alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Holland , 2011-Ohio-6042.]

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- : : BRIAN E. HOLLAND : Case No. 11-CA-47 : Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appe al from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10-CR-628

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 18, 2011

APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant BRIAN WALTZ WILLIAM T. CRAMER 20 South Second Street 470 Olde Worthington Road 4th Floor Suite 200 Newark, OH 43055 Westerville, OH 43082Licking County, Case No. 11-CA-47 2
Farmer, J. {¶1} On November 12, 2010, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Brian Holland, on one count of illegally manufact uring drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04 and one count of illegally assembling or possessing chemicals for the manufacture of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.041. A jury trial commenced on March 22, 2011. The jury found appellant guilty. By judgment entry filed March 23, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to seven years in prison, and included a provision that appellant was not to be considered or released on transitional control. {¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I {¶3} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY INCLUDING IN THE SENTENCING ENTRY A PROVISION THAT APPELLANT IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OR RELEASED ON TRANSITIONAL CONTROL."
I {¶4} Appellant claims the trial court erred by including in the sentencing entry a provision that he is not to be considered or released on transitional control. We agree. {¶5} Based upon this court's well reasoned opinion in State v. Spears, Licking App. No. 10-CA-95, 2011-Ohio-1538, ¶34-38, this assignment of error is granted.Licking County, Case No. 11-CA-47 3 {¶6} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for resentencing without the transitional control language. By Farmer, J. Hoffman, P.J. and Delaney, J. concur.

s/ Sheila G. Farmer

_____________

s/ William B. Hoffman

___________

s/ Patricia A. Delaney

_______________ JUDGES

SGF/sg 1026IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : BRIAN E. HOLLAND : : Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11-CA-47

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for re sentencing without the transitional control language. Costs to appellee.

s/ Sheila G. Farmer

_____________

s/ William B. Hoffman

___________s/ Patricia A. Delaney

_______________ JUDGES
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amalgamated Pictures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avery Pack, President, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: May 21, 2010

| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Avery Pack, President and          Chief Executive Officer          (Principal Executive Officer) and          Acting Chief Financial Officer          (Principal Financial Officer and          Principal Accounting Officer) |
§ 4280.410 Other laws and regulations that contain compliance requirements for this program. ( a ) *Equal employment opportunity.* For all construction contracts and grants in excess of $10,000, the contractor must comply with Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented by applicable Department of Labor regulations (41 CFR part 60-1). The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the contractor complies with these requirements.
( b ) *Architectural barriers.* All facilities financed with Zero-Interest Loans that are open to the public or in which persons may be employed or reside must be designed, constructed, or altered to be readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons. Standards for these facilities must comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157).
( c ) *Uniform relocation assistance.* Relocations in connection with these programs are subject to 49 CFR part 24 as referenced by 7 CFR part 21 except that the provisions in title III of the Uniform Act do not apply to these programs.
( d ) *Drug-free workplace.* Grants made under these programs are subject to the requirements contained in 2 CFR chapter IV which implements the Drug-Free Workplace Act. RBDG recipients will be required to certify that it will establish and make a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace program.
( e ) *Debarment and suspension.* The requirements of 2 CFR chapter IV are applicable to this program.
( f ) *Intergovernmental review of Federal programs.* These programs are subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and 2 CFR chapter IV. Proposed Projects are subject to the State and local government review process contained in 2 CFR chapter IV.
( g ) *Restrictions on lobbying.* The restrictions and requirements imposed by 31 U.S.C. 1352, and 2 CFR chapter IV, are applicable to these programs.
( h ) *Earthquake hazards.* These programs are subject to the seismic requirements of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701-7706).
( i ) *Affirmative fair housing.* If applicable, the grantee will be required to comply with the Affirmative Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3631 and 24 CFR part 100).
( j ) *Flood hazard insurance.* The RBDG program is subject to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended by 42 U.S.C. 4001-4129 and 7 CFR part 1806, subpart B.
( k ) *Uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards.* The requirements of 2 CFR chapter IV, or its successor regulations are applicable to this program.
( l ) *Planning and performing construction and other development.* The requirements of 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A, or its successor regulations, are applicable to this program.
( m ) *Transparency Act.* The requirements of 2 CFR part 170 are applicable to this program.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

