alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Navy–Marine Corps

Court of Criminal Appeals

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

David J. BOSWORTH

Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201800350

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Decided: 28 February 2019.

Military Judge: 

Lieutenant Colonel Mark D. Sameit, USMC.

Sentence adjudged 15 August 2018 by a general court-martial convened at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, consisting of a military judge 

sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: confinement 

for 4 years, and a dishonorable discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander Richard E.N. Federico, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: 

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, TANG, and ATTANASIO

Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. Bosworth, No. 201800350

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s 

substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are 

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32(a)


              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 Con-way Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas W.
Stotlar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

   (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
        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:  May 9, 2008




/s/ Douglas W. Stotlar
-------------------------
Name:Douglas W. Stotlar
Title:Chief Executive Officer






                                                                Exhibit 32(b)

              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 Con-way Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin C.
Schick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

   (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
        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:  May 9, 2008



/s/ Kevin C. Schick
-----------------------
Name:Kevin C. Schick
Title:Chief Financial Officer
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



In
connection with the Amendment No. 1 to theAnnual Report of SQN Alternative Investment
Fund III L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, Jeremiah Silkowski, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended;
    and                   
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                             
|(2) | The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.



A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the SEC or its staff upon request.



|Date:
    April 15, 2019          | 
|--------------------------------- | 
|                                  | 
|/s/
    Jeremiah Silkowski        | 
|Jeremiah
    Silkowski            | 
|Chief
    Executive Officer       | 
|(Principal
    Executive Officer) |
[Cite as In re Seavolt , 121 Ohio St.3d 269, 2009-Ohio-1061.]

I N RE S EAVOLT . [Cite as In re Seavolt , 121 Ohio St.3d 269, 2009-Ohio-1061.] Judgment of the court of appeals affirmed. (No. 2007-1258

— Submitted January 21, 2009

— Decided March 17, 2009.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Morrow County, Nos. 2006-CA-0010 and 2006-CA-0011, 2007-Ohio-2812.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. D.H. , 120 Ohio St.3d 540, 2009-Ohio-9, 901 N.E.2d 209. M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defe nder, and Molly J. Bruns, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant, Tracy Seavolt.

______________________
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT** **TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350)**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Donn R.
      Mitchell, II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350),
      that:




(1)  The
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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









/s/
      Donn R. Mitchell, II


Donn R. Mitchell, II


Chief Financial Officer


July
      7,
      2006
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of TheRetirementSolution.com,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
      Kosoff, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, do 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) the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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


July 2, 2007
              
              /s/
                  William KosoffWilliam
                  Kosoff
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 5:55 PM

To: Wayland, Robertj

Subject: RE: DOE Meeting?

Hi Bob,

Here are times that work for DOE and us –meeti ngs on Thursday or Friday of next week is better for DOE (rather than Wednesday), but we may want to schedule a call on Wednesday if that’s what works best and meet in person the next time. Whatever we decide to do in person, I can find a

room here.

Heat Rates, NG/re-dispatch (0.75-1 hr each, either together or separate) Nuclear (0.5-0.75 hrs) Wednesday, 5/7: 1-2 Thursday, 5/8: 5-6:30 Friday, 5/9: 9:30-11, 2-3, 4-6

RE (1 hr) and EE (1 hr) Monday, 5/11, 10-11, noon-1, 4:30-5:30 Wednesday, 5/14, 4-5

Regards, Cortney

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:09 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Subject: DOE Meeting?

