alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Bowling, 2018-Ohio-4387.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-05-111 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 10/29/2018 

 : 

LONNIE L. BOWLING, SR., : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2017-10-1770 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 

High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Krista M. Gieske, 810 Sycamore Street, 3rd Floor, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for defendantappellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Lonnie L. Bowling, Sr., has filed a brief with this court 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that 
Butler CA2018-05-111 

- 2 - 

a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the 

trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 

predicated; (2) lists three potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to 

determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

 HENDRICKSON, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
#### Carpenter *v.*Schaeffer et al.

[No. 18,807.

Filed April 27, 1900.]

From the Steuben Circuit Court.

*Dismissed.*

*D. JR. Best, E. A. Bratton,*and *O. A. Yotter,*for appellant.

*J. A. Woodhull*and *N. W. Gilbert,*for appellees.

Pee. Curiam.

What purports to be a transcript of the record is not authenticated by the seal of the lower court. The question of the sufficiency of the certificate to said transcript without said seal is in all respects the same as in *No. 4 Fidelity Building and Savings Union*v. *Byrd et al., ante,*47. Upon the authority of that case and the authorities cited therein this appeal is dismissed.
================================================================================

 EXHIBIT 32

                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 CirTran  Corporation on Form 10-QSB/A
for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Iehab  Hawatmeh,  President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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.

November 14, 2007

                                            /s/ Iehab J. Hawatmeh
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Iehab J. Hawatmeh
                                            President, Chief Financial Officer



















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

STEVEN BRENTLY PARKER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1721-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 JULY 2, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE 

Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge 

 John Varney, Assistant Public Defender 

(Office of the Public Defender, on brief), 

for appellant. 

 Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 Steven Brently Parker was convicted of grand larceny under 

Code § 18.2-95 for stealing the handset of a cordless phone unit. 

 He appeals on the grounds that the Commonwealth did not prove 

that the value of the stolen property was $200 or more, and that 

the evidence therefore does not support a conviction of grand 

larceny. 

 "Generally, the opinion testimony of the owner of personal 

property is competent and admissible on the question of the value 

of such property, regardless of the owner's knowledge of property 

values." Walls v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 480, 482, 450 S.E.2d 

363, 364 (1994); Haynes v. Glenn, 197 Va. 746, 750, 91 S.E.2d 

433, 436 (1956). 
- 2 - 

 Upon review of the record, construing the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth and granting to it all 

reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom, we cannot say 

that the ruling below was plainly wrong or unsupported by the 

evidence. 

 Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1248 

KA 12-01721 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

JAMES S. KERNAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LYONS (RICHARD W. YOUNGMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JOHN SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

RICHARD M. HEALY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (JACQUELINE MCCORMICK OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M.

Kehoe, J.), rendered June 7, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is

reserved and the matter is remitted to Wayne County Court for further

proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: On appeal

from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary

in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]), defendant contends that

County Court erred in failing to adjudicate him a youthful offender. 

We note at the outset that the People do not dispute defendant’s

assertion that he is a “youth . . . eligible to be found a youthful

offender” (CPL 720.10 [2]). “Upon conviction of an eligible youth,

the court must order a [presentence] investigation of the defendant. 

After receipt of a written report of the investigation and at the time

of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the

eligible youth is a youthful offender” (CPL 720.20 [1]; see People v

Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 503). Here, despite defendant’s application

during the plea colloquy to be found an eligible youth, the court

failed to address the issue of defendant’s eligibility during the

sentencing proceeding. Furthermore, “we cannot deem the court’s

failure to rule on the . . . [application] as a denial thereof”

(People v Spratley, 96 AD3d 1420, 1421, following remittal 103 AD3d

1211, lv denied 21 NY3d 1020; see People v Ingram, 18 NY3d 948, 949;

People v Chattley, 89 AD3d 1557, 1558). We therefore hold the case,

reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and

state for the record “a determination of whether defendant is a 
-2- 1248 

KA 12-01721 

youthful offender” (Rudolph, 21 NY3d at 503). 

