alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Orr, Appellant, *v.*Mack, Warden, Appellee.

[Cite as *Orr v. Mack*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 429.]

*430(No. 98-859

Submitted September 29, 1998

Decided October 28, 1998.)

*Roland Orr, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

Orr asserts that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, however, Orr’s assertion lacks merit.

First, as the court of appeals held, habeas corpus is not available to attack the validity or sufficiency of the charging instrument. *State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff*(1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274. The manner by which an accused is charged with a crime is procedural rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes charged in an indictment, the judgment binds the defendant for the crime for which he was convicted. *Id.,*citing *Wells v. Maxwell*(1963), 174 Ohio St. 198, 200, 22 O.O.2d 147, 148, 188 N.E.2d 160, 161, and *State v. Wozniak*(1961), 172 Ohio St. 517, 522-523, 18 O.O.2d 58, 61, 178 N.E.2d 800, 804.

Second, Orr had an adequate legal remedy by direct appeal to challenge the validity or sufficiency of the complaint and indictment. *State ex rel. Simpson v. Lazaroff*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 571, 664 N.E.2d 937.

Finally, Orr did not verify his petition as required by R.C. 2725.04. *State ex rel. Ranzy v. Coyle*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 109, 110, 689 N.E.2d 563, 564.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
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 Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 4350 Oakes Rd., Suite 521 A, Davie, FL 33314, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​.*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on August 24, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2013.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Malana, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: November 8, 2010.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010-29178 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
98-1480.

#### State v. Harris.

Montgomery App. No. 14343. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Wood, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and facts, to reverse the conviction for grand larceny, third degree, under subdivision 5 of section 155.30 of the Penal Law, and for petit larceny, and dismiss Counts Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of the indictment, and, as modified, the judgment affirmed. Same memorandum as in *People v Ferguson*(73 AD2d 817). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court—robbery, first degree, and other charges.) Present—Simons, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0831 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-125-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:94cr4026-WS

FRANK ANTHONY HAROLD,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc.

126) docketed March 14, 2007. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's

motion for reduction of sentence be denied. Defendant has filed no objections to the

Report and Recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this Court has determined that the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 126) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 4:94-cr-04026-WS-WCS Document 128 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:94cr4026-WS

2. Defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence (doc. 123) is hereby DENIED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of April , 2007.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:94-cr-04026-WS-WCS Document 128 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3560.550 OMB control number.

The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0189. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 15 minutes to 18 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. A person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS

ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Barry Hollingsworth, Chief Financial Officer of The Parent Company in compliance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The
Parent Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 2, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Parent Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 16th day of September 2008.



/s/ Barry HollingsworthBarry HollingsworthChief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOSEPH G. WOOD,

Inmate No. 894702,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5492/MCR/EMT

MARSHA NICHOLS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

The Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on August 

31, 2021 (ECF No. 45). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections. See ECF No. 48.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

45) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05492-MCR-EMT Document 49 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv5492/MCR/EMT

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) is

GRANTED. 

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05492-MCR-EMT Document 49 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3560.101 General.

This subpart sets forth borrower obligations regarding management and operations of multi-family housing (MFH) projects financed by the Agency. As noted in § 3560.6, the borrower requirements listed in this subpart must be complied with by the borrower. The borrower may designate in writing a person to act as the borrower's authorized agent.
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

       I, Brian A. Lutes, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of TWC Holding LLC;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

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

Date:  May 16, 2006
|        | By:    | /s/ Brian A.  Lutes      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Brian A. Lutes           |
|   |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Jeff D. Morris, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alon USA Energy, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: August 11, 2006                                                       /s/ Jeff D. Morris   Jeff D. Morris   President and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 10.64 THIRD AMENDMENT TO
LOAN AGREEMENT THIS third AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT (this Amendment), dated as of March 24,
2005, is entered into between HOWARD SHAO (the Lender), and NATURADE, INC., a Delaware
corporation (the Borrower). RECITALS A. The Borrower and the Lender have entered into a LOAN AGREEMENT dated as of August 31, 2000,
(the Loan Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein have the meanings given to them in
the Loan Agreement unless otherwise specified. B. The Borrower has requested that the Lender amend the payment provisions of the Loan
Agreement. AMENDMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants herein contained,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:  1.
    Payments on the Loan Agreement will be amended as follows:  a.
    On or before July 15, 2005 Borrower will pay principal of
$20,000 plus accrued interest to June 30, 2005.b.
    On or before December 31, 2005 Borrower will pay principal of
$92,345 plus accrued interest from July 1, 2005 until date principal is paid
in full.  2.
    Section 4 Lender Groups Right to Convert of the Loan Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Amendment as of the date first above
written. Naturade, Inc. /s/ Stephen M. Kasprisin
Stephen M. Kasprisin
Chief Financial Officer /s/ Howard Shao
Howard Shao
#### § 3550.114 Repayment agreement (grants only).

Grant recipients are required to sign a repayment agreement which specifies that the full amount of the grant must be repaid if the property is sold in less than 3 years from the date the grant agreement was signed.

[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 78331, Dec. 24, 2002]
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350**

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Financial Officer of Enable IPC Corporation (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB of the Company  for  the  quarter ended  December 31 , 2006 (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Company.

Date:February 13, 2007

/s/ Anna Rhee 

Anna Rhee

 Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
#### John Gagnon et al., Respondents, v Hershal Charlton, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, entered June 5, 1978, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On December 3, 1977, defendant entered into a written agreement with plaintiffs John and Helen Gagnon for the sale of a trailer lot. The agreement drawn by the parties provided for a purchase price of $2,000, with 3% annual interest and a down payment of $200, together with $50 monthly payments. No date was specified when the deed was to be conveyed. Defendant and his family commenced possession and occupation of the lot immediately upon execution of the agreement. Defendant filed the agreement in the county clerk’s office on March 10, 1978. After making the January and February payments, defendant learned that there were liens on the property as well as unpaid taxes. Defendant made no further monthly payments, but, rather, placed the money in an escrow account. The Gagnons commenced an action for ejectment and sold the lot to plaintiffs Clifford and Ruth Brown, who also commenced an action for ejectment against defendant. The Browns recorded their deed on April 13, 1978. The actions were consolidated. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and for *702an order granting possession of the real property to the Browns was granted and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment for an order granting him possession was denied. This appeal ensued. Contrary to defendant’s contention and misplaced reliance on *Cerullo v Cerullo*(40 AD2d 945, app dsmd 32 NY2d 676), an action for ejectment does lie where a vendee fails to pay a due installment *(Burnett v Caldwell,*76 US 290). Since defendant concededly failed to pay a due installment, the instant action for ejectment is maintainable. However, County Court improperly granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment since there are questions of fact concerning whether the Browns had notice of the defendant’s interest in the premises. Finally, if it be determined that the Browns were on notice, further questions of fact remain as to whether defendant was justified in refusing to make the installment payments to the Gagnons because the Gagnons had failed to pay real estate taxes assessed against the property and had permitted liens to accumulate against the property. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, motion denied and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.