alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

THE RELATED GROUP, (f/k/a The )

Related Group of Florida), RELATED )

FLORIDA, INC., TRG- FT. MYERS, )

INC., and TRG OASIS (TOWER ONE), )

LTD., ) 

)

 Petitioners, ) Case No. 2D18-16

)

v. )

)

OASIS TOWER ONE CONDOMINIUM )

ASSOC., INC.; WOLFBERG/ALVAREZ )

AND PARTNERS, INC.; CHM )

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC; )

BBL-FLORIDA, LLC; ACRES & SON )

PLUMBING, INC.; ALLEN CONCRETE & )

MASONRY, INC.; ADVANCE WATER )

TECHNOLOGY, CORP.; C.L.W. )

CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; )

CMC STEEL FABRICATORS D/B/A CMC )

REBAR FLORIDA; COASTAL FIRE )

PROTECTION, INC.; DISTINCTIVE )

FINISHES, L.L.C.; IBA CONSULTANTS, )

INC.; LOPEZ BROTHERS MASONRY, )

INC.; MCW ACQUISITION, LLC D/B/A )

METRO CAULKING & WATER )

PROOFING; POWER DESIGN, INC.; RC )

ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES, INC.; )

SOUTHLAND FORMING, INC.; WEST )

COAST FLORIDA ENTERPRISES, INC. )

f/k/a WEST COAST ROOFING & WATER )

PROOFING, INC. )

)

Respondents. )

)
- 2 -

Opinion filed June 22, 2018. 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the 

Circuit Court for Lee County; John E. 

Duryea, Judge.

Julissa Rodriguez, Michael Thomas, 

Christopher Barnett, Elliot H. Scherker,

Bridgid F. Cech Samole, and Stephanie

L. Varela of Greenberg Traurig, P.A.,

Miami, and David B. Haber and Lauren 

S. Fallick of Haber Slade, P.A., Miami, 

(withdrew after briefing), for Petitioners 

The Related Group (f/k/a The Related 

Group of Florida), Related Florida, Inc., 

TRG-Ft. Myers, Inc., and TRG Oasis 

(Tower One), Ltd. 

Jason R. Moyer and Hannah M. Tyson

of Moyer Law Group, St. Petersburg, for 

Petitioner TRG Oasis (Tower One), Ltd.

Stacy D. Blank and Patrick M. Chidnese

of Holland & Knight LLP for Respondent 

Oasis Tower One Condominium 

Association, Inc.

No appearance for remaining 

Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0338 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-CE-010-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-83,850-01

EX P ARTE F RANCISCO JAVIER HERNAND EZ, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W13-57851-Y (A) IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER SEVEN F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code o f C ri m i n al Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted o f dri ving while intox icated a

nd sentenc ed to fifty

year s’ imprisonment. Applicant contends that his counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use she failed to timely file a notice of appe al. T h e t ri al court, afte r obtaining a responsive aff idavit from counsel, has deter mined that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appea l. We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity2

to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. F13- 57851-Y from the Criminal District Court N o. Seven District Court of Da llas County . Applicant is order ed returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of appea l so th at h e m ay th en, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaning ful appeal. Within ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall deter

mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall immediately ap p o i n t an attorney to repr esent Applicant on direc t appea l. All time limit s shall be calc ulated as if the sentenc e had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff

irmative steps to file a written notice of appea l in the trial court within 30 days afte r the mandate of

this Court i ssues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment o f Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: September

23, 2015 Do not publish
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCarbon Fiber Strand Tensile Failure Dynamic Event CharacterizationThere are few if any clear, visual, and detailed images of carbon fiber strand failures under tension useful for determining mechanisms, sequences of events, different types of failure modes, etc. available to researchers. This makes discussion of physics of failure difficult. It was also desired to find out whether the test article-to-test rig interface (grip) played a part in some failures. These failures have nothing to do with stress rupture failure, thus representing a source of waste for the larger 13-00912 investigation into that specific failure type. Being able to identify or mitigate any competing failure modes would improve the value of the 13-00912 test data. The beginnings of the solution to these problems lay in obtaining images of strand failures useful for understanding physics of failure and the events leading up to failure. Necessary steps include identifying imaging techniques that result in useful data, using those techniques to home in on where in a strand and when in the sequence of events one should obtain imaging data.Document ID20160006405Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJohnson, Kenneth L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Reeder, James*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 19, 2016Publication DateApril 1, 2016Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberL-20701NF1676L-24331NESC-RP-13-00860NASA/TM-2016-219188Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 869021.05.07.05.23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160006405.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group
Holdings, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [omitted in accordance with the guidance of SEC Release 33-8760];c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
 
  /s/ Toshiaki EgashiraBy:
    
    Toshiaki EgashiraPresident and Representative Director
No. 62220.

