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 :

A2 2 D0 12 4 . ANTHONY MATTHEW GAGLI ANI v . THE STATE.

An t h o n y M at t h ew Gag l i an i
, wh o was co n v i ct ed o f s ev e r a l o ffen s es in Sep tem b er 2 0 2 1
, h as fi led a p ro s e ap p li cat i o n f o r d i s c r et io n ary ap p eal

. 1 Gag l i an i

ap p ears t o b e s eek in g ap p el lat e rev i ew o f h i s co n vi ct i o n s

. A ju dg m en t o f co n v i ct i o n, h o wev er, i s s u b

j ect t o d i rect ap p eal

. W e wi l l g ran t a t i m el y f

i l ed ap p l i cat io n fo r d i s cret i on ary ap p eal if t h e l o wer

co u rt ’ s o rd er i s s u b

ject to d i rect ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 ( j )

. Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s
ap p li cat io n i s h ereb y GRANTED, an d Gag l i an i s h al l h av e ten d ay s fro m t h e d at e o f

t h i s o rd er t o fi l e a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n t h e t ri al co urt

. If h e h as al read y fi l ed a t i m el y

n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n t h e t ri al co u rt , h e n eed no t fi l e a seco n d n o t i ce. T h e cl erk o f t h e

t ri al co u rt i s d i rect ed t o i n cl u de a co py o f t h is o rd er i n t h e ap p eal reco rd t ran s m i t t ed

t o t hi s Co u rt

.

C 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 ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r 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 th 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

.

1 Gag li an i fi led h i s ap p l i cat i o n in t h e Su p rem e Co u r t , w h i c h t ran s ferred t h e

cas e h ere. November 19, 2021

11/19/2021
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0109(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0109(01)

**1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005, Section VI - European Economic and Social Committee (C6-0469/2006 - 2006/2075(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0166 - 0167 *

1.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005, Section VI — European Economic and Social Committee (C6-0469/2006 — 2006/2075(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Communities for the financial year 2005 — Volume I (C6-0469/2006) [2],

- having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2005 and the Court of Auditors' special reports, together with the audited institutions' replies [3],

- having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 248 of the EC Treaty [4],

- having regard to Articles 272(10), 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [5], and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0110/2007),

1. Grants the European Economic and Social Committee's Secretary-General discharge for the implementation of the European Economic and Social Committee budget for the financial year 2005;

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

[1] OJ L 60, 8.3.2005.

[2] OJ C 264, 31.10.2006, p. 1.

[3] OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 1.

[4] OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 10.

[5] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

--------------------------------------------------
No. 59038.

protest 247157-K (New York).

#### Fuerst Brothers (New York), Incorporated *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
Exhibit
23.1 
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8, SEC File No. 333-140437, of International Monetary Systems, Ltd. and the
related prospectuses of our audit report dated March 21, 2009, except
for Note 14, to which the date is April 4, 2009 with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets at December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows of International Monetary
Systems, Ltd. and its subsidiaries for the years ended December 31, 2008 and
2007 appearing in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008.
 
 
 WEBB
& COMPANY, P.A.
 Certified
Public Accountants
 
 April 4,
2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Thomas E. Yott, ChiefExecutive officer of CalWest Bancorp, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the extent that Section of that Act is applicable to theBancorp, that:

 

1.               TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of CalWest Bancorp for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13 (a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Bancorp.

 

 
| **Dated: November 12, 2003** | **/s/** | **Thomas E. Yott**                         |   |
|------------------------------|---------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |    | **Thomas E. Yott**                         |
|                         |    | **President and Chief  Executive Officer** |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2586 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel filed July 17, 2006. 

Plaintiff requests that defendants be ordered to provide him with a copy of his deposition

transcript. Plaintiff also requests that defendants be ordered to pay sanctions. On July 28, 2006,

defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion.

An indigent, imprisoned inmate must bear his own costs in litigation. Rivera v.

DiSabato, 962 F. Supp. 38, 40 (D.N.J. 1997) (court cannot compel opposing party to provide

deposition transcript to indigent defendant); cf. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158-59 (3d Cir.

1993)(finding no abuse of discretion because there is no authorization for the court to commit

federal money to provide indigent litigants with copies of deposition transcripts). Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is without merit. 

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 59 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On July 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a request to exceed the limit of 25 interrogatories

per party set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Plaintiff has not shown good cause to exceed this

limit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 14, 2006, request to exceed the limit of 25 interrogatories per

party is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s July 17, 2006, motion to compel and request for sanctions is denied.

DATED: 8/2/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

sc2586.com

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 59 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 61405.

protests 246917-K, etc. (New York).

#### Sorensin Fisheries, Ltd., and Rohner, Gehrig Co., Inc., et al. v. United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 1862), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption piior to June 30, 1956, *520at 16 percent under the provision in paragraph 718 (a), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 61954), for sardines, neither skinned nor boned, when packed in oil; and (2) the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on and after June 30, 1956, at 14 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 54108.
Exhibit 4.2


 





 






    	 



    	 



    

  


BACTERIN
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.


CORPORATE
STOCK TRANSFER, INC.


TRANSFER
FEE: AS REQUIRED


 


The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written
out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:


 


	TEN COM - 	as tenants in common	 	 	 
	TEN ENT - 	as tenants by the entireties	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -	Custodian
	JT TEN - 	as joint tenants with right 	 	 	(Cust)                    (Minor)
	 	of survivorship and not as		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 	tenants in common	 	 	 


 


	 	Act 	 

                                                                                

	 	 	(State)








	Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
	 










 


PLEASE
INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER


 IDENTIFYING
NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE


 


	 	 


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED,____________________________________________hereby sell, assign and transfer unto


 








	 
	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE
	 







	 
	 
	 
	 
	 


 







_________________________________________________________________________________________Shares


of
the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 


______________________________________________________________________________________Attorney
to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation, with full power of substitution in the
premises.


