alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID Nos. 220700 6408 ) 22070064 75 CALVIN J. SAMUEL , ) 2207006 542 ) Defendant. )

ORDER
1. On this 8 th day of November, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Calvin J. Samuel ’s (“Defendant”) 1 pro se Motion for Sentence Modification (the “Motion”) made pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) , 2 the sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
2. On June 23, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to four counts of Robbery in the Second Degree (Class E Violent Felony). On June 29, 2023, for each count, the Superior Court for New Castle County , Delaware, sentenced Defendant to a separate period of five years o f Level V supervision, suspended after one year without early release for eighteen months of Level III supervision. 3

1 Defendant ’s name is listed elsewhere in the record as Calvin Samuels and Samuel Calvin

. 2 D.I.s 2207006408

- 9, 2207006475

- 10, 2207006542

- 8. Defendant does not specifically cite to Rule 35(b) in the Motion, but he asks this Court to modify the terms of his sentence. 3 D.I.s 2207006408

- 7

- 8, 2207006475

- 8

- 9, 2207006542

- 6

- 7. The probationary periods of this sentence run concurrently with any probation Defendant was already serving at the time of sentencing.2

3. On August 5, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion , in which he asks this Court to amend its June 29, 2023 sentencing order to direct the Department of Correction to calculate his sentence for the instant Robbery charges concurrently with a sentence he says was imposed on him by the Delaware Superior Court for Kent County. 4
4. Rule 35(b) authorizes this Court to “reduce the . . . conditions of partial confinement or probation, at any time. ” Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3901 (d) , this Court has discretion to “direct whether the sentence of confinement of any criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently or consecutively with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant.”
5. However , this Court lacks the information needed to justify amending the sentence order. Though Defendant states that his criminal conduct amount ed to a “crime spree” across “multiple banks in Delaware’s New Castle and Kent countys [sic],” 5 the grand jury charges to which Defendant pled guilty on June 23, 2023, solely pertain to conduct that occurred in “the County of New Castle, State of Delaware,” on June 17 and 27, 2022, and July 12, 2022. 6 T he information currently

4 D.I.s 22070064 08

- 9, 2207006475

- 10, 2207006542

- 8. Defendant attempts to corroborat e the existence of these sentences by listing two case identification numbers: 220700795 2 and 2207010934. Id. 5 Id. 6 D.I.s 2207006408

- 3, 2207006475

- 3, 2207006542

- 3.3

available presents no justification for amending the sentence order. Defendant’s sentence is proper for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. Hence, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED

. IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge
Original to Prothonotary

cc: Calvin J. Samuel (SBI # 00983771 )
**EXHIBIT 32.2**The following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Merchants andManufacturers Bancorporation, Inc. on the basis of such officer’s knowledge and belief for the solepurpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT****CERTIFICATION**I, Frederick R. Klug, Chief Financial Officer of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc.,certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.(1) The Annual Report of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc. for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, (14 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc.                           /s/ Frederick R. Klug   Name:  Frederick R. Klug   Title: Chief Financial Officer  Date: March 15, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000754128
<NAME> BARRISTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,084
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,260
<PP&E>                                           4,089
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,673
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,989
<BONDS>                                          1,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,972
<OTHER-SE>                                          21
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,993
<SALES>                                          1,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,065
<CGS>                                              392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     23
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 23
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        23
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A.
Farber, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Mark A. Farber
--------------------------------------------
Mark A. Farber
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2002
<Page>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2



                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       of
                            Periodic Financial Report
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
                                  Section 1350



I, Gilles Therrien, Vice-President, Finance and Administration, and Chief
Financial Officer of Sand Technology Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2006 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sand
Technology Inc.


Date:  March 13, 2007.



                                /s/  Gilles Therrien
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                     Vice-President, Finance and Administration
                                     and Chief Financial Officer



This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other
purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
#### Ralph H. BEARDEN, Jr., Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Florida, Respondent.

No. 42223.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 258 So.2d 344.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND> 
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM, 
BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10KSB, FOR 
DECEMBER 31, 1996. 
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996 
<CASH>                                       1,143,182 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,595 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,284 
<INVENTORY>                                    401,305 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,892,302 
<PP&E>                                         326,594 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 185,384 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,042,709 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,775 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                         4,954 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,006,980 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,042,709 
<SALES>                                      1,190,304 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,337,194 
<CGS>                                          490,851 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  597,206 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               193,577 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                234,456 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    75,721 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            158,735 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   158,735 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03 
         

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Material Sciences Corporation (No.’s 33-00067, 33-40610, 33-41310,33-57648, 33-81064, 333-15679, 333-15677, 333-33885, 333-33897 and 333-88387) of our reports dated July 7, 2005, January 6, 2006 as to the effects of the restatement discussed in Note 18 relating to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Material Sciences Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement described in Note 18), and July 7,2005, January 6, 2006 as to the effects of the material weakness relating to income tax accounting described in the fifth paragraph of Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting (as revised), relating tomanagement’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which audit report expresses an adverse opinion on the operating effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of February 28, 2005based on criteria established in Financial Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Material Sciences Corporation for theyear ended February 28, 2005. 