|   | 1. |   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                         |
|--------|----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 2. |   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

|                       | India      Globalization Capital, Inc. |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |   |
| Date:      August 18, 2008 | By:                                    | /s/ John B.      Selvaraj                                                                |   |
|                       |                                   | John      B. Selvaraj                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
|                       |                                   | Treasurer,      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |   |
#### § 29.2630 Rule 14.

Uniformity shall be expressed in percentages. These percentages shall govern the portion of a lot which must meet each specification of the grade. The minor portion must be closely related but may be of a different group, quality, and color from the major portion. Specified percentages of uniformity shall not affect limitations established by other rules.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:incorporation by reference approval
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 5 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 6 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 7 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 8 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 9 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 10 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 11 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 12 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 13 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 14 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 15 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 16 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 17 of 18
Case 4:20-cv-00309-RH-MJF Document 1-2 Filed 06/11/20 Page 18 of 18
#### § 4287.103 Exception authority.

Section 4279.15 of this chapter applies to this subpart.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lloyd H. Paterson, Appellant.

unanimously modified, on the law and facts, by reversing the conviction on Count No. 20 and dismissing the count of the indictment, and otherwise judgment affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was indicted on 38 counts of grand larceny, falsifying business records, official misconduct and filing of false instruments. The court dismissed five of the counts and the jury convicted defendant of the other 33 counts or lesser included crimes. We find no merit in defendant’s claim that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the District Attorney’s opening statement. The District Attorney’s discussion under Count No. 1 of the indictment was adequate to inform the jury and the defendant that the People expected to prove that defendant acted knowingly and with intent to defraud. We also conclude that, except with respect to Count No. 20, the People’s proof was sufficient for the jury to find on the circumstantial evidence that defendant acted knowingly and with intent to defraud and that there was no other reasonable explanation for his conduct. With respect to Count No. 20, however, we conclude that the People failed to preclude the inference that defendant did not use the $950 involved therein for estate purposes, and so the conviction on that count is reversed and the count is dismissed. On cross-examination the District Attorney made improper use of two checks implying therefrom that defendant had received and cashed 28 other checks which were not produced, whereas a mere telephone call on his part would have revealed to him that this was not true. The court, however, excluded all testimony relating to the checks. The District Attorney also used some handwritten notes by defendant which had not previously been made available to him, although defendant had moved for disclosure of all *Brady*material. Defendant does not claim that the materials were exculpatory. If there was any error in this conduct by the District Attorney, it was harmless. There was no evidence or claim that defendant took the moneys under claim of right, and so there was no reason for the court to charge subdivision 1 of section 155.15 of the Penal Law. Moreover, defendant made no request for such charge and did not except to the court’s failure so to charge; and so the point was not preserved for *1049review. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara Supreme Court — grand larceny, second degree, and other charges.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
# L_2023137EN.01007101.xml

| 25.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 137/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/71

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 57 of 18 February 2021
  )

On page 46, Article 24(6):

for:

‘6.   Where, as a result of the assessment referred to in paragraph 5, the Commission establishes that the milestones and targets set out in the Council implementing decision referred to in Article 20(1) have not been satisfactorily fulfilled, ...’,

read:

‘6.   Where, as a result of the assessment referred to in paragraph 3, the Commission establishes that the milestones and targets set out in the Council implementing decision referred to in Article 20(1) have not been satisfactorily fulfilled, ...’.

