alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, John M. Fluke, Jr., the Interim Principal Executive Officer of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of CellCyte Genetics Corporation. Date: May 19, 2009. /s/ John M. Fluke, Jr.___John M. Fluke, Jr.Interim Principal Executive Officer __________     Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, Randy A. Lieber, the Principal Accounting Officer of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of CellCyte Genetics Corporation. Date: May 19, 2009. /s/ Randy A. Lieber___Randy A. LieberPrincipal Accounting Officer __________
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2380 

To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to repeal the market access 

program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2013 

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

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to repeal 

the market access program. 

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 the ‘‘Eliminate the Misuse 

5 and Abuse of Public Funds Act of 2013’’ or the ‘‘Elimi6 nate the MAP Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM. 

8 (a) REPEAL OF PROGRAM.—Section 203 of the Agri9 cultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) is repealed. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2380 IH

1 (b) REPEAL OF FUNDING.—Section 211 of the Agri2 cultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641) is amended 

3 by striking subsection (c). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 29.6100 Rule 14.

Stem rot shall not exceed 40 percent of the specified injury tolerance for any grade.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28693]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and 
Dentistry

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Advisory 
Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry, November 
15, 2010, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and November 16, 2010, 8 a.m. to 2 
p.m., at the Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Executive Meeting Center, 
1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20910, which was published in the 
Federal Register on October 19, 2010, FR Doc. 2010-26205 (75 FR 64318).

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Robert Hendricks,
Director, Division of Policy and Information Coordination.
[FR Doc. 2010-28693 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
Case 3:97-cr-00111-LC-MD   Document 343   Filed 10/09/07   Page 1 of 1
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

97-1814.

#### Lancaster v. Fairfield Cty. Budget Comm.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 96-D-1241 and 96-D-1242. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 242, 699 N.E.2d 473. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Resnick, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Connie Ray Palmer, TDCJ #1583752, 

Appellant

No. 06-20-00094-CV v.

Shavonda D. Howard, et al., Appellee

Appeal from the 12th District Court of 

Walker County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

2029732). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Stevens, 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, Connie Ray Palmer, has adequately indicated his inability to 

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

RENDERED JULY 20, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 33.10 Minimum requirements. No person shall ship, or offer for shipment, and no carrier shall transport, or receive for transportation, any shipment of apples to any foreign destination unless: ( a ) Apples grade at least U.S. No. 1 or U.S. No. 1 Early: *Provided,* That apples for export to Pacific ports of Russia shall grade at least U.S. Utility or U.S. No. 1 Hail for hail-damaged apples, as specified in the United States Standards for Apples (Sections 51.300-51.323 of this chapter): *Provided further,* That apples for export to any foreign destination do not contain apple maggot, and do not have more than 2 percent, by count, of apples with apple maggot injury, nor more than 2 percent, by count, of apples infested with San Jose scale or scale of similar appearance;
( b ) Decay, scald or any other deterioration which may have developed on apples after they have been in storage or transit shall be considered as affecting condition and not the grade.
( c ) Each package of apples is packed so that the apples in the top layer shall be reasonably representative in size, color, and quality of the contents of the package; and
( d ) Each package of apples is marked plainly and conspicuously with: ( 1 ) The name and address of the grower, packer, or domestic distributor: *Provided,* That the name of the foreign distributor may be placed on consumer unit packages shipped in a master container if such master container is marked with the name and address of the grower, packer, or domestic distributor;
( 2 ) The variety of the apples;
( 3 ) The name of the U.S. grade or the name of a state grade if the fruit meets each minimum requirement of a U.S. grade specified in this section.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:02cr45-SPM-2

DARRON MARSHALL,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Defendant’s letter (doc. 407)

requesting “a possible Booker review” of the Defendant’s case. First, pursuant to

Northern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(F)(1), represented parties shall not

present letter motions for relief to the Court. Additionally, although the Defendant

was sentenced in this matter in 2004, no habeas petition is pending and none was

ever filed on his behalf. Moreover, it is clearly established in this Circuit that the

constitutional principle articulated in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

does not apply retroactively on collateral review. Varela v. United States, 400 F.3d

864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that the Defendant’s letter motion (doc. 407) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this seventh day of July, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

SeniorUnited States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00045-SPM Document 409 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 1
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

R OB ER T W . ELLIOTT,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. DW IGHT NEVEN, W arde n,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 14-17291 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00041-M M D
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 27, 2016 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Ne va da sta te prisone r R obe rt W . Elliott a ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe t ition. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253. W e re vie wde novo a dism issa l for fa ilure to e xha u st, se e Rhoade s v . He nry , 638 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we va c ate and 

# FIL ED
OCT 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).re m and.

Elliott c o n te nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing his ha be a s pe tition
a s une x ha uste d be c a

use it ha d disc re tion to sta y the proc e e dings. Afte r the distric t
c ourt dismisse d

