alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Louis EVANS, III v. STATE of Alabama.

77-180.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 25, 1978.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND APPLICATION FOR REHEARING AND APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second application for rehearing, and petitioner’s request for a stay of execution are due to be, and each is hereby denied.

Even though we deny petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second application for rehearing and his application for a stay of execution, we point out that we have examined the cases of *Bell v. Ohio,*- U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2977, 57 L.Ed.2d 1010 and *Lockett v. Ohio,*- U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973, which petitioner contends are applicable to his case, and we conclude that those cases do not invalidate Alabama’s sentencing scheme in death cases. Alabama’s sentencing scheme specifically provides, in part:

> “ . . In the hearing, *evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence and shall include*any matters relating to any of the *aggravating or*mitigating circumstances enumerated in sections 13-11-6 and 13-11-7. . . . ” (Emphasis supplied) [§ 13-11-3, Code, 1975.]

Section 13-11-7, Code, 1975, provides:

> *673“Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:

> “(1) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity;

> “(2) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;

> “(3) The victim was a participant in the defendant’s conduct or consented to the act;

> “(4) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his participation was relatively minor;

> “(5) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person;

> “(6) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired; and

> “(7) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime. (Acts 1975, No. 213, § 7.)”

It is readily apparent, therefore, that Alabama’s sentencing scheme *broadly*allows the accused to present evidence of mitigating circumstances, and does not contain the deficiencies the Supreme Court of the United States found were inherent in Ohio’s scheme.

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND APPLICATION FOR REHEARING, AND PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION ARE DUE TO BE, AND EACH IS HEREBY DENIED.

BLOODWORTH, MADDOX, FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.

SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur specially.

SHORES, Justice

(Concurring specially).

I agree with the majority in denying the petitioner’s second application for rehearing but adhere to the expressions set out in my dissent on original deliverance.

BEATTY, Justice

(Concurring specially).

I agree with the decision to deny this second application for rehearing because, contrary to the argument of the petitioner, the cases of *Bell v. Ohio*and *Lockett v. Ohio*do not invalidate the provisions of the Alabama death penalty statute’s section on mitigating circumstances.
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 110 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 110 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 110 Filed 05/03/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 110 Filed 05/03/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 110 Filed 05/03/06 Page 5 of 5
- filed at

Case 11-22842-JAD Doc 355 Filed 02/26/16 Entered 02/26/16 16:22:52 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 8
Case 11-22842-JAD Doc 355 Filed 02/26/16 Entered 02/26/16 16:22:52 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 8
Case 11-22842-JAD Doc 355 Filed 02/26/16 Entered 02/26/16 16:22:52 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 8
Case 11-22842-JAD Doc 355 Filed 02/26/16 Entered 02/26/16 16:22:52 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 8
Case 11-22842-JAD Doc 355 Filed 02/26/16 Entered 02/26/16 16:22:52 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 8
Case 11-22842-JAD Doc 355 Filed 02/26/16 Entered 02/26/16 16:22:52 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 8
FILED

CLERK

U.S. BANKRUPTCY

COURT - WDPA 2/26/16 2:59 pm

Case 11-22842-JAD Doc 355 Filed 02/26/16 Entered 02/26/16 16:22:52 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 8
Case 11-22842-JAD Doc 355 Filed 02/26/16 Entered 02/26/16 16:22:52 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 8
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofPrimary Business Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB?A as amended forthe period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick Matthews, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Patrick  Matthews                                                                  |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick  Matthews                                                                      |
| Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer |
| December 15,  2004                                                                     |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                             884
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             300
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,960
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,702
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          7,906
<ALLOWANCE>                                         99
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,450
<DEPOSITS>                                      18,751
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                195
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,331
<OTHER-SE>                                       (826)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  25,450
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    155
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  131
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    71
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   357
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 182
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 182
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              175
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (172)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.60
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    69
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   99
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-30754

Conference Calendar 

 

DREW MICHAEL PIZZO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD STALDER, SECRETARY, 

ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-3371-B

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

August 26, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Drew Michael Pizzo, Louisiana inmate #31376, seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of

his civil rights complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)and 1915(A). By moving for IFP, Pizzo is challenging

the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be

granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Because Pizzo fails to show that he will raise a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is 
No. 97-30754

-2-

DENIED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R.

42.2.

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
No. 00-867.

#### Clark *v.*Slater, Secretary of Transportation.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.25

                        [LETTERHEAD OF SOUTHTRUST BANK]



October 31, 2001


Mr. Morris E. Van Asperen
CFO
Color Imaging, Inc.
4350 Peachtree Industrial Blvd.
Suite 100
Norcross, Georgia 30071



RE:       Loan and Security Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") dated as of May 5,
          2000, as amended, among SouthTrustBank ("Lender") and collectively as
          "Borrower", Color Image, Inc., Color Imaging, Inc., Logical Imaging
          Solutions, Inc. and Alorex Corp.

Dear Van:

Please refer to the above referenced Loan Agreement. All capitalized terms used
herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Loan Agreement.

Borrower has requested Lender to waive the right to exercise Lenders remedies
under the Loan Documents in regard to Borrower's violation of certain financial
covenants contained in Article VI of the Loan Agreement for the quarter ended
September 30, 2001.

