alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MEET INVESTMENTS, LLC and EDUARDO PARRA

- DAVILA
, Appellant s ,

v.

KEVIN DEASY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20 22

- 3430

[ December 14 , 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Gary L. Sweet , Judge; L.T. Case No. 21000850CAAXMX

.

Jan Michael Morris of Law Offices of Jan Michael Morris, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellants.

Scott Konopka and Donna L. En g of Mrachek Fitzgerald Rose Konopka Thomas & Weiss, P.A., Stuart, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, C IKLIN and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0199

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LAVODRICK TERELLE HOGUES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 12, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 4 2022

08/04/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0199
October 15, 2015

Mr. Adam Atwood

5503 North Westnedge Avenue

Kalamazoo, MI 49004

Dear Mr. Atwood:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your July 24, 2015, exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−3195, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
SENATE OF THE UNITED ST ATES 

ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS 

Convened January 3, 1991 FIRST SESSION { 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Wednesday, October 16, 1991 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J. STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett. Executive Clerk 
Calendar 

No. -

1 

11 

12 

Calendar 

No. 

Treaty 

Doc. No. 

EX. B., 

95-1 

102-11 

102-12 

Message 

No. 

1 

TREATIES 

Subject 

Two Related Protocols to the Convention for 

the Unification of Certain Rules Relating 

to International Carriage by Air, as 

Amended (Montreal Aviation Protocols No. 3 

and 4). 

International Convention on Oil Pollution 

Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 

1990 

International Convention on Salvage, 1989 

NOMINATIONS 

Nominee, Office, And Predecessor 

Reported 

Bv 

Feb 5 91 Reported favorably 

by Mr. Pell, Committee on 

Foreign Relations, with a 

resolution of advice and 

consent to ratification 

with provisos. (Printed 

report--Ex. Rept. 102-1 

together with minority 

views). 

Oct 8 91 Reported favorably 

by Mr. Pell, Committee on 

Foreign Relations, with a 

resolution of advice and 

consent to ratification 

without amendment 

(Printed report--Ex. Rept 

102-16). 

Oct 8 91 Reported favorably 

by Mr. Pell, Committee on 

Foreign Relations, with a 

resolution of advice and 

consent to ratification 

without amendment. 

(Printed report-- Ex. 

Rept. 102-17). 

Reported 

Bv 
2 

Calendar Message Nominee, Office, And Predecessor Reported 

* 

* 

No. No. Bv 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

292 161 Lawrence B. Lindsey, of Virginia, to be a Aug 29, 91 Mr. Riegle, 

Member of the Board of Governors of the Committee on Banking, 

Federal Reserve System for the unexpired Housing, and Urban Affairs I 

term of fourteen years from February l, with printed report with 

1986, vice Manuel H. Johnson, resigned. additional views - Ex.Rept 

102-14. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

324 472 Jill E. Kent, of the District of Columbia, Oct 8, 91 Mr. Pell, 

to be Chief Financial Officer, Department Committee on Foreign 

of State. (New Position) Relations, without printed 

renort . . . . *S1gmf1es nom1nee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate.
[No. 3704.]

#### L. B. McClanahan *v.*The State.

Obstructing Public Road, Etc.—Information—Article *405*of the Penal Code provides as follows: “ If any person shall wilfully obstruct or injure, or cause to be obstructed or injured, in any manner whatsoever, any public road or highway, or any street or alley in any incorporated town or city, or any public bridge or causeway, he sháll be ñned,” etc. *Held*that the offense denounced by the said article is the obstruction of any *public*road or highway, or any street or alley in any *incorporated*town or city, and that it does not embrace the obstruction of any road other than *& public*road, or street or alley in an *unincorporated*town or city. The information in this case, alleging the obstruction of a “certain road in the unincorporated town of Glen Rose,” charges no offense against the laws of this State.

Appeal from the County Court of Somervell. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Hart, County Judge.

This conviction was for obstructing a certain road, and the penalty imposed was a fine of one dollar.

The case is disclosed in the opinion.