---
§ 301.76-3 Quarantined areas; citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid. ( a ) The Administrator will designate an area as a quarantined area for citrus greening or as a quarantined area for Asian citrus psyllid in accordance with the criteria listed in paragraph (c) of this section. The Administrator will publish a description of all areas quarantined for citrus greening or Asian citrus psyllid on the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Web site: (*http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/citrus_greening/index.shtml*). The description of each quarantined area will include the date the description was last updated and a description of any changes that have been made to the quarantined area. Lists of all quarantined areas may also be obtained by request from any local office of PPQ; local offices are listed in telephone directories and on the Internet at (*http://www.aphis.usda.gov/services/report_pest_disease/report_pest_disease.shtml*). After a change is made to the description of quarantined areas, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public that the change has occurred and describing the change to the quarantined areas.
( b ) *Designation of an area less than an entire State as a quarantined area.* Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area for citrus greening or the Asian citrus psyllid only if the Administrator determines that: ( 1 ) The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed by this subpart on the interstate movement of regulated articles; and
( 2 ) The designation of less than the entire State as a quarantined area will prevent the interstate spread of citrus greening or Asian citrus psyllid.
( c ) *Criteria for designation of a State, or a portion of a State, as a quarantined area for citrus greening or Asian citrus psyllid.* ( 1 ) A State, or portion of a State, will be designated as a quarantined area for citrus greening when the presence of citrus greening is confirmed within the area by an APHIS-administered test.
( 2 ) A State, or portion of a State, will be designated as a quarantined area for Asian citrus psyllid in which an established population of Asian citrus psyllids has been detected.
( 3 ) A State, or portion of a State, will be designated as a quarantined area for either citrus greening or Asian citrus psyllid if the Administrator considers it necessary to quarantine the area because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities in which citrus greening or an established population of Asian citrus psyllids has been found.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of TransMontaigne Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold R. Logan, Jr., Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge: 

|   | (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/ HAROLD R. LOGAN, JR.                                                                                                                                             |   |   |        |
| **Harold R. Logan, Jr.****Executive Vice President, Chief Financial****      Officer andTreasurer****November 14, 2002**     |
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDREW DELORENZO , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 148

[ October 7, 2015 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.801 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael A. Robinson

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 11

- 5429 CF10A

.
Andrew Delorenzo, Madison, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
We reverse the summary denial of appellant’s timely rule 3.801 motion, which sought ad ditional credit for time spent in jail before sentencing. The records attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively establish that appellant is not entitled to relief. While appellant’s motion is poorly drafted, it appears that he seeks credit for time that he allegedly spent in jail when he was originally arrested for this case, before his later sentencing for a violation of probation. Specifically, he appears to be seeking credit for time he allegedly spent in jail from March 20, 2011 to
June 8, 2011. We r emand for further proceedings.

If the trial court determines that appellant’s motion is facially insuff icient, it should provide him sixty days to file an amended motion. See Belanger v. State , 146 So. 3d 136, 137

– 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (recognizing that the procedures of rule 3.850(f)(2) are incorporated by rule 3.801(e)); see also Spera v. State , 971 So. 2d 754, 761

– 62 (Fla. 2007)

.

Reversed and remanded with directions

.

G ROSS , T

AYLOR , and M AY , JJ., concur.2 * * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SMART COAT PAINTING, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

RICHARD MURRAY and

AP CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Appellees.

No. 4D2023-1237

[January 25, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Daniel Arthur Casey, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-22-

018264.

Michael Garcia of Michael Garcia, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Aldo G. Bartolone, Jr. and Jared Blake Namm of the Berman Law 

Group, Boca Raton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 3565.454 [Reserved]
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 Dolce Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  John  F.
Passalaqua,  Secretary/Treasurer 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

                    /s/ John F. Passalaqua
                    ----------------------
                    John F. Passalaqua
                    Secretary/Treasurer, Dolce Ventures Inc.
                    (Principal Financial Officer)

                    August 16, 2006


                                  1END OF FILING