alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 I 0 2 92

. W ILLI AM BOYCE CLEARY v . THE STATE.

W i l l i am Bo y ce Cl eary fi l ed a p ro se d em an d fo r s p eed y t ri al

. Becau s e Cl eary

i s rep res en ted bel o w, t h e t ri al co u rt s t ru ck h i s pro s e p l ead i n g. Cl eary has fi l ed a p ro

s e ap p li cat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal fro m

t hi s ru l i n g

. 1

“ A cri m i n al d efen d an t i n Geo rg i a d o es no t h av e th e ri g ht t o rep res en t h i m s el f

an d al s o b e rep res en t ed b y an at t o rn ey , an d p ro s e fi li ng s b y rep res en ted p art i es are

t h erefo re u n au t h o ri zed an d wi t h o u t effect .” To l b er t v. To o l e , 2 9 6 Ga. 3 5 7

, 3 6 3 (3 )

(7 6 7 SE2 d 2 4 ) (2 0 1 4) (ci tat i o n s an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ). W h en a cri m i n a l de f en d an t

s u b m i t s a p ro se fi l i n g wh i l e s ti l l rep res en t ed b y co u n sel

, t h e fi l i n g i s a l eg al n u l l i t y

an d wi l l b e d i s m i ss ed by an ap p el l at e co u rt

. W h i t e v. S t a t e , 3 0 2 Ga. 3 1 5

, 3 1 9 (2 ) (8 0 6

SE2 d 4 8 9) (2 0 1 7). Acco rd i ng l y , t h e ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. 2

1 Cl eary fi l ed h is ap p li cat i o n i n th e Su p rem e Co urt

, wh i ch t ran s ferr e d t h e

m at t er t o t h i s Co u rt

.

2 W e al s o n o t e t h at Cl eary ’ s fai l u re to co m p l y wi th t h e i n terl o cu t o ry ap p eal

p ro ced ure i n OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ) d ep ri v es t h i s Co urt o f ju ri sd i ct i o n

. August 12, 2019C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/12/2019
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 on Form 10- Q/A (No. 1) of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period September 30,
2010 (the "Report"), Mark Yung, Executive Chairman of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                                DATE: MARCH 31st, 2011

                                                BY: /S/ MARK YUNG
                                                -------------------------------
                                                    MARK YUNG
                                                    EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1433: TRUSTID, INC. v. NEXT CALLER, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"yRPTTOhTg4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-22-1433-trustid-inc-v-next-caller-inc-opinion-22-1433-opinion-3-1-2023_2088144\/\">22-1433: TRUSTID, INC. v. NEXT CALLER, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-22-1433-trustid-inc-v-next-caller-inc-opinion-22-1433-opinion-3-1-2023_2088144\/embed\/#?secret=yRPTTOhTg4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1433: TRUSTID, INC. v. NEXT CALLER, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"yRPTTOhTg4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: TRUSTID, INC. v. NEXT CALLER, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1433 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 0.247 Record of actions taken.

The application and authorization files and other appropriate files of the Office of Engineering and Technology are designated as the official minute entries of actions taken pursuant to §§ 0.241 and 0.243.

[33 FR 8228, June 1, 1968, as amended at 44 FR 39179, July 5, 1979; 51 FR 12615, Apr. 14, 1986]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM  THE QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT  TO SECTION
               13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE  ACT  OF 1934 FOR
               THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              25,801
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           42
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    55,240
<PP&E>                                               5,133
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     120,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               36,393
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                42
<OTHER-SE>                                          81,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       120,483
<SALES>                                              7,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     7,113
<CGS>                                                6,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        6,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    25,446
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (24,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (24,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (24,781)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.59)



</TABLE>
No. 11-5013.

