alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KAILEE DE LOS ANGELES,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-2135

LT Case No. 2020-CT-53321-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed May 30, 2023

Appeal from the County Court 

for Brevard County,

Aaron Peacock, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, 

Assistant State Attorney, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

JAY, KILBANE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CONTANGO OIL & GAS COMPANY

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 Contango Oil & Gas Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending December 31, 2009 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kenneth R. Peak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 9, 2010



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KENNETH R. PEAK                                          
|Kenneth R. Peak                                              
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-70005

WALTER ALEXANDER SORTO, 

 Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, 

 Respondent–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CV-613 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On December 1, 2016, this Court issued a nondispositive opinion denying 

certificates of appealability with respect to Petitioner–Appellant Walter 

Alexander Sorto’s Miranda and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Sorto 

v. Davis, 672 F. App’x 342 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). The opinion reserved 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-70005 Document: 00514406286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2018
No. 16-70005

2

judgment on the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in 

denying requests for funding that would have enabled Sorto to obtain testing 

to determine whether he has an intellectual disability. Id. at 344. We issued 

an opinion on that issue. Sorto v. Davis, 859 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2017). 

Respondent–Appellee Lorie Davis, the director of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (the “Director”) filed a 

petition for rehearing en banc. After considering the Director’s petition, we 

granted panel rehearing and withdrew the prior opinion. Sorto v. Davis, 881 

F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2018) (mem. op.).

On March 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued Ayestas v. Davis, which

rejected our Circuit’s standard for determining whether investigative funds 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) are “reasonably necessary.” See No. 16–6795, 

2018 WL 1402425 (Mar. 21, 2018). Because the district court has not had the 

opportunity to consider how Ayestas might apply to the denials of funding in

this case, we believe the issue is best considered by the district court in the 

first instance. See, e.g., Frey v. Stephens, 616 F. App’x 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2015) 

(noting that we have remanded habeas cases for reconsideration “where 

relevant binding decisions were issued after the district court ruled”); Thomas 

v. Quarterman, 272 F. App’x 406, 409 (5th Cir. 2008) (remanding for 

consideration of an intervening circuit case). Accordingly, we VACATE the 

district court’s denials of funding and REMAND for its consideration of its 

denials of funding in light of Ayestas.

 Case: 16-70005 Document: 00514406286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2018
EXHIBIT 32(b)



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



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Overnite Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick D. Hanley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, 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) 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
Corporation.



|    |  |                                                  
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Patrick D. Hanley                            
|    |  | Patrick D. Hanley                                
|    |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



March 14, 2005
#### SAMPLE v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 4, 1916.)

Appeal from Marengo Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. E. J. Gilder.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed on motion of'Attorney General;
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Clarence Williams, Respondent, against Duff Distributing Company, et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Submitted May 28, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*440
      *Lawson R. Jones, Paul R. James*and *Frederick S. Benson*for appellants.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Notice is hereby given that TD Javelin Capital Fund, LP (“TD Javelin I”), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite 240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), and TD Javelin Capital Fund II, LP (“TD Javelin II”, and together with TD Javelin I the “Funds”), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite 240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, a Federal Licensee under the Act, in connection with the financing of a small concern, have sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2000)). The Funds propose to provide equity financing to Prolinx, Inc. (“Prolinx”), 22322 Twentieth Avenue South East, Bothell, Washington 98021. The financing is contemplated for product development and working capital. 

The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because TD Javelin I and its associate, Tullis-Dickerson Capital Focus II, LP, currently own greater than 10 percent of Prolinx, and therefore Prolinx is considered an Associate of each of TD Javelin I and TD Javelin II as defined in Sec. 107.50 of the regulations. 

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW, Washington, DC 20416. 

Dated: April 26, 2000. 

Don A. Christensen, 

Associate Administrator for Investment. 

[FR Doc. 00-11498 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LINDEN v. MARENGO COUNTY BANK.

(Decided April 4, 1916.)

Appeal from Marengo Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Edward J. Gilder.

I. I. Canterbury, for appellant. Willim Cunninghame, for appellee.

Pelham, P. J.

Affirmed for want of assignment of error.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00129

- CR

CHARLES RAY MILLER, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 1423726

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
In cause numbers 06

- 14

- 00120

- CR t hrough 06

- 14

- 00129

- CR, Charles Ray Miller appeals from ten separate convictions for indecency with a child by contact. Miller has filed a single brief in which he raises an issue common to all of his appeals. Miller argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the punishment phase of his trial. We addressed this issue in detail in our opinion of this date on Miller’s appeal in cau se number 06

- 14

- 00120

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude in this matter that Miller failed to demonstrate (1) that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that there is a reasonable probab ility that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ); Ex parte Imoudu , 284 S.W.3d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Consequently, we affirm the trial co urt’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: December 11, 2014 Date Decided: December 12, 2014 Do Not Publish
**Exhibit
      32**
 
 CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF
      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)
 
 Pursuant
      to section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
      63
      of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Unit
      Corporation a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such
      officer’s knowledge, that:
 
 The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
      the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Company as of September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006 and for the
      three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2007 and
      2006.
 
