alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1636. THE STATE v. GARDNER

Pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5), the State filed this pre-trial direct appeal

from the trial court’s order excluding evidence that the State sought by motion to use

at the trial of Roddrick C. Gardner on charges that he violated provisions of OCGA

§ 40-6-391.

OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) provides that:

An appeal may be taken by and on behalf of the State of Georgia from

the superior courts, state courts, and juvenile courts and such other

courts from which a direct appeal is authorized to the Court of Appeals

or the Supreme Court in criminal cases and adjudication of delinquency

cases . . . [f]rom an order, decision, or judgment excluding any other

evidence to be used by the state at trial on any motion filed by the state

or defendant at least 30 days prior to trial and ruled on prior to the

impaneling of a jury or the defendant being put in jeopardy, whichever

occurs first, if: (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section

5-6-38, the notice of appeal filed pursuant to this paragraph is filed

within two days of such order, decision, or judgment; and (B) The

prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court that such appeal is not

taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of

a material fact in the proceeding.

Nothing in the record shows that the State complied with the requirement for appeal

set forth in subsection (B) that “[t]he prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court

that such appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a

February 14, 2018
substantial proof of a material fact in the proceeding.” Accordingly, the State has

failed to comply with the requirements for an appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 (a)

(5), and the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

02/14/2018
No. 53019.

#### G. D. Searle & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 131807-K/1183, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the concentrated ox gall the subject of *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
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

JASON ALLEN MAGGARD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2196 GEB KJM P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents, ORDER

 /

On April 15, 2005, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiis. 

That document was not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted

to the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to

be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has

filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then documents submitted by

plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendant. Every document submitted

conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate

stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants or their attorney and

the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Case 2:04-cv-02196-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 05/04/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from the date of

this order plaintiff shall serve a copy of plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss on counsel

for defendants and shall file proper proof of said service. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to

comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff is further cautioned

that failure to serve any documents subsequently filed in this action properly, and failure to

include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

DATED: May 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

magg2196.35a

Case 2:04-cv-02196-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2
# C_2008162EN.01004001.xml

| 25.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/40

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the component type-approval of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)

COM(2007) 840 final — 2007/0284 (COD)

(2008/C 162/06)

On 25 January 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the component type-approval of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the component type-approval of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 442nd plenary session of 13 and 14 February 2008 (meeting of 13 February), by 147 votes to one, with seven abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 13 February 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
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

The undersigned Joseph Pioppi, President of Goldeneye Capital Group, Inc. hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Goldeneye Capital Group, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (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 Goldeneye Capital
Group, Inc.


 Dated: August 1, 2005


 /s/ Joseph Pioppi
 -----------------
 Joseph Pioppi
 President
 (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,324<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     68,885
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,515
<PP&E>                                          78,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,946
<BONDS>                                          8,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,822
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,509
<SALES>                                        188,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               188,518
<CGS>                                          130,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,587)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,199
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,716
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.64
<FN>
<F1>Accounts receivable, trade is reported net of allowance for doubtful
accounts in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007194EN.01001701.xml

| 22.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/17

---

Notice from the Government of Romania concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 194/11)

In accordance with Article 10 of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, Romania hereby notifies the European Commission that the only competent authority in this field, as designated by Law No 238/2004 on oil, is the National Agency for Mineral Resources, a specialised body with legal personality, under the authority of the Government.

Romania hereby notifies all interested persons that for the granting of authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, the provisions and criteria within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 94/22/EC for assessing bids and the technical and financial capacities of the bidders are laid down in the Implementing Rules for Law No 238/2004 on oil, approved by Government Decision No 2075/2004, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 1170 of 10 December 2004, Part I, amended and supplemented by Government Decision No 350/2007, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 272 of 24 April 2007, Part I.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the directio n of the Court.

January 16 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk January 16 , 2019

156579(67)

GENESEE COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER

JEFFREY WRIGHT,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF FENTON, DENNIS

BOW, KARYN MILLER, BONNIE MATHIS,

PAULA ZELENKO, MARILYN HOFFMAN,

LARRY GREEN, JAKE LAFURGEY, RAY

FOUST, DAVID GUIGEAR, ROBERT M.

