alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7532

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD L. DIXON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Elizabeth V. Hallanan,

Senior District Judge. (CR-96-191, CA-99-1011-2)

Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clayton Reed Kaeiser, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Michael Lee

Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard L. Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion agreeing with the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Dixon, Nos. CR-96-191; CA99-1011-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 7, 2000). We decline to consider

Dixon’s claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel

on direct appeal because he failed to raise these claims in the

district court. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.

1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

Inconnection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the“Report”), I, William Steckel, 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; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. 

Date: November 14, 2008
(LOGO) OCWEN

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

March 24, 2000

Pursuant to the  applicable  sections of the  Servicing  Agreements,  I Scott W.
Anderson as officer of Ocwen Federal Bank FSB (the "Bank") confirm that a review
of the activities of the Bank ended  December 31, 1999 and of performance  under
the Servicing  Agreements has been made under my supervision.  To the best of my
knowledge,  based on such review,  the Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Servicing Agreement  throughout the period, other than as noted in the
Management Assertion on Compliance with USAP.

Scott W. Anderson
Vice President of Residential Assets
No. 49737.

#### Protest 82367-K of McKesson & Robbins (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial all the papers in the case were admitted in evidence without objection. It is the contention of the Government that since the loss was-the result of a casualty sustained by the merchandise being transported under bond, any abatement of duties is within the exclusive juris*291diction of the Secretary of Treasury. From the papers, and in view of the circumstances; the court was of the opinion that the case comes directly within the purview of section 563, Tariff Act of 1930, as contended by the Government. The protest was therefore dismissed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8472 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to support 

the expansion of freight rail infrastructure to support the transport 

of agricultural inputs and products to farms, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2024 

Mr. COURTNEY (for himself, Mr. MOLINARO, and Mr. MCGOVERN) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act to support the expansion of freight rail infrastructure to support the transport of agricultural inputs and 

products to farms, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freight for Farms 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8472 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUDING FREIGHT RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IN 

2 COMMUNITY FACILITIES LOANS AND 

3 GRANTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 306(a) of the Consoli5 dated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 

6 1926(a)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and essential 

8 community facilities including necessary related 

9 equipment’’ and inserting ‘‘and essential community 

10 facilities (such as freight rail infrastructure that 

11 supports access to agricultural and related entities) 

12 including necessary related equipment’’; 

13 (2) in each of paragraphs (19)(A), (20)(B), and 

14 (21)(A) by striking ‘‘essential community facilities’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘essential community facilities (such 

16 as freight rail infrastructure that supports access to 

17 agricultural and related entities)’’; and 

18 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(27) REQUIREMENTS FOR FREIGHT RAIL IN20 FRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.— 

21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of 

22 sections 22905 and 22404 of title 49, United 

23 States Code, shall apply to any project for 

24 freight rail infrastructure that supports access 

25 to agricultural and related entities for which a 

26 loan or grant is awarded under this subsection. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8472 IH

1 ‘‘(B) REFERENCES.—For the purpose of 

2 applying the requirements of such sections to 

3 such projects— 

4 ‘‘(i) references to the Secretary of 

5 Transportation shall be deemed to refer to 

6 the Secretary of Agriculture; and 

7 ‘‘(ii) references to ‘this chapter’ shall 

8 be deemed to refer to this subsection.’’. 

9 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub10 section (a) shall apply beginning on the date that is 60 

11 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. DONALD R. FRANKLAND, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Guy W. Oalissi*and *Mr. Thomas J. Gallahue, Jr.*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Logan & Logan*for the respondent.

April 18, 1967.

Granted.
EXHIBIT 8.1
 
 1.
    
    Petrobras Energía S.A. (Argentina)2.
    
    World Fund Financial Services (Grand Cayman)3.
    
    Petrobras Financial Services Austria GMBH (Austria)4.
    
    Petrobras Energía Perú S.A. (Perú)5.
    
    Petrobras Valores Internacional de España S.A. (España)6.
    