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Chicago, Illinois 

January 6, 2006
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
SB-2 No.  33-64091)  pertaining to the  registration of 199,318 shares of common
stock of Zing  Technologies,  Inc. of our report dated  September 17, 1996, with
respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements of Zing  Technologies,  Inc.
included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended June 30, 1996.

                                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

White Plains, New York
October 3, 1996


<PAGE>
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1240

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on lasamid.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. CHAFEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on lasamid.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. LASAMID.

4 Heading 9902.29.86 of subchapter II of chapter 99

5 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

6 is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/

7 31/94’’.

8 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

10 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from

11 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

12 the date of the enactment of this Act.
2

•S 1240 IS

1 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

2 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

3 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of4 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in sub6 heading 9902.29.86 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

7 the United States that was made—

8 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

9 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

10 date of the enactment of this Act,

11 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

12 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

13 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00791-CR

IN RE David CEPEDA JONES

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 17, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 29, 2010, relator David Cepeda Jones filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions. However, counsel has 

been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which 

he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See 

Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 

481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or 

petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by 

counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-12902, styled State of Texas v. David Cepeda Jones, pending in 

the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding.
04-10-00791-CR

-2-

discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding 

pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### Oliver L. HARNESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-541.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 16, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2023216EN.01004002.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. Rochem Technical Services)

(Case T-547/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark R.T.S. Rochem Technical Services - Earlier national figurative mark ROCHEM MARINE - Relative ground for invalidity - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 216/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 June 2021 (Case R 1545/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rochem Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
#### Willie SAMPSON, Appellant, v. Mathew James McKAY, Appellee.

No. 73-338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 27, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Darrin Henry, Petitioner, v Philip Coombe, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[656 NYS2d 948]

Peters, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by *849order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, refused to comply with a correction officer’s order to leave his cell, during an inmate work stoppage. Following a disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of refusing a direct order, engaging in a demonstration and violating a movement regulation.* Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this determination which was transferred to this Court for review.

Based upon our review of the record, we find that the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner admitted at the disciplinary hearing that he refused a correction officer’s order to leave his cell while there was an inmate work stoppage in progress. Although he stated that he did so out of fear for his safety, it was for the Hearing Officer to evaluate the credibility of this testimony *(see, Matter of Young v Coombe,*227 AD2d 799; *Matter of Islar v Coombe,*226 AD2d 851). Given petitioner’s testimony and the statements contained in the misbehavior report which was prepared by a correction officer who witnessed the incident, we find no reason to disturb the administrative determination of guilt. Likewise, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was denied effective employee assistance. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the documents which petitioner claims he requested, i.e., unusual incident reports and confidential records, even existed. Finally, we reject petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased inasmuch as our review of the hearing transcript discloses that he conducted the hearing in a fair and impartial manner *(see, Matter of Robles v Coombe,*234 AD2d 847).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 Petitioner pleaded guilty to refusing a direct order and was found not guilty of being out of place.
#### Leroy Raymond REDDICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-946.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### George ANDRY v. CANADA DRY CORPORATION, Division of Norton Simon, Inc., Lastarmco, Inc., and Glass Container Corporation.

No. 62016.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Canada Dry Corp. and Lastarmco, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of re*1168view, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 355 So.2d 639.

Denied.
# C_2021148EN.01001201.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/12

---

Action brought on 4 March 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-137/21)

(2021/C 148/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, J. Rodrigues, S. Alonso de León, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | establish that by not adopting the delegated act pursuant to Article 7(f) of Regulation 2018/1806 (1), the Commission infringed the Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish that by not adopting the delegated act pursuant to Article 7(f) of Regulation 2018/1806 (1), the Commission infringed the Treaty;

| — | order European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, namely the infringement of the Treaties.

According to the Parliament, the Commission was under the obligation to adopt a delegated act, pursuant to Article 7(f) of Regulation 2018/1806.1 By resolution of 22 October 2020, the Parliament called on the Commission to adopt the act in question. Since the Commission did not adopt the delegated act by 22 December 2020, the Parliament has decided to bring an action for failure to act under Article 265 TFEU.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2018, L 303, p. 39).

---