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
##### 



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
  Form 10-K
  
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of
    operations of the Company.  /s/
    Kevin J. Thimjon
   President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1401.20 Purpose and scope.

This subpart implements the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, a Federal law that requires Federal agencies to protect private information about individuals that the agencies collect or maintain. It establishes ONDCP's rules for access to records in systems of records we maintain that are retrieved by an individual's name or another personal identifier. It describes the procedures by which individuals may request access to records, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by ONDCP. Whenever it is appropriate to do so, ONDCP automatically processes a Privacy Act request for access to records under both the Privacy Act and the FOIA, following the rules contained in this part. ONDCP processes a request under both the Privacy Act and the FOIA so you will receive the maximum amount of information available to you by law.
U. S. Department of Homeland Security 

 

 Office for Domestic Preparedness

 

 Washington, D.C. 20531 

ODP Information Bulletin 

No. 123 June 23, 2004 

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads 

 All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact 

All State Homeland Security Directors 

FROM: C. Suzanne Mencer 

 Director

SUBJECT: June 30, 2004 Categorical Assistance Progress Report 

As part of the reporting requirement for all grants administered by ODP, each grantee must 

submit Categorical Assistance Progress Reports (CAPRs) for the life of each grant award. The 

CAPR must be submitted within 30 days after the end of each reporting period; the reporting 

periods end June 30 and December 31. The CAPR provides updated information on activities, as 

identified in the grant application, which occurred during the designated reporting period. 

For the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and Urban Areas 

Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program, each grantee was required to submit an Initial Strategy 

Implementation Plan (ISIP) within 60 days of the grant award date. The ISIP demonstrates how 

the expenditure of grant funds at both the local and State levels support the goals and objectives 

outlined in the State’s Homeland Security Strategy and/or Urban Area Security Strategy. 

Grantees are still required to submit their CAPRs through GMS. However, due to the proximity 

of the ISIP and the June 30, 2004 CAPR submission dates, ODP is also allowing grantees to use 

their ISIP submission as the narrative section for the June 30, 2004 CAPR (Box 12) for the FY04 

HSGP and FY04 UASI Grant Programs. Grantees may reference their ISIP in Box 12 of the 

CAPR by noting: “Please see INSERT STATE’S NAME ISIP submission dated INSERT 

DATE.” 

Grantees must still submit their June 30, 2004 CAPRs for all other grant programs in accordance 

with the guidelines outlined in the appropriate grant application kit. Further guidance regarding 

the December 31, 2004 CAPR submission will be provided at a later date.

If you have any further questions about the CAPR or ISIP requirements, please contact your 

ODP Preparedness Officer at 1-800-368-6498. 

Thank you for your continued efforts and cooperation.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 6, 2014

No. 04-14-00406-CV

IN RE Gerardo GONZALEZ and Claudia Gonzalez

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On June 6, 2014, relators Gerry and Claudia Gonzalez filed a petition for emergency writ 

of prohibition and writ of mandamus, seeking relief with respect to certain actions of the Chief of 

Police of the City of Laredo and the Firefighters and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission 

of the City of Laredo. This court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. By 

statute, this court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or 

county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate 

jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)-(b) (West 2004). We conclude the writs 

requested in this proceedings are not necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, relators’ petition for emergency writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus is 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 6, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CVZ000391D3, styled Gerardo Gonzalez and Claudia Gonzalez v. 

Ray Garner, in his official capacity and Firefighters and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission of the City of 

Laredo, Texas, pending in the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Beckie Palomo 

presiding.
National Cancer Institute

U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes

of Health

Managing Chemotherapy Side Effects

Hair Loss

(Alopecia)

It may help to join a support 

group to talk with others whose 

hair has fallen out during 

cancer treatment. 

Questions other people 

have asked:

Why does hair fall out?

Chemotherapy can harm the cells that 

make hair. This means that hair on your 

head and anywhere on your body may 

fall out. Hair loss is called alopecia. 

When will my hair start to 

fall out?

Your hair may start to fall out 2 to 3 

weeks after chemotherapy begins.

What can I do before my hair 

falls out?

“Treat your hair gently.”

Wash it with a mild 

shampoo. Pat it dry with 

a soft towel.

“Cut your hair short.”

Some people choose to cut 

their hair short. 

“Shave your head.” 

If you shave your head, 

use an electric shaver so 

you won’t cut your scalp.

“Get a wig.”

If you plan to buy a wig 

or hairpiece, get one while 

you still have hair. This 

way you can match it to 

the color of your hair.

“Losing my hair was hard at first. Then I got 

used to it, and it wasn’t so bad. Sometimes 

I wore a scarf and other times I left my 

head uncovered.”
Revised February 2012

How can we help?

National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Information Service

Phone: 1-800-422-6237 (1-800-4-CANCER)

Web: www.cancer.gov

Online Chat: www.cancer.gov/livehelp

NCI has a series of 18 Chemotherapy Side Effects Sheets at:

www.cancer.gov/chemo-side-effects

Managing Chemotherapy Side Effects: Hair Loss (Alopecia)

What should I do after my hair falls out?

● Protect your head from the sun. Use 

sunscreen or wear a hat when you 

are outside.

● Protect your head from the cold. Wear a hat 

or scarf.

● Try wearing a soft scarf when you sleep.

When will my hair grow back?

Most likely your hair will grow back in 2 to 3 

months after chemotherapy. Sometimes your 

new hair can be curlier or straighter—or even a 

different color. In time it may go back to how it 

was before treatment.

Will insurance pay for a wig?

Yes, wigs are often paid for by health insurance. 

If not, it may help to get a prescription from 

your doctor for a “hair prosthesis.” You can 

also ask your social worker for help.

Questions to ask 

your doctor or nurse:

1. Will my hair fall out?

2. How should I protect and care for my head?

3. Where can I get a wig or hairpiece? How can 

I get my health insurance to pay for it?

4. Are there support groups that can help me 

cope with hair loss?

5. When will my hair grow back?

Resources that can help you:

American Cancer Society

1-800-227-2345

(1-800-ACS-2345)

www.cancer.org

Look Good...Feel Better

1-800-395-5665

(1-800-395-LOOK)

www.lookgoodfeelbetter.org
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,124
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  327,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                   320,276
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,659
<PP&E>                                         127,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 498,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,234,419
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,478,862
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,214,773)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   498,309
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,413
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  352,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                52,181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (391,527)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (391,527)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
[No. 15846-2-III.

Division Three.

November 18, 1997.]

#### Jack Staats, et al., *Appellants,*v. James Brown, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Asotin County, No. 95-2-01121-7, Donald W. Schacht, J., entered May 29, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Kurtz, J.
# C_2019169EN.01000201.xml

| 17.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 169/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 169/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 May 2019

appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Hungary

(2019/C 169/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (1), and in particular Articles 23 and 24 thereof,

Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decisions of 28 September 2018 (2), 15 October 2018 (3), 19 November 2018 (4) and 18 February 2019 (5), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 25 September 2018 to 24 September 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decisions of 28 September 2018 (2), 15 October 2018 (3), 19 November 2018 (4) and 18 February 2019 (5), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 25 September 2018 to 24 September 2020.

| (2) | The Government of Hungary has submitted nominations for several posts to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Government of Hungary has submitted nominations for several posts to be filled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period ending on 24 September 2020:

II.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternate members |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Hungary | Ms Judit CZUGLERNÉ IVÁNY
  Mr László KOZÁK | Ms Annamária KUNERT |

Country

Members

Alternate members

Hungary

Ms Judit CZUGLERNÉ IVÁNY

Mr László KOZÁK

Ms Annamária KUNERT

Article 2

The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 May 2019.

For the Council

The President

P. DAEA

---

(1)  OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Decision of 28 September 2018 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers (OJ C 366, 10.10.2018, p. 3).

2

(3)  Council Decision of 15 October 2018 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Portugal (OJ C 376, 18.10.2018, p. 9).

3

(4)  Council Decision of 19 November 2018 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Italy (OJ C 421, 21.11.2018, p. 7).

4

(5)  Council Decision of 18 February 2019 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Greece (OJ C 67, 20.2.2019, p. 2).

5

---