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

No. 69-336.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 12, 1969.

*877Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Myron M. Gold, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, along with another, was charged with buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property, and petit larceny. Following a non-jury trial, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly, and this appeal has been duly prosecuted.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, contending that the search which revealed the stolen property was incident to an illegal arrest, because the arrest was for the alleged crime of vagrancy, citing Lazarus v. Faircloth, D.C., S.D.Fla.1969, 301 F.Supp. 266, which held the vagrancy statute to be unconstitutional and, further, there was no probable cause that the appellant and his co-defendant were guilty of vagrancy. We reject this contention.

First, the decision in Lazarus v. Faircloth, supra, had not been rendered at the time of the arrest and, second, it is apparent from the record that the appellant and his co-defendant were engaged in activities which warranted the law enforcement officers having probable cause to believe that they were guilty of the crime of vagrancy. Hanks v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 49.

Appellant also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the charge of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property, to wit: certain credit cards. We also reject this contention. The record contains substantial competent evidence that the appellant had unexplained possession or control of recently stolen credit cards and this, together with the other circumstances revealed in the record, is sufficient to sustain his conviction. See: Ard v. State, Fla.1959, 108 So.2d 38.

This court is without jurisdiction to review the misdemeanor conviction and, upon termination of this matter in this court, same will be referred to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, as the proper forum to review this matter. Christian v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 561; Spina v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 808; Rule 2.1(a) (5) (d), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the felony conviction and sentence here under review, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Review of the misdemeanor conviction is transferred to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida.

Affirmed in part, with directions.
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 Annual Report of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony M. Marlon, M.D., 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: 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6828

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CYNTHIA GILMORE, a/k/a Lady Bynt, a/k/a Cynthia Young , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. ( 3:17

- cr - 00134

- FDW

- DSC

- 19 ; 3:21

- cv 00530

- FDW )

Submitted : November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Cynthia Gilmore , Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNE Y , Charlotte , North Carolina , for Appelle e
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6828 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Cynthia Gilmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order d enying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

. The United States has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or o rder, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered its order on April 1, 2022

. Gilmore filed the notice of appeal on June 28, 2022

. * Because Gilmore failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension o r reopening of the appeal period, we grant the United States’ motion to dismiss the appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. We deny Gilmore’s motion to appoint counsel. 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

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Gilmore could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6828 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  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 annual report of Medizone International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edwin G. Marshall, Chairman and 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 and belief:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Edwin G. Marshall Edwin G. Marshall, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: March 20, 2009  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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. 02-40513

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REYNALDO CAMACHO-LORENZO,

also known as Antonio Ramos,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CR-574-1

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

December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Camacho-Lorenzo appeals his guilty plea conviction

and sentence for being found in the United States after

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Camacho-Lorenzo

argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are

unconstitutional on their face and as applied in his case. He

contends that the unconstitutional portions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326

should be severed from the statute. He asks us to vacate his
No. 02-40513

-2-

conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to reflect a

conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand his case for

resentencing under that provision. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Camacho-Lorenzo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been called

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90

(2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Id. at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. The Government asks that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Dr. Joseph D. DUVIGNEAUD v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 9383.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 14, 1978.

Joseph W. Nelkin, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Craig R. Nelson, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and STOULIG, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Mover to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal has the original record, but the duplicate contains as item 32 another motion by mover, to dismiss “plaintiff’s answer to appeal filed herein on or about October 10,1977.” Mover has, after filing this motion, obtained an extension of time for filing its brief and thus will continue to hold the original record. Rather than further await return of that record and further delay in ruling on the present motion, we deny the motion as moot on the assumption that mover is correct in his recital that plaintiff did answer the appeal. See C.C.P. 2133. If mover was mistaken and there is no answer to its appeal, mover may reurge its motion to dismiss (raising the obvious question whether plaintiff’s motion for appeal could be considered an answer to mover’s appeal) upon return of the original record.
EX-4.94




 Exhibit 4.94 

Statement of Undertaking 

No.: 2020 Asian Games Village Credit Granting 1154 

To: Beijing Branch of China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. 

