alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John H. HARLEY, Appellee.

No. 77-2010.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 18, 1978.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, and Daphne W. Boswell, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1977), defines burglary as “entering or remaining in a structure or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein . .” *380This case presents the question whether the state may charge a defendant with burglary of a conveyance when the offense referred to in the statute is the unauthorized temporary use of the same conveyance. The answer to that question is yes. *State v. Dalby,*361 So.2d 215, No. 77-1563 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1978). We realize that *Dalby*dealt with grand larceny instead of unauthorized temporary use, but we do not think that difference affects the applicability of *Dalby*to the present case.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the information charging appellee with burglary and remand the case for further proceedings.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2021

- NCSC

- 15 No. 259A20
Filed 12 March 2021
PAMELA LAUZIERE , Employee

v. STANLEY MARTIN COMMUNITIES, LLC, E mployer, and AMERICAN ZURICH INS URANCE CO MPANY , C arrier

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of
the Court of Appeals, 844 S.E.2d 9 ( N.C. Ct. App. 2020 ), reversing and remanding an

o pinion and a ward filed on 22 May 2018 by the North Carolina Industrial
Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court on 16 February 2021. Lennon, Camak & Bertics, PLLC, by S. Neal Camak and Michael W. Bertics, for plaintiff

- appellee.
Lewis & Roberts , P.L.L.C. , by Bryan L. Cantley and Mallory E. Lidaka, for defendant

- appellants.

PER CURIAM

. ¶ 1 The Court of Appeals shall remand to the full Commission for further consideration in accordance with 11 N.C. Admin. Code 23A.0704 (2020). The full Commission shall review the award and as it deems necessary, recon sider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, and, if proper, amend the award.
AFFIRMED.L AUZIERE V

. S TANL E Y M ARTIN C MTYS ., LLC

2021

- NCSC

- 15 Opinion of the Court

Justice BERGER did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

case.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report on Form 10-K of VCampus Corporation for the period endedDecember 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on orabout the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and onthe date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tohis knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of VCampus Corporation as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report.

 

 
|                | /S/  CHRISTPHER L. NELSON |   |
|---------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                | Christopher  L. Nelson    |
|                | Chief  Financial Officer  |
|                |
| March 21, 2006 |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1


                        View Systems, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of View Systems, Inc. certifies (the
"Company") pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(A)  the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
     June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(B)  the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.


Date: August 14, 2006
                                  /s/ Gunther Than
                                ____________________________________
                                Gunther Than
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                Principal Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 13

- 00113

- CR

Arnulfo Ernesto HERNANDEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR2707A

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 27, 2013

DIS MISSED

On March 21, 2013, appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is

granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
October 11, 2011 

Ms. Brooke Shimabukaro 

17204 Spinning Avenue 

Torrance, CA 90504 

Dear Ms. Shimabukaro: 

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

§ 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot 

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

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your October 3, 2011, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-

1083), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

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

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

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

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

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

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside 

the United States. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF PARAVANT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              Oct-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       Year
<CASH>                                           265,408
<SECURITIES>                                   1,263,633
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,920,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                     149,260
<INVENTORY>                                    8,079,427
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              26,447,161
<PP&E>                                        11,293,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,826,299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                67,520,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         12,959,081
<BONDS>                                       22,672,183
<COMMON>                                         266,453
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                    32,057,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  67,520,431
<SALES>                                       40,409,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              40,409,568
<CGS>                                         22,353,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 22,353,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              14,668,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               339,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,046,971
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,462,546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,584,425
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,584,425
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .09



</TABLE>
256 La. 77

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William P. RYAN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 50588.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: William P. Ryan applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

d1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139076

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139076 COA: 290120 Macomb CC: 2 003-002729-FC CLIFFORD GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 12, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the defendan t’s former appellate counsel, Joseph L. Stewart, to file a supplemental brief a ddressing the reason(s) for his failure to file timely post-judgment motions and a timely application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals on direct review. Couns el shall file the supp lemental brief within 28 days of the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6785

ROBERT L. WILLIS, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES S. LANIER; KEITH E. FOUNTAIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-97-238-5-BR2)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Willis, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Willis

v. Lanier, No. CA-97-238-5-BR2 (E.D.N.C. May 19, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

JAMEY McKEE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

B. SALAMAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 No. 4:22-CV-01240 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of December 2024, in accordance with the 

accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ unopposed motion (Doc. 91) for summary judgment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of 

defendants B. Salamon, M. Rowe, M. Knapp, D. Steberger, J. Hayles, 

N.A. Anna, and W. Holden and against plaintiff Jamey McKee as to 

all remaining Section 1983 claims. 

3. The Clerk of Court is further directed to CLOSE this case. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

 Matthew W. Brann 

 Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:22-cv-01240-MWB-MP Document 104 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50294-50295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25399]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


University of Notre Dame, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision 
on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub.

