alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 23

- 2792 LT Case No. 2017

- 302691

- CFDB

_____________________________ R ICARDO D AVON W ATSON , Appellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

. Leah R. Case , Judge.
Ricardo Davon Watson , Live Oak , pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General , Tallahassee , and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , for Appellee.

April 9, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

.

M AKAR , H ARRIS , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur
.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,019-01

IN RE SAVION DONTE SWANSON, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1367428-A IN THE 185th DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant

to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, Relator contends that he filed an application for a writ

of habeas corpus in the 185th District Court of Harris County, the District Court entered a timely

order designating issues on October 26, 2015, more than 180 days have passed since the date the

State received the application, and the application has not been timely forwarded to this Court as

mandated by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73.4(b)(5). 

Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris County, is ordered to file a response, which may be

made by submitting the record on such habeas corpus application, submitting proof of the date of

receipt by the State showing 180 days has not yet elapsed, or stating that Relator has not filed an
2

application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. This application for leave to file a writ of

mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such

response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: May 18, 2016

Do not publish
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ James D. PurvisJames D. PurvisVice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32(c)**

 

**The Dayton Powerand Light Company**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned officersof The Dayton Power and Light Company (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009, which this certificate accompanies,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Issuers as of the dates and for the periods expressedtherein.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adoptingthe signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thisstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hasbeen provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuers and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Signed:                                |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   |
|                                   |   |
| /s/ Paul M. Barbas                     |   |
| Paul M. Barbas                         |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|                                   |   |
| Date: July 29,  2009              |   |

 

The foregoing certificateis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

1

----
#### In re APPORTIONMENT LAW Appearing as SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER 1305, 1972 REGULAR SESSION; Constitutionality Vel Non of. Petition of Edward TOHARI.

No. 42253-2.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 6, 1973.

*15William H. Shields, of Pavese, Shields, Garner, Haverfield & Klutz, Fort Myers, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jerry E. Oxner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In original proceeding, we have the petition for supplementary relief of Edward Tohari seeking review of the Apportionment Law, Senate Joint Resolution 1305, as it affects the voters of Lee County. We have already determined that the Apportionment Law is valid on its face (In Re Apportionment Law, Senate Joint Resolution 1305, 263 So.2d 797 (Fla.1972), and retain jurisdiction to hear this petition pursuant to Fla.Const., art. III, § 16(c), F.S.A., and Fla.Stat. § 86.061, F.S.A.

Tohari challenges the validity of Districts 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Senate of the State of Florida as established by the Apportionment Law, on the basis that the practical effect of Apportionment Law in establishing these Districts is to deprive the citizens of Lee County of meaningful Senatorial representation.

In support of his contention, Tohari points out only that no candidate from Lee County entered any of the primary elections for the seats in the Senate represented by the challenged Districts. In upholding the Apportionment Law, we said that the scheme, in a particular case, might operate to undermine the voting strength of a racial or political group. We added,

“When this is demonstrated, we will consider whether the apportionment plan still passes constitutional muster.” In Re Apportionment Law, Senate Joint Resolution No. 1305, 263 So.2d 797, p. 808.

The allegation that Lee County is unrepresented in the Florida Senate because no candidate from Lee County entered the race is totally insufficient to demonstrate an unconstitutional result in the application of the Apportionment Law.

Accordingly, the petition for supplemental relief is denied.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Kirk A. Waldron, Interim President of SMTEKInternational, Inc., certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of SMTEK International, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4.               I am responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b.              Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               I have disclosed,based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

1

----

 

b.              Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 8, 2004 |
|------------------------|
|                   |   |
| By:                    | /s/ Kirk A Waldron |   |
|                   | Kirk A. Waldron |
|                   | Interim President |
|                   | (principal executive officer) |
|                   | SMTEK International, Inc. |

 

2

----
#### Jack MADISON and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. John W. CARSON, Appellee.

No. 73-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 25, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7098 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 11, 2020 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To expand the boundary of Saguaro National Park, to authorize a study of additional land for potential inclusion 

in the park, 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 7098 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saguaro National Park 

3 Boundary Expansion and Study Act of 2020’’. 

4 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY OF SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK. 