*Cooper & Estes,*for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

Our penal statute with regard to the obstruction of roads, streets, and bridges, reads as follows: *“*If any person shall wilfully obstruct or injure, or cause to be obstructed or injured, in any manner whatsoever, any public road or highway, or any street or alley in any incorporated town or city, or any public bridge or causeway, he shall be fined in a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars,”

The offense denounced is the obstruction of any *public*road or highway, or any street or alley in any *incorporated*town or city. It is no offense to obstruct a road which is not a *public*road, nor is it any offense to obstruct a street or alley in an unincorporated town or city.

The information in this case is fatally defective as an information for obstructing a road, because it does not allege that the *430road obstructed was a public road, and it is not good as a charge for obstructing a street or alley in a town or city, because it does allege that the town was incorporated. On the contrary, the allegation is that the defendant ‘1 did, at the county aforesaid, on the twenty-second day of July, 1885, and at divers other times at said place, wilfully obstruct a certain road in the unincorporated town of Glen Rose, in the county and State aforesaid, by building a fence across and over the said road.”

Opinion delivered June *2,*1886.

This information states no offense against the law, and defendant’s motion to quash the same should have been, sustained.

Because the information is fatally defective, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2







CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Shiner International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), XueZhu Xu, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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.





Date: November 15, 2011
By:
/s/ XueZhu XuName: XueZhu XuTitle: Interim Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
To:      Alex Kanakaris
From:    Richard Epstein
cc:
Date:    12/28/00
Subject: credit line


Alex:

         This letter is to confirm that the $7,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit
Agreement between Alliance Equities and Kanakaris Wireless (formerly know as
Kanakaris Communications, Inc.) is still in place and available to Kanakaris
Wireless until the expiration date of December 10, 2001.

     Sincerely,

     /s/ Richard Epstein
     Richard Epstein
     President
     Alliance Equities, Inc.
#### § 213.13 Place.

The hearing shall be held in the city in which the regional office of the Department is located or in such other place as is fixed by the Administrator in light of the circumstances of the case, with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives.
Merrimack,

No. 5307a.

#### State *v.*Stillman Titus.

Argued February 2, 1965.

Decided March 31, 1965.

*William Maynard,*Attorney General and *George S. Pappagianis,*Deputy Attorney General *{Mr. Pappagianis*orally), for the State.

J. *Gilbert Upton*(by brief and orally), for the defendant.

Duncan, J.

At common law the State has no right of appeal in criminal cases, and no right to preserve exceptions for transfer to an appellate court. *United States*v. *Sanges,*144 U. S. 310; *Commonwealth*v. *Cummings,*3 Cush. (Mass.) 212. See 5 Wharton’s Crim. Procedure. 2251; Annot. 92 A.L.R. 1137. In some states by virtue of constitutional or Statutory provisions, a right of review on the part of the State is permitted upon specified conditions or for limited purposes. 24 C.J.S. 1028 “Criminal Law” 5. 1659; *United States*v. *Weissman,*266 U. S. 377; *State*v. *Felch,*92 Vt. 477. However no such provisions *224are found here and there is no suggestion that any such enactment has been seriously sought. The statutes establishing procedures for the preservation of exceptions (RSA 490:10) and the transfer of reserved cases to this court (RSA 491:17) so far as we are aware have never been considered to confer appellate rights upon the State in criminal cases.

In the case before us, the State argues that the Trial Court erred in granting the motion to quash and urges that by transferring the State’s exception, “the Trial Court decided the questions raised were fit for determination by the Supreme Court, thereby rendering moot the question whether the State is properly before the Supreme Court on an appeal from a ruling of the Trial Court.” Further it urges that it is a “party aggrieved” within the meaning of RSA 490:10, *supra.*

In the light of the practice over the years during which statutory provisions like those now relied upon by the State have been in effect, it would indeed be a “far-reaching innovation in the criminal jurisprudence” of this state *(United States*v. *Sanges,*supra,144 U. S. 310, 323) for .this court to now interpret RSA 490:10 or RSA 491:1,7 as granting rights which the State seeks to assert. The recent comments of the court in *State*v. *Velander,*123 Vt. 60, 61, may be pertinent: “The state’s attorney fails to recognize that the state, in a criminal case, stands in a position different from that of an ordinary appellant. ... A lion stands in his path.” See Annots. 113 A.L.R. 636; 91 A.L.R. 2d 1095.