[[Page 50295]]

L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be 
viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, 
for such purposes as each is intended to be used, is being manufactured 
in the United States.
    Docket Number: 97-051. Applicant: University of Notre Dame, Notre 
Dame, IN 46556. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model 
DELTA<SUP>plus</SUP>. Manufacturer: Finnigan, Germany. Intended Use: 
See notice at 62 FR 40334, July 28, 1997. Reasons: The foreign 
instrument provides a double-focussing magnet sector mass analyzer with 
an internal precision of 0.006 per mil for 10 bar <greek-m>l samples of 
CO<INF>2</INF>.
    Docket Number: 97-057. Applicant: University of Wyoming, Laramie, 
WY 82071. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model Sector 54. Manufacturer: 
Micromass, Inc., United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR 
41361, August 1, 1997. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) 
Motorized multiple collectors for computer-controlled alignment of 
collectors, (2) mass/energy filtering for 10 ppb abundance sensitivity, 
and (3) an ion-counting multicollector system for detection of very 
small ion beams.
    Docket Number: 97-058. Applicant: University of Miami, Miami, FL 
33149. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model GEO 20-20. Manufacturer: 
Europa Scientific, United Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR 
41361, August 1, 1997. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) 
Sensitivity of 1000 molecules per m/z 44 ion at the collector, (2) an 
interface to an elemental analyzer, and (3) an abundance sensitivity of 
10 ppm for CO<INF>2</INF> using dual inlet mode.
    The capabilities of each of the foreign instruments described above 
are pertinent to each applicant's intended purposes. We know of no 
instrument or apparatus being manufactured in the United States which 
is of equivalent scientific value to any of the foreign instruments.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 97-25399 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       86,417
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             106,167
<PP&E>                                       19,127
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               125,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,500
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  28
<COMMON>                                     38
<OTHER-SE>                                   123,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 125,294
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             48,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (48,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (48,971)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.13)

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00593

- CR

Ramon Donato AYALA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 567926

Honorable Michael De Leon

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment

is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

SIGNED September 23, 2020.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
      and
      (b) of


Section
      1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:




The
      Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Form 10-Q")
      of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc.




Date:
                August 19, 2008
            
            
            /s/
                William Yan Sui HuiWilliam
                Yan Sui Hui , Chief Executive
                Officer
#### ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST SCHOOL BOARD v. MARBURY-PATTILLIO CONSTRUCTION CO. Inc. and South Louisiana Port Commission.

No. 4083.

Fourth Circuit. Court of Appeal of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1970.

Chapman L. Sanford, of Kizer, Heaton & Cangelosi, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant.

George T. Oubre, Norco, for defendant-appellee Marbury-Pattillo Construction Co., Inc.

John L. Peytavin, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee South Louisiana Port Commission.

Before REGAN, CHASEZ and DOM-ENGEAUX, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

Defendants-appellees have filed motions to dismiss plaintiff School Board’s suspensive appeal, alleging as grounds therefor that no bond was posted by the appellant and that the appeal was not timely taken. These contentions have no merit.

LSA-R.S. 13:4581 and the jurisprudence interpreting said statute clearly allow school boards to perfect appeals *95without the necessity of posting bond. State ex rel. Temple v. Vernon Parish School Board, La.App., 178 So. 176. Furthermore, in cases where the appellant is exempt from furnishing an appeal bond, the appeal is perfected upon the rendition of the order granting the appeal. State ex rel. Temple v. Vernon Parish School Board, supra; Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm., 185 La. 729, 170 So. 548. In this case the order granting the appeal was, insofar as we can determine from the record, rendered on the day the judgment was signed. Therefore, there can be no question of its timeliness.

For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss is denied.

Motion denied.
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





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 on Form 10-Q of RAVENWOOD BOURNE, LTD. (the "Company") for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Fotis Georgiadis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ravenwood Bourne, Ltd., 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 Company.




Dated: March 10, 2011
/s/Fotis GeorgiadisFOTIS GEORGIADIS,Chief Executive Officer/s/Fotis GeorgiadisFOTIS GEORGIADIS,Chief Financial Officer
#### Arnold A. OPER and Eileen A. Oper, his wife, Appellants, v. RUSSELL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-638.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 21, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-2281

:

Plaintiff : (Chief Judge Conner)

:

v. :

:

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP :

Address 71.58.216.197, :

:

Defendant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2016, upon consideration of the motion 

(Doc. 10) of defendant John Doe (“John Doe”), seeking to vacate the court’s order 

(Doc. 8) authorizing plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC (“Malibu”), to serve a third-party 

subpoena on Comcast Cable (“Comcast”), and to quash the third-party subpoena 

thereafter served upon Comcast, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying 

memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. John Doe’s motion (Doc. 10) to quash is DENIED in its entirety.

2. John Doe shall be permitted to proceed in the above-captioned matter 

by the John Doe pseudonym until the court orders otherwise.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER 

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Case 4:15-cv-02281-CCC-MCC Document 14 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 1