 
 Dated:
      November 1, 2007
 
 By:
      /s/ Larry D. Pinkston
 Larry
      D.
      Pinkston
 Chief
      Executive Officer and
 Director
 
 
 Dated:
      November 1, 2007
 
 By:
      /s/ David T. Merrill
 David
      T.
      Merrill
 Chief
      Financial Officer and
 Treasurer
 
 
 The
      foregoing certification is being
      furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
      Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
      disclosure document.
 
 A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been
      provided to Unit Corporation and will be retained by Unit Corporation and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff on
      request.
#### Aaron R. Elbogen, Respondent-Appellant, v Sidney Esikoff et al., Defendants, and Bartholomew Lawson et al., Appellants-Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[697 NYS2d 614]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered May 1, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Lawson, Checkmate and Sterla for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action for harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the second cause of action dismissed.

In this more than 17-year old action, the motion court should have granted the motion of defendants Lawson, Checkmate and Sterla for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the alleged conduct of those defendants satisfied all of the elements of that tort. Specifically, plaintiff has never made an evidentiary showing that the alleged conduct caused any mental or physical symptom or injury that would indicate the existence of severe emotional distress *(see, Howell v New York Post Co.,*81 NY2d 115, 121). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
§ 303.02 Definitions. ( a ) The term *Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, or as delegated. As provided in 49 CFR 1.21, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary may exercise any authority in lieu of the Assistant Secretary under the provisions of this part.
( b ) The term *documents* means: ( 1 ) All written, recorded, transcribed or graphic matter including letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports, studies, forecasts, lists, directives, tabulations, logs, or minutes and records of meetings, conferences, telephone or other conversations or communications; and
( 2 ) All information contained in data processing equipment or materials. The term does not include daily or weekly statistical reports in whose place an annual or monthly summary is submitted.
( c ) The term *hearing* means either a show-cause proceeding as provided in § 303.44 or a full evidentiary hearing as provided in § 303.45, whichever is determined by the Assistant Secretary to be appropriate.
( d ) - ( g ) [Reserved]
( h ) The term *Section 41309 transaction* means any contract, agreement or discussion of a cooperative working arrangement within the scope of 49 U.S.C. 41309.
( i ) [Reserved]
[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15936, Apr. 16, 2019]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 3 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 4 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 5 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 6 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 7 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 8 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 9 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 10 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 11 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 12 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 13 of 14
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4206-1 Filed:11/09/18 Entered:11/09/18 22:19:52 Desc:

Exhibit Page 14 of 14
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the quarterly report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick Haskell, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: November 12, 2008

| |     |                                                                            
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ PATRICK HASKELL                                                        
| |     | Patrick Haskell
Co-Chief Executive Officer
(Co-Principal Executive Officer)
1. The plat of the survey of an island in Fox Lake, Township 59 North, Range 25 West, Fourth Principal Meridian, Minnesota, accepted on January 6, 2000, will be officially filed in Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on February 22, 2000. The tract shown below describes the island omitted from the original survey.

## Fourth Principal Meridian, Minnesota 

T. 59 N. R. 25 W. 

Tract No. 37

2. Tract No. 37 is firm land rising 3-5 ft. above the ordinary high water mark. The soil has evolved from glacial till parent material and is similar to the soil found on the adjacent uplands. Numerous stones were located along the northerly and easterly shore of the island. Tree species consist of birch, cedar, fir and spruce, ranging in size from 3 to 15 inches in diameter, with a maximum age of 80+ years. The ground cover consists of alder, hazel, willow and native grasses on the southerly and westerly shore line. 

                    Structures located on the island consist of an old log cabin, 14                    1/2                     × 21                    1/2                     feet, longside bears S. 68° W., a privy, an old well and a power pole with line bearing S. 19 E., to the adjacent upland.                 

3. The present water level of the lake compares favorably with that of the original meander line; therefore, the elevation and upland character of the island along with the depth and width of the lake between the adjacent upland and the island are considered evidence that the island did exist in 1858, the year Minnesota was admitted to the Union. The original survey in 1875 did not note the presence of this island. 

4. Tract No. 37 is more than 50 percent upland in character within the interpretation of the Swamp and Overflow Act of September 28, 1850 (9 Stat. 519) as extended to the State of Minnesota under the Act of March 12, 1860 (12 Stat. 3). Therefore, the island is held to be public land. 

5. The survey was requested by Edwin A. and Sheryl I. Olson, under the authority of Section 211 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1721) and the Minnesota Public Lands Improvement Act of 1990, P.L. 101-442 (104 Stat. 1020). 

6. Except for valid existing rights, this island will not be subject to application, petition, location or selection under any public law until February 22, 2000. 

                    7. Interested parties protesting the determination that this island is public land of the United States, must present valid proof showing that the island did not exist at the time of statehood or that it was attached to the mainland at the time of the original survey. Such protests must be submitted in writing to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, prior to 7:30 a.m., February 22, 2000.                     Start Printed Page 2641

Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the appropriate fee. 

Dated: January 6, 2000. 

Stephen G. Kopach, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor. 

[FR Doc. 00-1116 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P