Whereas, Beijing AmazGame Age Internet Technology Co., Ltd. has applied for external guarantee business in your bank and signed the Credit
Agreement with No. [2020 Asian Games Village Credit Granting 1154] (hereinafter referred to as “Credit Agreement”) and the Guarantee Cooperation Agreement with No. [2020 Asian Games Village External Guarantee
Cooperation Agreement No. 016, and 2020 Asian Games Village External Guarantee Cooperation Agreement No.017] (hereinafter referred to as “Cooperation Agreement”) with your bank. In order to guarantee the realization of your
bank’s creditor’s rights under the Credit Agreement and the Cooperation Agreement, Sohu.com Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “we” or “us”) hereby irrevocably undertakes and confirms the following matters:

 Until all debts under the Credit Agreement and the Cooperation Agreement have been paid off, we shall not pledge the equity
of Changyou.com HK Limited and Changyou.com Limited to any third party or set burden of rights in any other form without the written consent of your bank. 











 The Statement of Undertaking shall take immediate effect and become legally binding
upon us after being signed by our authorized representative and sealed with official seal, which shall remain in force until all debts under the Credit Agreement and the Cooperation Agreement are paid off. The Statement of
Undertaking cannot be unilaterally revoked, withdrawn or changed. We have obtained and performed all necessary internal and external approval, authorization or other relevant procedures required for signing and performance of the Statement of
Undertaking. We shall not defend against your bank on grounds including but not limited to failing to pass the internal examination and approval procedure, failing to meet other conditions stipulated in other contracts, failing to comply with
the laws, regulations and regulatory provisions, etc. If we violate any contents hereof to cause losses to your bank, your bank shall have the right to request us to compensate for all losses thus incurred. 

Sohu.com Ltd 
 Authorized signatory:
/s/Joanna Lv 
 Date: December 10, 2020
**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 Xcorporeal, Inc. (“Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terren S. Peizer, Executive
      Chairman, and I, Robert Weinstein, 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 our
      knowledge:





(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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents
      in
      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
      the
      Company.


By:
            /s/ TERREN
              S.
              PEIZERTerren
              S. PeizerExecutive
              Chairman By:
            /s/ ROBERT
              WEINSTEINRobert
              WeinsteinChief
              Financial Officer




Date:
      March 24, 2008





This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
      by
      such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Xcorporeal, Inc. and will be retained
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### Alex WEEKFALL v. C. F. ROSS & SONS.

No. 28144.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion.
Exhibit 32.1 Principal Executive and
Financial Officer - Section 906 Certification

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  and  accompanies  the annual report on Form
10-KSB  (the "Form  10-KSB")  for the year ended  December  31,  2007 of Taitron
Components Incorporated (the "Issuer").

I, Stewart Wang, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

      (i)   the Form 10-KSB  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
            13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and:

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects,  the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Issuer.


Dated  March 31, 2008                       By: /s/ Stewart Wang
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Stewart Wang
                                                Principal Executive Officer &
                                                Principal Financial Officer
* 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. 08-10155

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BALTAZAR DE LOS SANTOS-RAMIREZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-73-ALL

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Baltazar De Los

Santos-Ramirez (De Los Santos) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). De Los

Santos has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and

counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### Julius Blum, Inc., Appellant, v Allied Hardware, Inc., Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 594]

In an action to recover the purchase price of goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated March 12, 1996, as granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue and to compel discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue and to compel discovery and inspection is denied.

The defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue and to compel discovery and inspection was overbroad. The defendant sought the production of all documents pertaining to the plaintiff’s distributors and the sale of its products in New York City since September 2, 1991, and thus failed to specify the documents sought with "reasonable particularity” (CPLR 3120 [a] [2]; *see, Fascaldi v Fascaldi,*209 AD2d 578, 579; *American Reliance Ins. Co. v National Gen. Ins. Co.,*174 AD2d 591). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Lori A. Jones, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Analytical Surveys, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



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



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and the registrants have:



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 quarterly report is being
prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this annual 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



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



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.



Date: August 12,
2004

|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                 
|/s/ Lori A. Jones
|                  |  | Lori A. Jones Chief Financial Officer