5 Section 4 of the Saguaro National Park Establish6 ment Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–364; 108 Stat. 3467) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)— 

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The bound10 aries of the park’’; and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(2)(A) The boundaries of the park are further 

13 modified to include approximately 1,232 acres, as 

14 generally depicted on the map titled ‘Saguaro Na15 tional Parkl Proposed Boundary Adjustment’, 

16 numbered 151/80,045G, and dated October 2020. 

17 ‘‘(B) The map referred to in subparagraph (A) 

18 shall be on file and available for inspection in the 

19 appropriate offices of the National Park Service.’’; 

20 (2) by striking subsection (b)(2) and inserting 

21 the following new paragraphs: 

22 ‘‘(2) The Secretary may, with the consent of 

23 the State of Arizona and in accordance with Federal 

24 and State law, acquire land or interests therein 

25 owned by the State of Arizona within the boundary 

26 of the park. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 7098 RFS

1 ‘‘(3) If the Secretary is unable to acquire the 

2 State land under paragraph (2), the Secretary may 

3 enter into an agreement with the State that would 

4 allow the National Park Service to manage State 

5 land within the boundary of the park.’’; and 

6 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub7 section: 

8 ‘‘(d) BOUNDARY STUDY.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall con10 duct a study to identify any lands outside the bound11 aries of the park that may be appropriate for inclu12 sion in the park. 

13 ‘‘(2) CRITERIA.—The study shall be conducted 

14 in accordance with National Park Service criteria for 

15 boundary adjustment studies. 

16 ‘‘(3) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the 

17 date funds are made available for the study under 

18 this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the 

19 Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 

20 Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 

21 Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 7098 RFS

1 findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 

2 study.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 10, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7030 

To provide emergency assistance to covered producers for market-ready swine 

losses due to the COVID–19 pandemic, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2020 

Mr. HAGEDORN (for himself and Mr. EMMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide emergency assistance to covered producers for 

market-ready swine losses due to the COVID–19 pandemic, 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. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR MARKET-READY 

4 SWINE LOSSES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Of the funds of the Commodity 

6 Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall use 

7 $1,200,000,000 to provide emergency relief to covered 

8 producers to aid in the reduction of intentional depopula9 tion losses of swine due to the closure or the reduction 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7030 IH

1 in processing capacity of a processing plant related to the 

2 COVID–19 pandemic. 

3 (b) VALUATION.—In determining the amount of 

4 losses for purposes of the payment rates under subsection 

5 (a), the Secretary shall use the average sales price, as de6 termined by the Secretary in collaboration with the Chief 

7 Economist of the Department of Agriculture and the Ad8 ministrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, for 

9 market-ready swine on April 19, 2020. In no case shall 

10 the payment made under subsection (a) with respect to 

11 the losses of a covered producer exceed the actual market 

12 value of market-ready livestock on the day on which the 

13 covered producer began to suffer such losses. 

14 (c) ELIGIBLE LOSSES.—A covered producer shall be 

15 eligible for losses described in subsection (a) incurred on 

16 or after April 19, 2020. 

17 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

18 (1) COVERED PRODUCER.—The term ‘‘covered 

19 producer’’ means a person or legal entity that as20 sumes the production and market risks associated 

21 with the agricultural production of swine (as such 

22 terms are defined in section 2(a) of the Packers and 

23 Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 183(a))). 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7030 IH

1 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GREGORY WHISONANT, a/k/a Geez , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cr - 00191

- ELH

- 1 ; 1:19

- cv - 02002

- ELH )

Submitted : October 22, 2020 Decided: October 27, 2020

Before WYNN, FLOYD , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Gregory Whisonant , Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Keith Moore, Assistant U nited States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpubl ished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Whisonant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a cert ificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 5 65 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whisonant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Whisonant’s motion for a certificate of appea lability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DATAMETRICS
CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 26, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-26-1997
<CASH>                                             448
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                      6,829
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,137
<PP&E>                                           6,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,979
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,874
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,841
<SALES>                                          3,957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,957
<CGS>                                            2,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     36
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 34
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        34
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $0.0
        

</TABLE>
#### Elmore DOBSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1024.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 1, 1971.

Paul Pollack and Alvin E. Entin, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Jones v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 517 (3rd District, released May 25, 1971) and Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 427.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




18
U.S.C. §1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the annual report of World Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on Form
20-F/A Amendment No. 2 for the year ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary B.
Van Norman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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; and




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




Date: May
15, 2009




/s/
      Gary B. Van NormanName:
      Gary B. Van NormanTitle:
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer