alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deleivis Acevedo, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 925]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), rendered January 29, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Defendant, who waived his right to appeal, pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to six months in jail and five years of probation. On appeal, appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record, we agree. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
#### § 28.432 Middling Tinged Color.

Middling Tinged Color is color which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Middling Tinged, effective July 1, 1987.”
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAtmospheric Environment for Space Shuttle (STS-28) LaunchA summary is presented of selected atmospheric conditions observed near Space Shuttle STS-28 launch time on August 8, 1989. STS-28 carried a Department of Defense payload and the flight azimuth is denoted by a reference flight azimuth, since the actual flight azimuth is not known. Values of ambient pressure, temperature, moisture, ground winds, visual observations (cloud), and winds aloft are included. The sequence of prelaunch Jimsphere-measured vertical wind profiles is given. The final atmospheric tape, which consists of wind and thermodynamic parameters versus altitude, for STS-28 vehicle ascent was constructed and represents the best estimate of the launch environment to 400,000 ft altitude that was traversed by the STS-28 vehicle. The STS-28 ascent atmospheric data tape was constructed by Marshall Space Flight Center's Earth Science and Applications Division to provide an internally consistent data set for use in post-flight performance assessments.Document ID19900016136Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJasper, G. L.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL., United States)*Batts, G. W.*(Computer Sciences Corp. Huntsville, AL., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1990Subject CategoryMeteorology And ClimatologyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:100386NASA-TM-100386Accession Number90N25452Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900016136.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Bradley Bertouille, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by the reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto 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’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Dated:August 14, 2006     /s/ Bradley Bertouille     Bradley Bertouille  Chief Financial Officer
#### One La Salle Street Building Corporation, appellee, v. The Florsheim Shoe Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,350.

Opinion filed November 27, 1934.

Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Cole, for appellant; Edward R. Johnston and Henry G. O’Donnell, of counsel. Markheim & Allie, for appellee; A. R. Miller, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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 SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. Rappaport
              Principal
      Executive Officer
              April
      23, 2009
Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 301
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 87 FR 80005, Dec. 29, 2022.

§ 301.45-8 Attachment and disposition of certificates, limited permits, and outdoor household article documents. ( a ) A certificate, limited permit, or OHA document required for the interstate movement of a regulated article or outdoor household article must at all times during such movement be securely attached to the outside of the container containing the regulated article or outdoor household article, securely attached to the article itself if not in a container, or securely attached to the consignee's copy of the waybill or other shipping document: Provided, however, That the requirements of this section may be met by attaching the certificate, limited permit, or OHA document to the consignee's copy of the waybill or other shipping document only if the regulated article or outdoor household article is sufficiently described on the certificate, limited permit, OHA document or shipping document to identify such article.
( b ) The certificate, limited permit, or OHA document for the movement of a regulated article or outdoor household article shall be furnished by the carrier to the consignee at the destination of the shipment.
( c ) Any qualified certified applicator who issues a certificate or OHA document shall at the time of issuance send a copy of the certificate or OHA document to the APHIS State Plant Health Director for the State in which the document is issued.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0088) [58 FR 39423, July 23, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 46902, Sept. 13, 1994; 72 FR 70764, Dec. 13, 2007]
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 24, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-12-00262-CV

____________

ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellant

V.

MAIN STREET PARKING, LIMITED and BRANTLEY MINOR, Appellees

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-50648

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted discretionary interlocutory appeal of an order signed February 

28, 2012, permitting an interlocutory appeal from partial summary judgment orders. 

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted 

by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. 

Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

Section 51.014(d)-(f) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended 
2

in 2011, provides for appeals from orders that are not otherwise appealable when permitted 

by the trial court. The 2011 amendments to the statute explicitly apply only to cases 

commenced on or after September 1, 2011. See Act of May 25, 2011, 82nd Leg. R.S., ch. 

203, §§ 3.01, 6.01 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 758, 761. Before the 2011 amendments, the 

statute required that all parties agree to the interlocutory appeal. See Act of May 27, 2005, 

79th Leg. R.S., ch. 1051, §§ 102, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3512, 3512-13 (former Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code §. 51.014(d). 

This suit commenced in 2009; therefore, it is governed by the prior version of the 

statute requiring the agreement of all parties before an interlocutory appeal may be taken. 

On April 2, 2012, this court received notice that appellee, Main Street Parking, Ltd, objects 

to an interlocutory appeal in this case. 

On April 3, 2012, this court notified the parties that it would dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a response within ten days demonstrating that 

this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. No response was filed.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CRAIG AARON DOSWELL, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 175 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6671

DERRELL M. HARRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JOSEPH P. BARON,

Respondents - Appellees,

and

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01363-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrell M. Harrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrell M. Harrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district 

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When 

the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both 

that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harrell has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41674 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ADRIAN MANCILLA-RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-440-ALL

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Adrian Mancilla-Rangel (Mancilla) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Mancilla argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Mancilla’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).No. 05-41674 -2- Although Mancilla contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Mancilla properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below
constitutes and appoints Kevin J. Tierney his true and lawful attorney-in-fact
and agent, with full powers of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities to sign the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 1997 of UNUM Corporation pursuant
to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and any or all amendments thereto, and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorney-in-fact and agent, full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, and hereby ratifies and confirms his said attorney-in-fact and agent, or
his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
thereof.

Witness our signatures on the date set forth below:


          Signature           Title               Date

/s/ Gayle O. Averyt           Director       February 13, 1998
    Gayle O. Averyt


/s/ Robert E. Dillon, Jr.     Director       February 13, 1998
    Robert E. Dillon, Jr.


/s/ Gwain H. Gillespie        Director       February 13, 1998
    Gwain H. Gillespie


/s/ Ronald E. Goldsberry      Director       February 13, 1998
    Ronald E. Goldsberry


/s/ Donald W. Harward         Director       February 13, 1998
    Donald W. Harward



<PAGE>



        Signature             Title               Date


/s/ George J. Mitchell        Director       February 13, 1998
    George J. Mitchell


    Cynthia A. Montgomery     Director



/s/ James L. Moody, Jr.       Director       February 13, 1998
    James L. Moody, Jr.


/s/ Lawrence R. Pugh          Director       February 13, 1998
    Lawrence R. Pugh


/s/ Lois Dickson Rice         Director       February 13, 1998
    Lois Dickson Rice


/s/ John W. Rowe              Director       February 13, 1998
    John W. Rowe
#### In the Matter of John Camillone, Petitioner, v John M. Dolce, as Commissioner of Police of the City of White Plains, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated September 8, 1978, which, after a hearing, dismissed petitioner from the Police Department of the City of White Plains. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. There was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the respondent. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2319 

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans’ Memorial 

Establishment Act of 1994. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2013 

Mr. MULLIN (for himself, Mr. RUIZ, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. 

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N

of New Mexico, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. COLE, and Mr. PEARCE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American 

Veterans’ Memorial Establishment Act of 1994. 

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 ‘‘Native American Vet5 erans’ Memorial Amendments Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS’ MEMORIAL. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.—Section 

8 3 of the Native American Veterans’ Memorial Establishmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2319 IH

1 ment Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q–5 note; 108 Stat. 4067) 

2 is amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘within the in4 terior structure of the facility’’ and inserting ‘‘on the 

5 property’’; and 

6 (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘, in con7 sultation with the Museum, is’’ and inserting ‘‘and 

8 the National Museum of the American Indian are’’. 

9 (b) PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.—Section 4(a) of the 

10 Native American Veterans’ Memorial Establishment Act 

11 of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q–5 note; 108 Stat. 4067) is amend12 ed— 

13 (1) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘AND NA14 TIONAL MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN’’ after 

15 ‘‘AMERICAN INDIANS’’; and 

16 (2) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘shall be 

17 solely’’ and inserting ‘‘and the National Museum of 

18 the American Indian shall be’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 23  Consent of Independent Public Accountants

| |  |      |  |                           
| |  | ---- |  | --------------------------
| |  | Ref: |  | SETO Holdings, Inc.       
| |  |      |  | East Coast Sales Co., Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-KSB) of SETO Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated April 25,
2001, except for Note 21 as to which date is November 5, 2001 and Note 2 as to
which date is September 18, 2003, included in the 2001 Annual Report to
shareholders of SETO Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

| |  |                         
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | Zeller Weiss & Kahn, LLP
| |  | 1084 Route 22 West      
| |  | Mountainside, NJ 07092  



---

| |  |      |  |                           
| |  | ---- |  | --------------------------
| |  | Ref: |  | DTI Technology Sdn. Bhd.  
| |  |      |  | Fuji Fabrication Sdn. Bhd.
| |  |      |  | SETO Technology Sdn Bhd.  

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-KSB) of SETO Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated April 25,
2001, except for Note 21 as to which date is November 5, 2001 and Note 2 as to
which date is September 18, 2003, included in the 2001 Annual Report to
shareholders of SETO Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

| |  |                              
| |  | -----------------------------
| |  | Saw & Co                     
| |  | 85-B Jalan Pahang            
| |  | 10,400 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia



---

| |  |      |  |                
| |  | ---- |  | ---------------
| |  | Ref: |  | Fimas, Sdn Bhd.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-KSB) of SETO Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated April 25,
2001, except for Note 21 as to which date is November 5, 2001 and Note 2 as to
which date is September 18, 2003, included in the 2001 Annual Report to
shareholders of SETO Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries.

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | JB Lau & Associates    
| |  | 51-8-A Menara BHL Bank 
| |  | Julan Sultan Ahmad Shah
| |  | 10050 Penang, Malaysia 



---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CHRISTIAN WEIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv2697/LAC/EMT

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

__________________________/

O R D E R

The Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on May 1, 

2020 (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff was provided 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). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined the 

Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

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

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

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

Case 3:20-cv-02697-LC-EMT Document 7 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv2697/LAC/EMT

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2020.

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-02697-LC-EMT Document 7 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 2