alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 21, 2016

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-359

Lower Tribunal No. 92-27566 C

________________



### Angelo Stripling

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles K. Johnson

, Judge.

Angelo Stripling, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

Angelo Stripling appeals the trial court’s order denying his 3.850(b)(2)

motion for post-conviction relief, arguing he is entitled to resentencing inconformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in

sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. We reverse and

remand for resentencing.

Stripling was found guilty of first-degree murder following a jury trial and

in 1992 was sentenced to life in prison with a 25-year minimum mandatory.

Stripling was also found guilty of armed robbery for which he received a

consecutive life sentence with a 3-year minimum mandatory, and was found guilty

of shooting a deadly missile into a vehicle for which he received a concurrent 15-

year sentence.

Stripling appealed his convictions and sentence, and this Court affirmed on

February 15, 1995. See Stripling v. State

, 664 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Stripling now claims he should be resentenced because he was a juvenile at the

time he committed the crime. Based on our recent decision in Neely v. State

, no.

3d14-1052 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2016), Stripling is entitled to judicial review of

his sentence.

We therefore reverse Stripling’s first-degree murder sentence and remand to

the trial court for resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes

(2016), section 921.1401, Florida Statutes (2014), and section 921.1402, Florida

Statutes (2015).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

23
§ 372.31 Issuance. ( a ) If, after the filing of an application for an operating authorization, it appears that the applicant is capable of performing the air transportation authorized by this part as an overseas military personnel charter operator and of conforming to the provisions of the Act and all rules and requirements thereunder, and that the conduct of such operations by the applicant will not be inconsistent with the public interest, the applicant will be notified by letter. Such notification will advise the applicant that, upon the filing of a valid tariff pursuant to § 372.25, an operating authorization will be issued to the applicant.
( b ) If, after the filing of an application for an operating authorization, it appears that the applicant has not made a due showing of capability or that the conduct of operations by the applicant might otherwise be inconsistent with the public interest, the Department shall by letter notify the applicant of its findings to that effect. The Department may dismiss any such application unless within 30 days of the date of the mailing of such letter, the applicant has in writing requested reconsideration and submitted such additional information as it believes will make the necessary showing, or requested that the application be assigned for hearing, in which case the applicant shall outline the evidence to be presented at such hearing and shall show the need for hearing in order properly to present its case.
( c ) In the event that reconsideration or hearing is requested, the Department may, without notice or hearing, enter an order of approval or of disapproval in accordance without notice or hearing, enter an order of approval or of disapproval in accordance with its determination of the public interest upon the showing made, or on its own initiative may assign the application for hearing.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11865]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-1999-6364]


Northeast Illinois Railroad Corporation; Cancellation of Public 
Hearing

    On April 4, 2000, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 
published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 17704) announcing 
that a public hearing will be held based upon the Northeast Illinois 
Railroad Corporation's (Metra) request seeking a permanent waiver of 
compliance with the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, 49 CFR part 
238.303, which requires exterior calendar day inspection, and 238.313, 
which requires a class one brake test be performed by a qualified 
maintenance person. Metra has withdrawn its request; therefore, the 
hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, 2000, in Chicago, Illinois, has 
been canceled.
    FRA regrets any inconvenience occasioned by the cancellation of 
this hearing.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 8, 2000.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 
Development.
[FR Doc. 00-11865 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
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

CHRIS FOSTER,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-3103

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit 

Court for Lake County,

Don F. Briggs, Judge.

Chris Foster, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Chris Foster appeals the summary denial of Grounds One, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, 

Eleven, and Twelve of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to 

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. After careful consideration, we affirm the 

summary denial of Grounds One, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Twelve without further 

discussion. 
2

In Grounds Six and Eleven, Foster alleges that ineffective assistance of counsel

prejudiced him and claims that he pled guilty to Count III, possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, based on the advice of counsel, despite the fact that the State had filed 

an amended information which did not include that charge. The State asserted that its 

intention was to simply sever that charge for a later trial; however, amending an 

information by deleting a charge has the same legal effect as entering a nolle prosequi. 

See State v. Belton, 468 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Foster claims that if 

counsel had advised him that the State dropped Count III, he would not have stopped his 

trial nor pled guilty to that count. 