The answer to the question transferred without ruling is that the State has no right of appeal in this case.

*Remanded.*

Blandin, J., did not sit; the others concurred.
**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 Annual Report of R&R Acquisition VIII, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Kirk M. Warshaw, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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/
                Kirk M. WarshawKirk
                M. WarshawPrincipal
                Financial OfficerAugust
                16, 2007
§ 16.22 The effect of an appeal. ( a ) *General.* Until the Board disposes of an appeal, the respondent shall take no action to implement the final decision appealed.
( b ) *Exceptions.* The respondent may— ( 1 ) Suspend funding (see § 75.371 of this title);
( 2 ) Defer or disallow other claims questioned for reasons also disputed in the pending appeal;
( 3 ) In programs listed in appendix A, B.(a)(1), to this part implement a decision to disallow Federal financial participation claimed in expenditures reported on a statement of expenditures, by recovering, withholding or offsetting payments, if the decision is issued before the reported expenditures are included in the calculation of a subsequent grant;
( 4 ) Take other action to recover, withhold, or offset funds if specifically authorized by statute or regulation; or
( 5 ) Take action to require a State to suspend procedural disenrollments, as defined at 42 CFR 430.5, or continue the accrual of the civil money penalties a State owes under 42 CFR 430.49(c).
[46 FR 43817, Aug. 31, 1981, as amended at 81 FR 3012, Jan. 20, 2016; 88 FR 84737, Dec. 6, 2023]
§ 1326.3 Liquidation of obligations. ( a ) All obligations incurred pursuant to a grant made under the Act for a specific Federal fiscal year, must be liquidated within two years of the close of the Federal fiscal year in which the grant was awarded.
( b ) The Secretary, or his or her designee, may waive the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section when State law impedes implementation or the amount of obligated funds to be liquidated is in dispute.
( c ) Funds attributable to obligations which are not liquidated in accordance with the provisions of this section revert to the Federal Government.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 04, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 04, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0211. LEE MARTIN v. AMY KREMER.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 11CV2551
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      18,361,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,961,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,843,453
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,818,931
<PP&E>                                       6,995,140
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,164,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,861,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,525,610
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,745,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,861,142
<SALES>                                     24,411,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,411,434
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,589,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,821,734
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,025,292
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,796,442
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,796,442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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 MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
David C. Choi, 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:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and operating results of the
Company. /s/ David C. Choi

David C. ChoiChief Financial Officer
 November 15, 2004 32
#### William T. Dickerson, Respondent, *v.*Robert Appleton et al., Appellants.

*Dickerson*v. *Appleton,*123 App. Div. 903, affirmed.

(Argued February 22, 1909;

decided March 16, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 11, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action for an accounting as to the disposition of certain *508stock, and to impress said stock with a trust in favor of plaintiff in reference to a certain number of shares.

*Learned*Hand, *Eugene A. PhiZbin*and *Stephen P. Anderton*for appellants.

*George H. Pettit*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Neema, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. David Brow, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| March 4, 2009 | /s/ J. David Brow |
|---------------|-------------------|

|   | J. David Brow |
|--------|---------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer and |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | Principal Executive Officer and |
|--------|---------------------------------|

|   | Principal Financial and Accounting |
|--------|------------------------------------|

|   | Officer |
|--------|---------|

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Neema, Inc. and will be retained by Neema, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

38

----
Federal Election Commission Page 2 

Certification for End Citizens United PAC v. FEC, No. 21-cv-1665 

July 29, 2021 

Commissioners Broussard, Cooksey, Dickerson, and Weintraub voted affirmatively for 

the decision. Commissioner Walther abstained. Commissioner Trainor was recused and did not 

vote. 

 Attest: 

 August 12, 2021 

 

Date Laura E. Sinram 

 Acting Secretary and Clerk of the 

Commission 

Laura 

Sinram

Digitally signed by 

Laura Sinram 

Date: 2021.08.12 

10:42:18 -04'00'
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 69598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28326]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

Decisional Matters

    1. Bedside Sleepers--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
    2. Handheld Carriers--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
    3. Representative Samples--Final Rule.

A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast. 
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call 
(301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: November 16, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28326 Filed 11-16-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```