Elliott’ s pe tition, this c ourt he ld in Me na v . Long , 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th C i r. 2016), tha

t “ a distric t c ourt ha s the disc re tion to sta y and hold in
a be y a nc e fully une xha uste d pe titions unde

r the c i rc um sta

nc e s se t forth in

Rhine s [ v . W e be r , 544 U.S. 269 (2005)] .” W e , the re fore , va c ate and re m and for the distric t c o urt to de te rm ine in the first insta nc e whe t he r Elliott is e

ntitle d to a

sta y
and for a ny furthe r proc e e dings. Elliott’ s re que st for judic ia l notic e of sta te c ourt re c ords is gra

nte d. In light of our disposition of this a ppe a l , we de ny

Elliott’ s re que st to e xpa

nd the c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility . Se e 9th C i r. R . 22-1(e ); Hiiv ala v . W o od , 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th C ir. 1999). V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

1 4
- 1 7 2 9 1 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 17, 2017

p0510

Order 

Clerk

May 17, 2017

154923-4

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 154923

COA: 330389 

Oakland CC: 2014-250982-FH

LYMANCE ENGLISH,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 154924

COA: 330390 

Oakland CC: 2015-255117-FH

BRANDON RENAR SMITH,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 27, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arrow Resources Development,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter
      J. Frugone, 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.




April
      2,
      2007


/s/ Peter
              J.
              FrugonePeter
                J. FrugoneChief
                Financial Officer
#### § 2903.10 Submission of an application.

The program announcement will provide the deadline date for submitting an application, the number of copies of each application that must be submitted, and the address to which proposals must be submitted.
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

3:99cr77LAC - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. TYRELL L. PLAIR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs

TYRELL L. PLAIR

Case No.3:99cr77LAC

ORDER

Your document, MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, was referred to the undersigned with

the following deficiencies:

The document does not have a Certificate of Service as required by Rule

5(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, showing proper

service to the Assistant U. S. Attorney’s Office.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the document shall remain in the electronic

file, but no further pleadings will be accepted unless they comply with NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA local rules. 

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of March, 2007.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00077-LC-CJK Document 123 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 1
### NUMBER 13

- 10

- 00 521

- CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ CYNTHIA VARELA , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Cynthia Varela , attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for injury to a n elderly individual. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Sentence in this matter was imposed on April 8, 2010 , no motion for new trial was filed, and notice of appeal was filed on September 22, 2010. O n September 30, 2010 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely2

perfected. Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt o f the Court = s directive. On October 12, 2010, counsel filed a motion to extend time to file notice of appeal stating that he e

- filed a notice of appeal and motion to withdraw to Cameron County , but was

unaware that Cameron County did not accept e

- filings for criminal cases and they were rejected. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2(a)(1). The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3. Neither appellant’s notice of appeal , nor her motion for extension of time was filed within the 15

- day time period. This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to a ddress the merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Appellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post
- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

.3

P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07, ' 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex par te Garcia , 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. All pending motions are likewise DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47.2(b). D elivered and filed the 18th day of November , 20 10

.
CCA# 13-13-00111-CR ROLAND BLAKE FEARS v. THE STATE OF 

### STYLE: TEXAS TRIAL COURT: 

## TRIALCOURTS: TRIAL COURT JUDGE: Hon. Arturo Cisneros 

## Nelson DISPOSITION: Affirmed 

### DATE: JUSTICE: PUBLISH: CLK RECORD: RPT RECORD: 

### STATE BR: APP BR: 138th District Court 2012-DCR-986-B

PC DNP: 

# PD-F6^§Y8-15 OFFENSE: Sexual Assault COUNTY: Cameron 

### FOR REHEARINGIS:

_ DATE: April 23, 2015 JUDGE: Longoria



### SUPP CLK RECORD, SUPP RPT RECORD. SUPP BR

PROSE BR MOTION



## IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# CCA# PD-0598-15 

# NflflffUiA$ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# : A/a». /%. 2.0/4 DATE JUDGE:


### CCAIS:. JUDGE: 

# F^ MOTION FOR REHEARING IN 

### ON DisDOSition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP: MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: ON JUDGE:
**Exhibit31.1**

**Certification**

I, Tony Aquila, Chief Executive Officer of SoleraHoldings, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Solera Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2007

 
|       |       |                         |
|------------|------------|------------------------------|
|       |       | /s/ Tony Aquila              |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Tony  Aquila**             |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Chief  Executive Officer** |

 

----
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

RICHARD KEITH WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1194, Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), filed by Defendant Richard Williams. In his motion, Defendant states

that an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines reducing the upper-limit base offense levels in

the Drug Quantity Tables applies to him, and has been given retroactive application. Although

the Court previously rejected a similar motion, because the Court based this decision on the fact

that the mandatory enhancements would still result in a life sentence, Defendant argues that the

instant motion should be considered anew in light of the now discretionary nature of the

guidelines under Booker. In order to evaluate Defendant’s request, the Court finds that a

response from the Government is necessary. Therefore, the Government is directed to file a

response to Defendant Williams’ Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2), Doc. 1194.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1196 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 1