In the plea colloquy, Foster acknowledges that he is pleading guilty to Count III; 

however, that does not sufficiently address what advice counsel provided and whether 

Foster relied on that advice to his detriment. Accordingly, we find that the documents

attached to the order summarily denying Grounds Six and Eleven do not conclusively 

refute those grounds. We remand for the postconviction court to either attach records 

that conclusively refute those grounds or conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding 

Grounds Six and Eleven.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

PALMER, EVANDER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 32.1








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 Tower Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Cahill, President and 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:





(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/ Michael D. CahillMichael D. CahillPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 14, 2010
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
            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 InkSure Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Form 10-K") of
the Company 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 Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 30, 2009              /s/ Yaron Meerfeld
                                  ------------------
                                  Yaron Meerfeld, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 30, 2009              /s/ Tzlil Peker
                                  -------------------
                                  Tzlil Peker, Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
#### THE LAMBS v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 41857.

Decided November 5, 1934.

Motion for new trial overruled October 7, 1935]

*Mr. Harvey L. Rabbitt*for the plaintiff. *Mr. Lawrence P. Mattingly*was on the brief.

*Mr. Fred K.*Dyar, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frank J. Wideman,*for the defendant.

*222
      *Memorandum by the Court*

This case involves the same principles as those decided in the following cases: *Wichita Commercial & Social Club Association*v. *United*States, 77 C. Cls. 80; *Quinnipiack*
      *223
      *Club*v. *United*States, 78 C. Cls. 833; *Union League Chub of Chicago*v. *United*States, 78 C. Cls. 351; *Phi Gamma Delta Club*v. *United States,*78 C. Cls. 834; *Union League Club of New York*v. *United States,*78 C. Cls. 834; *The University Club, City of*Washington, v. *United*States, 79 C. Cls. 780, and the *Saginaw Club*v. *United States,*79 C. Cls. 783.
§ 91.531 Second in command requirements. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate the following airplanes without a pilot designated as second in command: ( 1 ) Any airplane that is type certificated for more than one required pilot.
( 2 ) Any large airplane.
( 3 ) Any commuter category airplane.
( b ) A person may operate the following airplanes without a pilot designated as second in command: ( 1 ) Any airplane certificated for operation with one pilot.
( 2 ) A large airplane or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane that holds a special airworthiness certificate, if: ( i ) The airplane was originally designed with only one pilot station; or
( ii ) The airplane was originally designed with more than one pilot station, but single pilot operations were permitted by the airplane flight manual or were otherwise permitted by a branch of the United States Armed Forces or the armed forces of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
( c ) No person may designate a pilot to serve as second in command, nor may any pilot serve as second in command, of an airplane required under this section to have two pilots unless that pilot meets the qualifications for second in command prescribed in § 61.55 of this chapter.
[Docket FAA-2016-6142, Amdt. 91-351, 83 FR 30282, June 27, 2018]
Exhibit 10.16


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT


TO THE


AGRILINK FOODS
MASTER SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN


 


This Amendment is adopted
by Birds Eye Foods, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the general Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (sometimes
referred to herein as the “Employer”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, the
Employer had adopted the AGRILINK FOODS MASTER SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN (the “Plan”)
which was amended and restated effective January 1, 2001, and


 


WHEREAS, the Employer has
reserved the right pursuant to the provisions of the Plan to amend it at any
time, and


 


WHEREAS, the Employer now
wishes to amend the Plan,


 


NOW, THEREFORE, said Plan
is amended to change the name of the Plan to:


 


BIRDS EYE FOODS MASTER SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN.


 


The Plan is further
amended to change all references therein from Agrilink Foods, Inc. to
Birds Eye Foods, Inc. except where the context may require otherwise.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Amendment has been executed this 10th day of February, 2003.


 


	
   

  	
  BIRDS EYE FOODS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Lois Warlick-Jarvie

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:  Vice President Human Resources
# C_2019103EN.01002001.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens Loeff NV

(Case C-157/17) (1)

(2019/C 103/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

             INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
InkSure Technologies Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 27, 2008 (which
report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
regarding going concern uncertainty), appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of InkSure Technologies Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.

Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants,
A member firm of  Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
April 9, 2008
```
Nos. 0 4 -1 5 -00 12 4

- CR

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

VS. § FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

HECTOR RAMIREZ GUTIERREZ § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

From the 226 th District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013- CR -2894- W1

Hon. Kevin O’Connell , Judge Presiding

In accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), the undersigned submits the following:

Appellant’s signed motion to dismiss was due to be filed o n Wednesday September 30,

2015. After receiving notification from this Court that Appellant did not need to have his motion

to dismis s notarized, counsel notified Appellant’s wife, who had been facilitating contact between

Appellant, who is in Mexico, and counsel. Since that time, counsel had been unable to contact

Appellant or his wife, through either telephone or email. However, Counsel was able to contact

Appellant ’ s wife this afternoon. She advised counsel that Appellant had mailed out the documents

two to three weeks ago. Counsel is still hopeful he will receive the documents soon.

Counsel for Appellant respectfully requests, that he be granted an extension of fifteen (15)

days to try to secure the required documents from Appellant.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests that this

Court grant the requested extension. ACCEPTED

04-15-00124-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

10/13/2015 9:56:02 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERKRespectfully submitted,

Robert A. Jimenez

De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendariz, LLC.

800 Dolorosa Street, Suite 100

San Antonio, Texas 78207

210/ 354

- 1844

210/212

- 2116

- fax

By: /s/ Robert A. Jimenez

SBN: 24059125C ERT IFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 12 th day of October , 201 5 a copy of the foregoing “Motion

for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Opening Brief ” has been electronically filed with this

Court, and will be served to the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office on October 12, 2015

.

/s/ ROBERT A. JIMENEZ
#### § 435.21 General.

The FAA issues a policy approval to a reentry license applicant upon completion of a favorable policy review. A policy approval is part of the licensing record on which the licensing determination is based.
§ 25.939 Turbine engine operating characteristics. ( a ) Turbine engine operating characteristics must be investigated in flight to determine that no adverse characteristics (such as stall, surge, or flameout) are present, to a hazardous degree, during normal and emergency operation within the range of operating limitations of the airplane and of the engine.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) The turbine engine air inlet system may not, as a result of air flow distortion during normal operation, cause vibration harmful to the engine.
[Amdt. 25-11, 32 FR 6912, May 5, 1967, as amended by Amdt. 25-40, 42 FR 15043, Mar. 17, 1977]
#### § 33.61 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes additional design and construction requirements for turbine aircraft engines.
§ 65.104 Repairman certificate—experimental aircraft builder—Eligibility, privileges and limitations. ( a ) To be eligible for a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder), an individual must— ( 1 ) Be at least 18 years of age;
( 2 ) Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the privileges of the certificate are applicable;
( 3 ) Show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the individual has the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe operations; and
( 4 ) Be a citizen of the United States or an individual citizen of a foreign country who has lawfully been admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
( b ) The holder of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) may perform condition inspections on the aircraft constructed by the holder in accordance with the operating limitations of that aircraft.
( c ) Section 65.103 does not apply to the holder of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) while performing under that certificate.
[Doc. No. 18739, 44 FR 46781, Aug. 9, 1979]
---

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 Tower Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Sawyer, 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, 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 R. SawyerRichard R. SawyerChief Financial OfficerMay 15, 2009
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0604

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

PRESTON CSOO ROSSBACH, 

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 10-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including January 8, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 21 2023

12/21/2023

Case Number: DA 20-0604
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the period ended September 30, 2004, I, Gary D. Gall,President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)           such QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2004,fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the periodended September 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Western Sierra Bancorp.

 

 
| Dated: November 4, 2004 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
|                    | /s/ Gary D. Gall |   |
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                         |  |  |  |  |

 

----
#### HARKNESS v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 18, 1916.)

Appeal from Blount Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. E. Blackwood.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 63.18 Written tests: Cheating or other unauthorized conduct. ( a ) Except as authorized by the Administrator, no person may— ( 1 ) Copy, or intentionally remove, a written test under this part;
( 2 ) Give to another, or receive from another, any part or copy of that test;
( 3 ) Give help on that test to, or receive help on that test from, any person during the period that test is being given.
( 4 ) Take any part of that test in behalf of another person;
( 5 ) Use any material or aid during the period that test is being given; or
( 6 ) Intentionally cause, assist, or participate in any act prohibited by this paragraph.
( b ) No person who commits an act prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section is eligible for any airman or ground instructor certificate or rating under this chapter for a period of 1 year after the date of that act. In addition, the commission of that act is a basis for suspending or revoking any airman or ground instructor certificate or rating held by that person.
[Doc. No. 4086, 30 FR 2196, Feb. 18, 1965]