PALMER, RICK CARUSO, WILLIAM W.

KOVL, MAXINE ORR, VILLAGE OF

GOODRICH, VILLAGE OF GAINES, VILLAGE

OF LENNON, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF

MUNDY, TOWNSHIP OF ARGENTINE,

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF FLINT, CHARTER

TOWNSHIP OF MT. MORRIS, TOWNSHIP OF

GAINES, and CITY OF FLUSHING,

Plaintiffs,

SC: 156579

v COA: 331023

Genesee CC: 11

- 097012

- CK

GENESEE COUNTY,

Defendan t

- Appellant,

and

GENESEE COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant

.

_________ _____________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellant to file a response

to the brief amicus curiae filed by Kickham Hanley, PLLC, is GRANTED. The response

submitted on January 1 1 , 201 9 , is accepted for filing.
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, I, William R. Talley, Jr., Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)          such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
| /s/   William R. Talley, Jr.                   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| William   R. Talley, Jr.                       |   |   |
| Executive   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|   and   Chief Operating Officer           |   |   |

 

----
No. 56463.

protests 173185-K and 177900-K (New York).

#### Kittay *&*Blitz, Inc. *v.*United States,

*421Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those thesubject of *S. Nathan & Co. Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Valentine McFarlane, Appellant.

[633 NYS24 1007]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered April 18, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*376The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE O. SANDOVAL,

 Defendant.

Misc. S-04-0293 PAN 

ORDER

-o0oOn December 29, 2005, plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment

of Satisfaction of Judgment stating that the judgment against

defendant has been satisfied in full. The judgment was entered

March 31, 2004, by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania; this court’s role has been limited to

registration and enforcement of the judgment pursuant to a writ

of execution and consideration of defendant’s asserted

exemptions. The full satisfaction of judgment terminates this

court’s jurisdiction.

Case 2:04-mc-00293-- -PAN Document 16 Filed 01/18/06 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

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this

file.

So ordered.

Dated: January 18, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-mc-00293-- -PAN Document 16 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 55993.

protests 144061-K, etc. (New York).

#### A. G. Skourtsis *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Case No. 15,096.

#### UNITED STATES v. FIFTY THOUSAND CIGARS.

[See Case No. 4,782.]
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 Fruit Of The Loom Unsecured Creditors Trust (the UCT) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, W. Edward Clingman, Jr., a principal of Clingman & Hanger Management Associates, LLC, Trust Administrator of the UCT, 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the UCT.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                                                           |  |                            
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: September 14, 2004 |  | Clingman & Hanger Management Associates, LLC                             
|                         |  | as Trust Administrator of the Fruit Of The Loom Unsecured Creditors Trust
|                         |  |                                                                          
|                         |  | By:                                                                       |  | /s/ W. Edward Clingman, Jr.
|                         |  |                                                                           |  | W. Edward Clingman, Jr.    
|                         |  |                                                                           |  | Principal
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

September 25, 2003 

The Board of Directors 

and Shareholders 

Molecular Imaging Corporation 

2150 West Washington Street, Suite 110 

San Diego, California 92110 

 

Asthe independent public accountants for Molecular Imaging Corporation we hereby consent to the incorporation in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Molecular Imaging Corporation, of our report dated September 25, 2003, regarding the June 30, 2003and 2002, consolidated financial statements. We also consent to all other references to our company included in this annual report. 

 

PETERSON & CO. 

 

Peterson & Co. 

3655 Nobel Drive, Suite 500

San Diego, California 92122-1089
EXHIBIT 31

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, John R Signorello, Chief Executive Officer and Chief financial officer of
Iceweb Inc. certifies that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Iceweb, Inc.

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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 annual
    report.

4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
    procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
    registrant and 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 annual 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 date of this
        annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

5.  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 functions)

    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.

Date: January 14, 2004                  By: /s/ John R. Signorello
                                        John R. Signorello,
                                        Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Chief Financial officer
No. 62617.

#### James M. McCunn & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 144638-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155). For the reasons stated in the cited authority, the first claim of the plaintiff was sustained. It was also stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351). Following the cited authority, it was held that an allowance in duties and internal revenue taxes should be made as to the merchandise respecting the quantities reported by the discharging inspector as not landed, or as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to the extent indicated.