 


Dated:_____________________20_________,


 





	 	Signature: X	 
	Signature(s) Guaranteed:	 	 
	 	Signature: X	 







 


THE
SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION
(Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION
PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
No. 59031.

protest 246204-K (New York).

#### Home Lines Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
**Exhibit 32.02**

 

**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 Essential Innovations Technology Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 
|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Kenneth G.C. Telford

Kenneth G.C. Telford 

Chief Financial Officer

June 8, 2007

 

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 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.
Before the Second Division,

December 27, 1939

No. 42918.

#### Protests 749702-G, etc., of Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 51756.

#### Protests 127914-K/12667, etc., of William J. Oberle, Inc., et al. (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(November 20, 1995)

#### Linda Brennan, Respondent, v Peter J. Brennan, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 400]

—In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated April 19, 1994, which, *inter alia,*awarded child support of $50 per week per child retroactive to February 17, 1987. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated April 12, 1994, which granted the motion for leave to enter a judgment *nunc pro tunc.*

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to enter a judgment *nunc pro tunc.*The plaintiff demonstrated good cause to explain why a judgment was not settled or submitted within 60 days after the court’s memorandum decision in that her attorney had been suspended and then disbarred *(see,*22 NYCRR 202.48 [a], [b]). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.
No. 55988.

protests 166387-K, etc. (New York).

#### Marguerite de Cauwer et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
December 26, 1941

No. 46756.

Suit 4342.

#### *United States*v. *W. J. Mulligan & Co.*

C. D. 402 reversed. C. A. D. 179.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul St. John, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 403]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Humphreys, J.), rendered June 21, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an order of the same court (Scarpino, J.), dated December 21,1993, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s contention that the accomplice’s testimony should not be believed is meritless. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Likewise, the defendant’s contention that the People failed to disclose a cooperation agreement it had with one of the witnesses is without merit as there was no proof that this alleged agreement existed.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Richard Vincent Letizia

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 0 808

- CR

Trial court case number: 2 1 1 2 524

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 10 of Harris County

Appellant, Richard Vincent Letizia, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s

order , in cause no. 2112524, denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus

.

On May 29, 2018, a ppellant filed a “M otion t o Extend Time to Amend Appellant’s Brief

. ” On May 31, 2018, this Court granted appellant’s “Motion for

Extension of Time to File an Amended Brief Pro Se” and extended the time to file an amended brief to July 23, 2018. Appellant’s “Motion to Extend Time to Amend Appellant’s Brief

, ” filed on May 29, 2018, is dismissed as moot

. Appellant has filed multiple motions requesting that we order the trial court cl erk and court reporter to file, in this appeal, a clerk’s record and reporter’s record of proceedings in trial court case no. 2100551 :

 “Motion to Order Court Reporter to Transcribe Any and All Proceedings

for Trial Court Cause No : 2100551

, ” filed May 29, 2018;

 “For Court Record

, ” filed May 25, 2018;

 “Motion for Clerk’s Record for Trial Court Cause Number 2100551 ,” filed May 24, 2018;

 “For Appellant Appeal Record

. May 16, 2018,” filed May 21, 2018;

 “For the Appellant Record,” filed on May 17, 2018; and

 “Motion to Order Court Reporter to Transcribe March 2, 2018 Trial Cause Number 2100551,” filed on May 10, 2018.The motions are denied

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell L l oyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 28 , 2018
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS EVERETT WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2428 MCE DAD P

vs.

MARK SHEPERD, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

On August 1, 2005, the undersigned issued findings and recommendation

recommending that respondents’ motion to dismiss this action as untimely be granted. On

September 28, 2005, the assigned district judge issued an order adopting those findings and

recommendations and dismissing the action as untimely. This case was closed on that same date. 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On November 10, 2005, the assigned district judge issued a

certificate of appealability and the appeal was processed.

On December 30, 2005, petitioner filed with this court a motion requesting the

appointment of counsel. Petitioner should present his request for appointment of counsel to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner has also requested that the Clerk

of the District Court forward certain records to the Court of Appeals and that he be provided an

excerpt of the record. On November 15, 2005, the case file was forwarded to the Court of

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD Document 36 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Appeals. As for the excerpt of the record, petitioner is advised that pursuant to Circuit Rule 30-

1.2, “Appellants and appellees proceedings without counsel need not file the excerpts,

supplemental excerpts and further excerpts of record described in this section.” 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s December 30, 2005 motion for the appointment of counsel is

denied;

2. Petitioner’s December 30, 2005 request for documents and request for an

excerpt of the record is denied.

DATED: February 6, 2006.

DAD:4

will2428.app

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD Document 36 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Erwin Jackson, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 392]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated December 30, 1988 *(see, People v*
      *472
      *Jackson,*145 AD2d 646), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 18, 1985, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 99.0

                          Connecticut Bancshares, Inc.

                                 923 Main Street
                              Manchester, CT 06040

               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

                                                                  March 29, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, Connecticut
Bancshares, Inc. has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen
LLP ("Andersen") stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their
quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit and availability of national office consultation.
Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to
this audit.

                           Very truly yours,

                           Connecticut Bancshares, Inc.


                           /s/ Michael J. Hartl
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Michael J. Hartl
                           Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer