alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSHUA P. MOORE, DOC #R65935, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2361 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed April 10, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Mary M. Handsel, Judge. Joshua P. Moore, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### § 4.821 Motions.

Motions and petitions shall state the relief sought, the basis for relief and the authority relied upon. If made before or after the hearing itself, these matters shall be in writing. If made at the hearing, they may be stated orally; but the administrative law judge may require that they be reduced to writing and filed and served on all parties. Within 8 days after a written motion or petition is served, any party may file a response to a motion or petition. An immediate oral response may be made to an oral motion. Oral argument on motions will be at the discretion of the administrative law judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

RONALD BRAUN, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D18-886

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed September 28, 2018 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Marion County,

Robert W. Hodges, Judge.

Ronald W. Braun, Milton, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED, without prejudice to Appellant filing a legally sufficient petition for writ 

of mandamus. See Williams v. State, 189 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Farmer v. 

State, 927 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 

ORFINGER, EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
### §305c–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–23, §2, Apr. 24, 1961, 75 Stat. 45

Section, act May 10, 1939, ch. 119, §1, 53 Stat. 699, provided for a limitation of $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence on amount that may be paid to members of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. See section 305 of this title.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-22281-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN

AQUARIUS AQUA USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M/Y VOGUE/JIMBO, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

POST-EVIDENTIARY HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

On July 21, 2020, the Undersigned held a Zoom video evidentiary hearing on

Plaintiff Aquarius Aqua USA, Inc.’s Motion for Arrest of In Rem Defendant-Vessel, M/Y 

VOGUE/JIMBO. [ECF Nos. 4; 18]. At the hearing, the Undersigned ordered as follows:

1. The Undersigned defers ruling on the Motion pending supplemental 

submissions following Court-authorized and expedited discovery, as detailed on the 

record during the hearing.

2. Once Plaintiff obtains the additional information through the tailored, 

permissible discovery prescribed during the hearing, the parties will jointly inform the 

Undersigned whether they think another hearing is necessary, or if the Undersigned may 

rule on the updated papers. 

3. The Undersigned denies Defendant Marine Custom Hardware Inc.’s 

Case 1:20-cv-22281-MGC Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

requests to expedite the discovery (discovery other than what the Undersigned 

prescribed during the hearing) and to obtain a ruling on Defendant Stergios’s

jurisdictional arguments before permitting this modest discovery to go forward.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on July 21, 2020.

Copies furnished to:

All counsel of record

The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke

Case 1:20-cv-22281-MGC Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2020 Page 2 of 2
§ 4.1183 Time for filing. ( a ) Any person intending to file an application for expedited review under section 525(b) of the act shall notify the field solicitor, Department of the Interior, for the region in which the mine site is located, within 15 days of receipt of the order. Any person not served with a copy of the order shall file notice of intention to file an application for review within 20 days of the date of issuance of the order.
( b ) Any person filing an application for review under § 4.1184 shall file the application within 30 days of receipt of the order. Any person not served with a copy of the order shall file an application for review within 40 days of the date of issuance of the order.
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC

(COM(2004) 708 final — 2004/0248 (COD))

(2005/C 255/06)

On 20 December 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communication.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 16 March 2005. The Rapporteur was Ms Sharma.

At its 416th plenary session (meeting of 6 April 2005), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 104 votes to 1, with 5 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   Background

3.   Objectives

4.   Specific comments

Brussels, 6 April 2005

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  Pre-pack: a pack for distribution to the final consumer.

(2)  Metrological requirements concern the control of the quantity contained in a pre-packed product in order to ensure that consumers indeed get the quantity that is indicated on the package.

(3)  COM(2000) 56 final, pp 9-11 and 21-22

(4)  The nominal quantity (nominal weight or nominal volume) of the contents of a prepackage is the weight or volume indicated on the prepackage, i.e. the quantity of product which the prepackage is deemed to contain. The actual contents of the prepackage are the quantity (weight or volume) of product which it in fact contains. (Council Directive 76/211/EEC; OJ L 46, 21/02/1976)

(5)  Case C-3/99, 12 October 2000, Cidrerie Ruwet SA v Cidre Stassen SA and HP Bulmer Ltd.