#### Pullen-Walker *v.*Roosevelt University et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5021.

#### Cuesta-Rodriguez *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1506 Allowable fees and expenses. ( a ) Awards will be based on rates customarily charged by persons engaged in the business of acting as attorneys, agents and expert witnesses.
( b ) No award for the fee of an attorney or agent under these rules may exceed $75.00, or for adversary adjudications commenced on or after March 29, 1996, $125.00, per hour. No award to compensate an expert witness may exceed the highest rate at which the Commission pays expert witnesses. However, an award may also include the reasonable expenses of the attorney; agent, or witness as a separate item, if the attorney, agent or witness ordinarily charges its clients separately for such expenses.
( c ) In determining the reasonableness of the fee sought for an attorney, agent or expert witness, the presiding officer shall consider the following: ( 1 ) If the attorney, agent or witness is in private practice, his or her customary fee for similar services, or, if an employee of the applicant, the fully allocated cost of the services;
( 2 ) The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which the attorney, agent or witness ordinarily performs services;
( 3 ) The time actually spent in the representation of the applicant;
( 4 ) The time reasonably spent in light of the difficulty or complexity of the issues in the proceeding; and
( 5 ) Such other factors as may bear on the value of the service provided.
( d ) The reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project or similar matter prepared on behalf of a party may be awarded, to the extent that the charge for the service does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services, and the study or other matter was necessary for preparation of the applicant's case.
( e ) Fees may be awarded only for work performed after designation of a proceeding or after issuance of a show cause order.
[47 FR 3786, Jan. 27, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 39899, July 31, 1996; 85 FR 63183, Oct. 6, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16572]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-349-000]


Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Section 4 Filing

June 26, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 16, 2000, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 
tendered for filing pursuant to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, a 
notice of termination of gathering services currently being provided on 
specified uncertificated lines in Barbour and Ritchie Counties, West 
Virginia. Dominion states that the uncertificated lines are being 
abandoned by sale to Hope Gas, Inc. and Commonwealth Energy Company.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the commission's 
Rules and regulations. Pursuant to Section 154.210 of the commission's 
Regulations, all such motions or protests must be filed no later than 
June 30, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public reference Room.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16572 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Comments on: 18-2041: INCEPT LLC v. HYPERBRANCH MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
# Comments on: 23-1158: TRIS PHARMA, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential
No. 11-5018.

#### Jenner *v.*Martuscello, Superintendent, Coxsackie Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0002852 30-JUN-2015 08:44 AM
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NELSON F. GOMEZ,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Respondent

______________________ 

2022-2024

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0752-21-0068-I-2.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER A. ZAMPOGNA, Zampogna PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. 

 LIRIDONA SINANI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN 

M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 22-2024 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 02/13/2024
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 13, 2024

Date

Case: 22-2024 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 02/13/2024
<PAGE>
 
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into all Registration
Statements on Form 10-K of Stone Street Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated 
January 30, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Stone Street 
Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the 
years then ended, which report appears in the Company's 1997 annual report on 
Form 10-K.


/s/ Weir Smith Jones Miller & Elliott

Weir Smith Jones Miller & Elliott

Statesville, North Carolina
March 27, 1998
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5417

AN ACT

To rename the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act as the ‘‘McKinney-Vento Homeless

Assistance Act’’.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5417

AN ACT

To rename the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance

Act as the ‘‘McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5417 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 Section 1 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless As3 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 note; Public Law 100–77)

4 is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the

5 following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

7 ‘McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act’.’’.

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in any law, regulation, document,

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the Stewart

11 B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act shall be deemed

12 to be a reference to the ‘‘McKinney-Vento Homeless As13 sistance Act’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 11,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
1 The HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3056

___________ Charles Ray Edwards, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 5, 2000 Filed: July 11, 2000

___________ Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Charles Ray Edwards, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion, brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(2), to reduce his sentence. Edwards sought retroactive application of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.13, p.s., as amended in 1998 by Amendment 583. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not err because a court may not grant a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) unless the reduction is consistent with-2-

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. The relevant policy statement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s. (1998) does not allow for retroactive application of Amendment 583 in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See UnitedStates v. Dowty , 996 F.2d 937, 938-39 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (amendment

to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) could not be applied retroactively in § 3582(c)(2) proceeding when amendment was not listed in § 1B1.10(c), p.s.). Therefore, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 302-9.141 What is the “authorized point of origin” when I transport a POV to my post of duty?

Your “authorized point of origin” is as follows:

| If you are a | Your “authorized point of origin” is your |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Transferee | Old official station. |
| (b) New appointee or student trainee | Place of actual residence. |
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joey Schwartz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                                            DATE: AUGUST 10, 2007


                                            /S/ JOEY SCHWARTZ
                                            --------------------
                                            JOEY SCHWARTZ
                                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             729
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                       140
<INVENTORY>                                      2,404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,061
<PP&E>                                           6,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,057
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,606
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,760)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,657
<SALES>                                         10,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,458
<CGS>                                            8,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (34)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (97)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (97)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (97)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>