                         anthracenedione, 1-amino-2-                                                           .
                         chloro-4-hydroxy (CAS No.                                                              
                         2478-67-3) (provided for in                                                            
                         subheading 2922.50.40)......  Free                                                     

    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Retroactive application to certain entries.--
        Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon proper request 
        filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th day 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, or 
        withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any goods 
        described in heading 9902.31.12 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States (as added by subsection (a)) that 
        was made--
                    (A) after December 31, 1992; and
                    (B) before the 15th day after the date of the 
                enactment of this Act;
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
        withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000911503
<NAME>                             SMITH BARNEY DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND L.P.
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                 170,574,018
<SECURITIES>                             7,329,899
<RECEIVABLES>                              558,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       178,462,215
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         178,462,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    6,874,954
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                             171,587,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           178,462,215
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        29,915,087
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         8,858,473
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         21,056,614
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                            21,056,614
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  158.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0
        

</TABLE>
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 800181

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee

v.


### Jeremiah TERRY Electronics Technician Seaman ( E

- 3 ) , U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

_____________ ____________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander William H. Weiland
, JAGC, USN

.
For Appellant: Captain Bree A. Ermentrout
, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Deci ded 9 October 2018

____________________ _____ Before F ULTON , C RISFIELD , and R USSELL , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

FOR THE COURT

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
SCWC-16-0000004 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. MICHAEL LIMJUCO ABELLA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-16-0000004; CR. NO. 14-1-1253) AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 1 (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Michael Limjuco Abella’s application for writ of certiorari filed on May 9, 2019, is hereby accepted, and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 17, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

1 The Amended Order reflects the correct filing date of the Application for Writ of Certiorari. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000004 17-JUN-2019 03:10 PM
Exhibit 23CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 33-84592, 33-84594, 33-15493, 33-15499, 33-48539, 333-48541, 333-58773, 333-58777, 333-45414and 333-89070) of EMAK Worldwide, Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2006, except for therestatement discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, as to which the date is August 21, 2006 relating to the financialstatements and our report dated March 30, 2006 related to the consolidated financial statement schedule, whichappear in this Form 10-K/A./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
[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


    The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as  adopted pursuant  to  Section 906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002, that this Quarterly  Report  on
Form 10-Q for  the quarter  ended  March 31, 2006  fully
complies  with the requirements of  Section  13(a)  or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects,  the financial condition and  results  of
operations of the Company.


This 15th day of May, 2006.


/S/Wm. Lee Popham
-------------------------------------
Wm. Lee Popham
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT23.2**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos. 333-144985,333-117407, 333-72508, 333-95765, 333-37641, 033-93100 and 033-85766 of MicroComponent Technology, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form S-8of our report on the Company’s 2005 financial statements dated February 3,2006, (except for Note 5, as to which the date is February 17, 2006),which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraphrelating to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Micro Component Technology, Inc.and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

 

/s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP

 

Minneapolis, MN

March 28, 2008

 

 

----
**Exhibit 32**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Georgia Gulf Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward A. Schmitt,certify, to the best of my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/ EDWARD  A. SCHMITT                |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward A. Schmitt                     |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| March 30, 2007                        |

 

----

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Georgia Gulf Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James T. Matthews,certify, to the best of my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/ JAMES  T. MATTHEWS                                              |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| James T. Matthews                                                   |
| Vice President—Finance, Treasurer and Chief  Financial Officer |
| March 30, 2007                                                      |

 

----
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*BRUSHAUN L. THOMPSON

*Jodi Zils Gagne,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 288 (AC 29654), is denied.

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

*910
      *Melissa Patterson,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided May 5, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LODGENET ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          86,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (785)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,540
<PP&E>                                         234,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                (70,108)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 279,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,796
<BONDS>                                        179,233
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   279,768
<SALES>                                         97,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,721
<CGS>                                           44,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,329)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        28
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,253)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,610)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00140

- CR

R HONDA M ARIE H ARTZELL

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

of Wichita County (65253

- E)

December 20 , 2018

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

cour t is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
#### BELL’S BREWERY, INC., Appellant, v. BELL HILL VINEYARDS, LLC, Appellee.

No. 2010-1280.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2010.

Bruce R. Ewing, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, of New York, NY, argued for appellant.

Philip C. Olsson, Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Bode Matz, PC, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Gary H. Baise.

LINN, PLAGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
----

|   | (i) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 30, 2013 | By:    |                         /s/ Kevin J. Bratton |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |  Kevin J. Bratton                                                                                                                                               |
|                 |   |  Vice President—Finance and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                       |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         3,725
<SECURITIES>                                   202,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                  83,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,445
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,538
<PP&E>                                         43,668
<DEPRECIATION>                                 41,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 388,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          198,543
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       597
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   388,584
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,317,316
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,124,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               292
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                39,830
<INCOME-TAX>                                   13,508
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            26,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   26,322
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .64



</TABLE>
#### Michael L. CAMPBELL, a/k/a Michael Leroy Campbell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry W. POWERS, Director; J. Snipes, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-7289.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 29, 2010.

Michael L. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Todd Darwin, Holcombe, Bomar, Gunn & Bradford, PA, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 25, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on September 10, 2010.* Because Campbell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Campbell’s motion to assign counsel. We *713dispense 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.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
#### Tariq BELT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2014-5114.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 30, 2014.

Tariq Belt, Loretto, PA, pro se.

Christopher Andrew Bowen, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The court directs Tariq Belt to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The order of the Court of Federal Claims that Mr. Belt has appealed returned his complaint but granted leave to file a complaint that conformed to the court’s rules. Ordinarily, this court is authorized to review only a “final decision of the United States Court of Federal *970Claims.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(8). While there are exceptions to this general rule, it does not appear that the order in question falls within any of those exceptions.

Accordingly,

It Is ORDERED That:

(1) Belt is directed to show cause within 21 days from the date of this order why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellee may also respond within that time.

(2) Mr. Belt’s motion for an extension of time is denied as moot. The briefing schedule is stayed.