Importance: High

Cortney –

Do you have any suggested dates/times yet for next week’s face-to-face with DOE? I’ve gotten permission from Peter for 2-3 of us to attend in person, so I’ll need to have the admin folks make travel arrangements/TAs tomorrow or Monday. Just let me know what the possibilities are, and we’ll go from there.

thanx!

bobRobert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division

Mail Code D243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Office: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt

*************************************
Exhibit 12   AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    Three Months Ended March 31,(dollars in thousands)20082007Earnings:
(Loss) income before credit for income taxes$ (51,127)$  10,354Interest expense316,979310,437Implicit interest in rents5,6845,492Total earnings$271,536$326,283Fixed charges:
Interest expense$316,979$310,437Implicit interest in rents5,6845,492Total fixed charges$322,663$315,929Ratio of earnings to fixed charges0.841.03    42
Exhibit 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Reinhold Industries, Inc. of our report dated February 19, 2002 (except for
Note 4, as to which the date is March 27, 2002), included in the 2001 Annual
Report to Shareholders of Reinhold Industries, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8) pertaining to the Reinhold Industries, Inc. Stock Option Plan of our
reports dated February 19, 2002 (except for Note 4, as to which the date is
March 27, 2002) with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Reinhold Industries, Inc. incorporated by reference and included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001,
respectively.





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Orange County, California
March 28, 2002
#### Ronald FLOURNOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. CREAMER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-15101.

D.C. No. CV-01-01268-LKK(DAD).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument; therefore Flournoy's request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM *

Ronald Flournoy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing, for failure to state a claim, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 450 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Flournoy’s retaliation claim because Flour-noy failed to allege that his move to another cell unit did not advance a legitimate penological goal. *See Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

The district court properly dismissed Flournoy’s remaining claims because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Booth v. Churner,*532 U.S. 731, 734, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). Flournoy’s contention that the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Booth*should not be applied retroactively lacks merit. *See Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation,*509 U.S. 86, 96, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993).

Flournoy’s “Request for an Emergency Appeal” is denied.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIRAMAR, Petitioner, v. Gerald A. LEWIS, as Comptroller and as Head of the Department of Banking and Finance of the State of Florida, and Barnett Bank of Hollywood in Miramar, Florida, Respondents.

No. II-479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 8, 1978.

Joseph C. Jacobs and Robert J. Angerer of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Franklyn John Wollett, Tallahassee, and Sam Cockrel, Jacksonville, for respondents.

ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY

SMITH, Judge.

First National Bank of Miramar, having petitioned for review of a Department of Banking and Finance order authorizing a Miramar branch of The Barnett Bank of Hollywood, now moves that we stay the Department’s order pending our review of the merits. Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976).

Petitioner, a competitor bank, urges that the public and the depositors of the branch will suffer irreparable injury should the branch open and later be forced to close as a result of an adverse decision in this court. Petitioner first presented its motion to stay to the Department. That was entirely appropriate; prior application to the affected agency is an essential predicate for our consideration of stay petitions in cases arising under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Department denied a stay for several reasons, among them that any necessary closure of the branch would not have the disastrous effect on the banking climate which petitioner describes; and that the applicant bank should be privileged to make its own decision whether to open the branch without further delay, with knowledge that the Department’s favorable order is subject to review on the merits by this court.

We conceive that the Department has spoken clearly and persuasively concerning matters within its area of expertise, and that we should accord great weight to the Department’s decision. Petitioner does not claim that the Department took action without complying with essential Chapter *870120 procedures, as by denying an essential hearing; the questions raised by the petition for review relate solely to the merits of the branch bank application. In these circumstances, and in the light of the Department’s cogent advice to the applicant bank concerning the risks involved, petitioner’s motion to stay is

DENIED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
#### Omar Bosco SOTO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-581.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 10, 1970.

Snowden & Eefting and Louis Stoskopf, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

*456Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, the defendant below, appeals from a conviction of the crime of robbery (hold up of a supermarket). On considering the appellant’s contentions, in the light of the record and briefs, we find no error, and affirm. The evidence as to identification was sufficient. Positive identification testimony was given at trial by several witnesses. In the circumstances disclosed the in-court identification testimony was not tainted by the witnesses’ prior out of court identification of the defendant. See Anderson v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So.2d 618; Allen v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 444.

Affirmed.
From: Whitefield, James W. (Sapa)
To: Bahner, Mark A. Subject: RE: Secondary aluminum smelting operations Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:40:18 PM

Your information is correct.