Lender, subject to the terms of this letter, agrees to waive the right to
exercise its remedies solely for the following covenant defaults (collectively,
the "Specified Defaults") occurring as of September 30, 2001:

1.   Breach of Financial Covenant to maintain a minimum Fixed Charge Ratio of
     1.20:1; and

2.   Breach of Financial Covenant to maintain a maximum ratio of Funded Debt to
     EBITDA of not more than 4.0:1.

Except to the extent set forth herein, the Loan Agreement together with all
other documents remain in full force and effect without amendment or waiver.
Further, this wavier constitutes a waiver of the specific violations and dates
listed herein and does not constitute a waiver of any future violations of the
Loan Agreement. The bank retains its rights and remedies under the loan
documents with respect to any future defaults.

<PAGE>

Color Imaging, Inc.
Financial Covenant Waiver
October 31, 2001




/s/ Scott M. Smith
------------------------
Scott M. Smith
Assistant Vice President

                            [LOGO] SouthTrust Bank
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISABEL GONZALEZ, a/k/a Chabello, a/k/a Isabel Garcia,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:00-cr-00077-BO-1; 5:02-cv-00726-BO)

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isabel Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Isabel Gonzalez seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Gonzalez has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
# Jurnalul Oficial C 140I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1029 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 140I |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 6421 aprilie 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1029

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 140I

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 6421 aprilie 2021

---

| Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- |
| | Rectificări |
| | Rectificare la Agenția Europeană pentru Sănătate și Securitate în Muncă (EU-OSHA), Bilbao – Publicarea unui anunț de post vacant pentru funcția de director executiv (Agent temporar – gradul AD 14) COM/2020/20049 ( JO C 171 A, 19.5.2020 ) | 1 |

Cuprins

Pagina

Rectificări

Rectificare la Agenția Europeană pentru Sănătate și Securitate în Muncă (EU-OSHA), Bilbao – Publicarea unui anunț de post vacant pentru funcția de director executiv (Agent temporar – gradul AD 14) COM/2020/20049 ( JO C 171 A, 19.5.2020 )

( JO C 171 A, 19.5.2020 )

1

---

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

Rectificări

| 21.4.2021 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CI 140/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2021

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CI 140/1

---

Rectificare la Agenția Europeană pentru Sănătate și Securitate în Muncă (EU-OSHA), Bilbao – Publicarea unui anunț de post vacant pentru funcția de director executiv (Agent temporar – gradul AD 14) COM/2020/20049

(
  Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene C 171 A din 19 mai 2020
  )

(2021/C 140 I/01)

La pagina 4, al șaselea paragraf:

în loc de:

„Înainte de numirea în funcție de către Consiliul de administrație a unuia dintre candidații înscriși pe lista restrânsă, acestora li se va cere să se prezinte în fața organelor competente ale Consiliului și Parlamentului European și să răspundă la întrebările acestora. Parlamentul European și Consiliul Uniunii Europene își vor da apoi avizul și vor preciza ordinea preferințelor lor. Consiliul de administrație va numi directorul executiv ținând cont de aceste avize.”,

se citește:

„Candidatul selectat este invitat să facă o declarație în fața Parlamentului European și să răspundă întrebărilor adresate de membrii Parlamentului.”

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YATI BONG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70417

Agency No. A098-474-200

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Yati Bong, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

MAR 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70417

under 8 U .S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder,

558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition

for review, and we remand.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Bong established changed or

extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely filing of her asylum

application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646,

656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Tampubulon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1059

n.4 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Bong’s asylum claim fails.

 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Bong’s claim for CAT

relief because she failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured if

returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Bong’s

experiences in Indonesia, including harassment, discrimination, and a robbery, did

not constitute past persecution. See id. at 1059-60. In addition, the record does not

compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against

Chinese in Indonesia. See id. at 1061-62. However, in denying Bong’s

withholding of removal claim, the agency did not apply the disfavored group

analysis. Because the agency did not have the benefit of our intervening decision

in Wakkary, we remand for the agency to assess Bong’s withholding of removal
3 08-70417

claim under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See id. at 1067; see

also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.
#### Ronnie REED v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50531.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 7, 1978.

Billy J. Jordan, Philip T. Dean, Columbus, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Robert D. Findley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee..

Appeal from Circuit Court, Winston County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26404]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Termination of the Technical Specifications Plus Electronic 
Bulletin Board System (BBS)

    Notice is hereby given that effective October 15, 1997, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) will terminate the operation of the Tech 
Specs Plus BBS that provided a source of electronic copies of the NRCs 
Standard Technical Specifications. Information on the NRC's Standard 
Technical Specifications can be obtained from the NRC's web site at 
url: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/sts/sts.htm.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Beckner,
Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Associate Director for 
Projects, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-26404 Filed 10-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of EnergyConnect Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the twelve months ended January 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:
 
 The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of this 18th day of March 2010.
 
 
 /s/ Andrew C. Warner
 Andrew C. Warner
 Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**INSWEB CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InsWeb Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to InsWeb Corporation, and will be retained by InsWebCorporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

 
| **/s/ HUSSEIN A. ENAN**         | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------|------------|
| Hussein A. Enan                      |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
| Dated: May 10, 2005             |
|                                 |
|                                 |
| **/s/ WILLIAM D.GRIFFIN**       | ** ** |
| William D. Griffin                   |
| Chief Financial Officer              |
| Dated : May 10, 2005            |

 

1

----
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Annapolis,the United States Naval Academy catalog.**
 
1970-71 | 1971-72 | 1972-73 | 1973-74 | 1974-75 | 1975-76 | 1976-77 | 1977-78
1978-79 | 1979-80 | 1980-81 | 1981-82 | 1982-83 | 1983-84 | 1984-85
 
SuDoc Number:D 208.109:
Item Number:0390-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:0390-A (online)
 
September 26, 2018