(6)  Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain pre-packaged liquids

(7)  Council Directive 80/232/EEC of 15 January 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the ranges of nominal quantities and nominal capacities permitted for certain prepackaged products

(8)  Council Directive 76/211/EEC of 20 January 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by weight or by volume of certain pre-packaged products

----
EXHIBIT 32.

                Certifications Pursuant to U. S. C. Section 1350

         The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Community Bankshares,  Inc., each hereby certifies that, to
the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form  10-Q of the  issuer  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of Sections  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.

May 10, 2007


/s/ Samuel L. Erwin
--------------------------------------------
Samuel L. Erwin
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ William W. Traynham
--------------------------------------------
William W. Traynham
President and Chief Financial Officer
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 MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Kevin J. Wiersma, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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:   July 29, 2010
By:   /s/ Kevin J. WiersmaKevin J. Wiersma

Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jadwiga Maciurzynski, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter Maciurzynski, Appellant.

Judgments unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
#### Alma V. Lund, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Grant Smith and Others, Copartners, etc., Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J:, Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
February 2024

Day

Shasta 

Inflow

C.F.S.

1

Prev Day

F.C. Par

(Col. 3)

X .95

2

F.C

Param

(Cols. 1+2)

3

.0356*

X Days

12/23 Thru

3/20

4

530,000

Minus

F.C.

Param

(Col 3)

5

Cols

4x5

6

F.C.

Reserv

(1,300,000 - 

Col 6)

7

Minus 

14,943

Per Day

After

3/20

8

Adjusted

F.C.

Reserv

(7-8)

Perm

Storage

253,811

1 32,934 241,121 274,055 1.4080 255,945 360,371 939,629 3,612,000

2 24,911 260,352 285,263 1.4432 244,737 353,205 946,795 3,605,000

3 20,435 271,000 291,435 1.4784 238,565 352,695 947,305 3,605,000

4 21,449 276,863 298,312 1.5136 231,688 350,683 949,317 3,603,000

5 32,892 283,397 316,289 1.5488 213,712 330,996 969,004 3,583,000

6 27,167 300,474 327,641 1.5840 202,359 320,536 979,464 3,573,000

7 19,101 311,259 330,360 1.6192 199,640 323,257 976,743 3,575,000

8 16,183 313,842 330,025 1.6544 199,975 330,839 969,161 3,583,000

9 14,349 313,524 327,873 1.6896 202,127 341,514 958,486 3,594,000

10 12,250 311,479 323,729 1.7248 206,271 355,776 944,224 3,608,000

11 10,757 307,543 318,300 1.7600 211,700 372,593 927,407 3,625,000

12 10,054 302,385 312,439 1.7952 217,561 390,566 909,434 3,643,000

13 9,122 296,817 305,939 1.8304 224,061 410,122 889,878 3,662,000

14 14,596 290,642 305,238 1.8656 224,762 419,316 880,684 3,671,000

15 17,036 289,976 307,012 1.9008 222,988 423,856 876,144 3,676,000

16 16,649 291,661 308,310 1.9360 221,690 429,191 870,809 3,681,000

17 19,685 292,895 312,580 1.9712 217,420 428,579 871,421 3,681,000

18 24,808 296,951 321,759 2.0064 208,241 417,815 882,185 3,670,000

19 43,136 305,671 348,807 2.0416 181,193 369,924 930,076 3,622,000

20 52,044 331,367 383,411 2.0768 146,589 304,437 995,563 3,556,000

21 34,743 364,240 398,983 2.1120 131,017 276,708 1,023,292 3,529,000

22 27,878 379,034 406,912 2.1472 123,088 264,295 1,035,705 3,516,000

23 21,365 386,566 407,931 2.1824 122,069 266,403 1,033,597 3,518,000

24 17,977 387,535 405,512 2.2176 124,488 276,065 1,023,935 3,528,000

25 16,407 385,236 401,643 2.2528 128,357 289,162 1,010,838 3,541,000

26 15,938 381,561 397,499 2.2880 132,501 303,163 996,837 3,555,000

27 14,430 377,624 392,054 2.3232 137,946 320,476 979,524 3,572,000

28 12,433 372,451 384,884 2.3584 145,116 342,241 957,759 3,594,000

29 15,297 365,640 380,937 2.3936 149,063 356,797 943,203 3,609,000

Comments: 

* LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) ) 

IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE

Historical Archive and Report Database

Lake Shasta Flood Control Requirements

Run Date: 3/10/2024
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 August 12, 2004 VIA EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549  Re:
    Segue Software, Inc. Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Ladies and Gentlemen: In connection with the quarterly report of Segue Software, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Douglas Zaccaro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify that: 1. the Companys Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall
not be deemed a part of the Report or filed for any purpose whatsoever nor
shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.  Sincerely,/s/ DOUGLAS ZACCARO
Douglas ZaccaroChief Financial Officer
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-31T11:34:07-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
**EXHIBIT32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

       In connection with the Annual Report of Royal Phoenix (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Joseph Scott Wilson, President and ChiefAccounting 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:

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
/s/ Joseph Scott Wilson                                
Joseph Scott Wilson

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

March8, 2004
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Natural & Cultural Collections of South Florida
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2017

___________ Larry D. Hulsey, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. John Belken, Assistant Warden, * North Central Unit, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Correction; Curtis * Meinzer, Sgt., North Central Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Jason Estes, CO-I, North Central * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction; William Arnold, CO-I, * North Central Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Arkansas * Department of Correction, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 22, 2003 Filed: March 17, 2003

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Arkansas inmate Larry D. Hulsey brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raising various constitutional and state-law claims arising from an alleged beating by certain defendants. Before entertaining defendants’ motions based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether such remedies had been available to Hulsey. After the hearing, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, citing numerous reasons for discrediting Hulsey’s testimony about why he had been effectively prevented from complying with the prison grievance procedure. The District Court 1 conducted de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report in its entirety. Hulsey appeals. Having reviewed the District Court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error, see Choate v. Lockhart , 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993), we affirm the dismissal, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000) (stating no § 1983 action shall be brought by inmate with respect to prison conditions until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted); United States v. Womack , 191 F.3d 879, 885 (8th Cir. 1999) (observing that a district court’s credibility determination is "virtually unreviewable" on appeal (citations and internal quotation omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.-3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           152,915
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      87,412
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 250,327
<CASH>                                           9,802
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              16,659
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,781
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                111,981
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             22,684
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           10,100
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,755
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,781
<PREMIUMS>                                      35,363
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              8,853
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               7,716
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   2,227
<BENEFITS>                                      29,664
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             6,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,716
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,356
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,356
<EPS-BASIC>                                      18.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    16.94
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of David Bogdanoff et al., Appellants, against Ernest F. Eilert et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Westchester County, Respondents.

No opinion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY

      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Inconnection with the
Quarterly Report of Innovate Oncology, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report" ), the undersigned, Alan Bowen, Chief Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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.

Date: May 12 2005

By: /s/ Alan Bowen
------------------------------------
Alan Bowen
CFO, Secretary, Treasurer & Director
(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 3814.2 Mineral reservation in patent; conditions to be noted on mineral applications. ( a ) There will be incorporated in patents issued on homestead entries under this Act the following: Excepting and reserving, however, to the United States all the coal and other minerals in the lands so entered and patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove all the coal and other minerals from the same upon compliance with the conditions, and subject to the provisions and limitations, of the Act of December 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 862).
( b ) Mineral applications for the reserved deposits disposable under the Act must bear on the face of the same, before being signed by the declarant or applicant and presented to the authorized officer the following notation:
Patents shall contain appropriate notations declaring same subject to the provisions of the Act of December 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 862), with reference to disposition, occupancy, and use of the land as permitted to an entryman under said Act.
[35 FR 9743, June 13, 1970]