James Whitefield General Manager

Sapa Fabricated Products 1617 North Washington, Magnolia AR 71753 Phone 870.235.2668 Cell 870.904.6607 Fax 870-235-2601 Email: james.whitefield@sapagroup.com www.sapagroup.com

From: Bahner, Mark A. [mailto:bahner@rti.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:19 PM To: Whitefield, James W. (Sapa) Subject: Secondary aluminum smelting operations

Mr. James Whitefield Sapa Extrusions, Inc. (formerly Alcoa Extruded Construction Products) 1617 North Washington St

. Magnolia

, AR 71753 Phone: (870) 234-4260

Dear Mr. Whitefield:

This email is just to confirm that we spoke on the telephone today. You informed me that the secondary aluminum smelting operations that were performed at your facility were closed in 2001. Therefore, your company no longer performs secondary aluminum smelting at your facility in Magnolia, AR.

Could you please send me a return email confirming this information is correct?

Thank you,

Mark Bahner Research Environmental Engineer

Mark A. Bahner RTI, International P.O. Box 12194

, 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park

, NC 27709-2194

Phone: (919) 541-6016 Fax: (919) 541-7155Email: bahner@rti.org
Internet: http://www.rti.org
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 056

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<PAGE> 19

                                                                  Exhibit 12


            AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                 (Unaudited)




                                                         Nine Months Ended
                                                           September 30,
                                                        2000          1999
                                                      (dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $303,221      $266,428
  Interest expense                                     502,586       412,834
  Implicit interest in rents                            12,267        11,604

Total earnings                                        $818,074      $690,866


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $502,586      $412,834
  Implicit interest in rents                            12,267        11,604

Total fixed charges                                   $514,853      $424,438


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        1.59          1.63
#### A. G. ALIZZI and June McNeely Alizzi v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU and Kenneth Dubose.

No. 61187.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Kenneth Dubose applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Sabine. 351 So.2d 258.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J, would grant the writ.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/14

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 14 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSE TORRES,

Appellant,

v.

BANK OF NEW YORK As Trustee For THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS

CWABS, INC. ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-26,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1625

[August 22, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. 07-026252 CACE 

(14).

Kendrick Almaguer and Peter Ticktin of The Ticktin Law Group, 

P.L.L.C., Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

J. Kirby McDonough of Quarles & Brady, LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jose Torres (“the homeowner”) appeals an order denying his motion 

for attorneys’ fees and costs rendered in favor of the Bank of New York as 

Trustee (“the bank”) following an involuntary dismissal of the bank’s 

foreclosure action. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

First, we affirm the denial of attorneys’ fees. Because the homeowner 

prevailed on an argument that the bank failed to prove entitlement to 

enforce the note and mortgage, the homeowner cannot now seek to take 

advantage of the fee provisions of the note and mortgage. See Sabido v. 

Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 238 So. 3d 867, 868-69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); 

Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Glass, 219 So. 3d 896, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017),

review granted, No. SC17-1387, 2018 WL 2069328 (Fla. Feb. 13, 2018).

However, we reverse the denial of costs. Florida Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.420 provides in relevant part, “Costs in any action dismissed 

under this rule shall be assessed and judgment for costs entered in that 

action, once the action is concluded as to the party seeking taxation of 
2

costs.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(d); see also § 57.041(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) 

(“The party recovering judgment shall recover all his or her legal costs 

and charges which shall be included in the judgment . . . .”). Because 

the case was involuntarily dismissed, the homeowner is entitled to 

taxable costs.

In this situation, any costs awardable to the homeowner flow from 

rule 1.420 and not from the subject mortgage and/or note.

We therefore remand for the trial court to consider what costs should 

be awarded as authorized by the Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of 

Costs in Civil Actions.1

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

GERBER, C.J., GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

 

1 Fla. R. Civ. P. Taxation of Costs.