#### Trans World Shipping Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 317260-K and 317482-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2024, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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.





Date:May 1, 2024/s/ David T. WaltonDavid T. WaltonPresident, Director and Chief Executive OfficerDate:May 1, 2024/s/ Kristen R. CoveyKristen R. CoveyExecutive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer





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.
From: PROLIFERAY@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:54:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ray Mooney

Flushing, NY 11354
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

GABRIEL PERAZZO,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 344 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
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
  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 Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ Freddie M. KotekName: Freddie M. KotekTitle:   Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate: March 30, 2010
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  367                                                               Trade Date:  12/01/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                                     Issue Date:   12/04/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementDecember 01, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP                                                                                                                                Date and terms of redemption or

     or        Stated                                                                  Interest                                    repayment (including any

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment  Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)               Maturity                Public (2)                Commissions      Frequency      Option     Yes/No                record dates)

14911QRG8   4.05%                        06/15/11          100%                    1.2%                   Monthly            YES                       NO                

 

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$915,000.00                $904,020.00            ABN AMROInc.                 01/15/04                 30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                   Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                   N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $363.685 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
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 Universal Solar Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ling Chen, 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.





Date:
April 9, 2009





/s/
      Ling ChenLing
      Chen,
                    Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Kenneth CLEMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jake MENDEZ, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-2275.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 7, 2001.

Before RALPH B. GUY, JR., BOGGS, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Kenneth Clemons, a federal prisoner, moves for the appointment of counsel and appeals a district court order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Clemons entered a guilty plea in 1977 in a Michigan state court to a charge of attempted breaking and entering. He was sentenced to forty to sixty months of imprisonment. In 1993, a federal jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a felon, and he was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to fifteen years of imprisonment. His 1977 Michigan conviction was relied on as a basis for the application of the ACCA. Clemons pursued both a direct appeal and a motion to vacate his federal conviction unsuccessfully. He also filed a collateral attack on his state conviction, which was denied by the state trial court. His appeal from that decision was untimely.

Clemons then filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, naming the warden of the federal prison where he is incarcerated as the respondent, but attacking the validity of his state conviction. The district court dismissed the petition, noting that Clemons had not named a state official as respondent, he was not in custody under the state conviction, and the petition could not be construed as a § 2255 motion to vacate because Clemons had not filed a motion with this court to authorize a second § 2255 motion. On appeal, Clemons argues that the district court should have construed his petition as a § 2255 motion.

Initially, we note that the district court properly concluded that Clemons could not file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his state conviction because he is not in custody pursuant to that conviction. Once a sentence has fully expired, collateral consequences are insufficient to render a prisoner in custody. *Maleng v. Cook,*490 U.S. 488, 492, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). Moreover, it is also *278noted that Clemons apparently proeedurally defaulted his claims in the state courts by filing an untimely appeal of the denial of his post-conviction action. This would also preclude review of his claims under § 2254, because he has made no allegation of cause to excuse his default.

The Supreme Court has also recently held that a federal prisoner may not collaterally attack a prior conviction relied on in sentencing under the ACCA through a § 2255 motion. *See Daniels v. United States,*532 U.S. 374, 121 S.Ct. 1578, 1583, 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001). Therefore, the argument raised on appeal that this should have been construed as such a motion is without merit.

Therefore, we deny the motion for counsel and affirm the dismissal of this petition. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Before the Third Division,

March 15, 1966

No. 69832.

protest 65/8165 (New York).

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*892Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hyacinth bulbs similar in all material respects to those the subject of Perryman, *Mojonier Company*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 150, C.D. 2566), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT WALKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-581

[February 13, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Glenn Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CF000290A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.