    Petrobras Energía Internacional S.A. (Argentina)7.
    
    Petrobras Energia Sucursal Ecuador (Ecuador)8.
    
    Ecuadortlc S.A. (Ecuador)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mauro Caballero, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 392]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Lipp, J., at trial; Wexner, J., at sentence), rendered March 29,1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict and imposing sentence. By a decision and order of this Court dated July 31, 1995, the defendant’s application for a writ of error coram nobis was granted, the decision and order of this Court dated April 9, *4601990, was vacated, and the appeal was restored to this Court’s calendar for October 11,1995 *(see, People v Caballero,*160 AD2d 810).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered.

As the People concede, the defendant was absent from the courtroom when supplemental instructions were given to the jury. It is well settled that this error was a serious procedural error to which harmless error analysis does not apply *(see,*CPL 310.30; *People v Mehmedi,*69 NY2d 759; *see also, People v Cain,*76 NY2d 119; *People v Ciaccio,*47 NY2d 431). It is also well settled that defense counsel’s consent thereto may not be imputed to the defendant *(see, People v Lara,*199 AD2d 419; *People v Ali,*196 AD2d 544; *People v Jones,*159 AD2d 644).

The People argue that, since the supplemental instruction ultimately related to only one of the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, a reversal of that conviction only is warranted. This argument, however, is essentially an invitation to apply harmless error analysis to the circumstances of this appeal, and it must be rejected *(see, People v Mehmedi, supra; see also, People v Barker,*183 AD2d 835; *People v Hewlett,*133 AD2d 417). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Thompson, JJ., concur.
#### Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Elvir William Stossell

179 So. 163.

Division A.

Opinion Filed February 4, 1938.

*Loftin, Stokes & Calkins, Robert H. Anderson*and *Harold B. Wahl,*for Appellant ;

*W. H. Mizell,*for Appellee.

On Petition for Rehearing

Terrell, J.

The petition for rehearing is directed to that part of the Court’s opinion reading as follows:

> “In support of its contention, Appellant exhibited here and in the court below some moving picture films. We have not before been called on to rule on the challenge to this class of evidence.

> “We hold that such evidence is admissible, but to be so, it must be produced under the direction of a commissioner *128appointed by the court for that purpose. Opposing counsel should also have notice and an opportunity to be present and the application to take it must make it appear to the trial court that it is material and will enlighten the court on the issues involved. Otherwise it should not be admitted.”

This procedure for admitting moving picture films in evidence grew out of charges and counter charges of bad faith on the part of counsel with reference to the verity of the evidence or films in question. On further consideration, we are convinced that the procedure so prescribed should not be required in all cases.

We do not renounce the requirement as to notice and the production of such evidence under the direction of a commissioner. We think it the proper procedure in many cases but if in the judgment of either litigant, the notice and appointment of a commissioner should not be availed of, the litigant may proceed in the manner deemed by him advisable, but to be competent evidence, the films must be properly authenticated and shown to be a faithful representation of the subject, sound, movement, or other tangible or intangible thing which they purport to reproduce. When such a showing is made to the trial court, moving picture films should be admitted under the same rules as photographs.

In other respects, the opinion is reaffirmed.

It is so ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Buford, and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Brown, J.

(concurring specially).—Upon further consideration of this matter, I think the correct rule is stated in the last sentence of the opinion. After all, moving pictures are but a reproduction of a rapidly taken series of photographs, and should be admitted under the well es*129tablished rules governing the admission in evidence of photographs.
Exhibit 4.6

 

RIDER TO THE CONTRACT FOR

 

LOGISTICS SERVICES

 

BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED

 

EASYDIS, Société par Actions Simplifiée (a simplified joint-stock company), the head offices of which are located at 1 Esplanade de France 42000 SAINT ETIENNE, registered in the Business and Companies Registry of SAINT ETIENNE under number 383 123 874,

 

duly represented by Julie BADICHE, President

 

PARTY OF THE FIRST PART,

 

AND

 

CDISCOUNT, a Limited Company, the head offices of which are located at 120-126 Quai de Bacalan, 33000 BORDEAUX, registered in the Business and Companies Registry of BORDEAUX under number 424 059 822,

 

duly represented by Pierre-Yves ESCARPIT, Supply Chain Director

 

PARTY OF THE SECOND PART.

 











 

PREAMBLE

 

The Parties have signed a contract to provide logistics services on January 24, 2013 (hereinafter the “Contract”), for products falling under the category of “non-food products weighing more than 30 kg and/or with total measurements greater than 2m”, as well as 2 riders dated May 16, 2014.

 

The Parties met in December 2014 in order to verify whether the rates applied by EASYDIS were consistent with market rates.

 

SOLE CLAUSE

 

After having analyzed the rates for comparable services in 2014 offered by external service providers, the Parties have noted that the prices of Easydis are higher than market prices.

 

As a consequence, the Parties agree that for services provided between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, a rebate calculated based on the prices agreed to between the Parties is owing, taking into account the market prices as offered by competing operators for comparable services.

 

The Parties furthermore agree to discuss implementing a rate charged based on “work units” at market prices, which will be used as the basis for invoicing for services provided by Easydis beginning from January 1, 2015.

 

 

Signed in Bordeaux, on March 27, 2015

 

	
For CDISCOUNT
    	
 
    	
For EASYDIS
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Pierre-Yves Escarpit
    	
 
    	
/s/ Julie Badiche
    
	
Pierre-Yves   ESCARPIT, Supply Chain Director
    	
 
    	
Julie   BADICHE, President
---

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



I, Joseph B. Guerrero, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sunergy, Inc.for the period ended September 30, 2009 (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 Sunergy, Inc.



|                         |  |                                                                                           |  | 
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: November 16, 2009 |  |                                                                                          
|                         |  |                                                                                          
|                         |  |                                                                                          
|                         |  | /s/ Joseph B. Guerrero                                                                    | 
|                         |  | Joseph B. Guerrero                                                                       
|                         |  | President and Director                                                                   
|                         |  | Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
|                         |  | Sunergy, Inc.                                                                            





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sunergy, Inc.and will be retained by Sunergy, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0382

IN THE MATTER OF:

R.Y.

Respondent 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 March 29, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 21 2023

02/21/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0382
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 13-5-AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Douglas Biggs 05/19/2013 Concur. 

Other/Additional Information:
EXHIBIT
32








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Report of UpSnap, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter van Hierden, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard von Gnechten, the 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;
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/ Peter van Hierden
                  Peter
      van Hierden
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  
                  Dated:
      June 22, 2009/s/ Richard A. von Gnechten
                  Richard
      A. von Gnechten
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
                  
                  Dated:
      June 22,
2009
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4353

_____________________________

ROBERT DELONEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

December 12, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Robert Deloney, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. (S) 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brent Bales, the Chief
Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the managing owner of The
Frontier Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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
     Frontier Fund.


                                        /s/ Brent Bales
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Brent Bales
                                        Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund
                                        Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of
                                        The Frontier Fund

                                        May 16, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The Frontier
Fund and will be retained by The Frontier Fund and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order filed November 22, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00774

- CV

____________ BLUE SKY SATELLITE SALES & THEATER SERVICES, LLC , Appellant

V. K18th, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 146th District Court

Be ll Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 313 015

- B



### ORDER The notice of appeal in this case was filed September 21, 2022. The clerk responsible for preparing the record notified this court that appellant has not made payment for the record. No evidence that appella nt has established indigence has
been filed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. On October 26, 2022, this court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless appellant filed a response with proof of payment for the record. No response was f iled. Therefore, the court issues the following order.Appellant is ordered to demonstrate to this court within ten (10) days of the

date of this order arrangements have been made to pay for the clerk’s record. See Tex.R.App.P. 35.3(c). If appellant fails to do so, the appeal is subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.