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

No. 77-1748.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 26, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and F. Linton Sloan, Jr., Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*1188RYDER, Judge.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence. We agree.

During the suppression hearing, the testimony disclosed that Police Sergeant Robert Foster was on patrol in an unmarked police unit during the early morning hours of March 1, 1977. As he drove past an apartment complex, he observed two men alight from a parked Volkswagen and walk to the apartment of one Samuel Anthony Mozola, Jr., who Foster described as a well-known drug dealer. Foster also noticed the men were watching him. After they entered the apartment he radioed for Officer Wak-owiak to come to the area as a backup. Wakowiak did so and parked in a street near the apartment complex.

Subsequently, the two men, who had earlier drawn Foster’s attention, left Mozola’s apartment, returned to their vehicle, and began to drive off. When their car came even with Wakowiak’s police cruiser, appellant, who was the driver, stopped and stared at Wakowiak for fifteen to thirty seconds. At this point, Wakowiak put on his overhead flashing light, left his patrol car, walked over to appellant and asked for his identification. After appellant produced his license, Officer Wakowiak noticed a plastic bag containing marijuana lying next to the driver’s seat. Officer Foster also noticed the marijuana as he attempted to ascertain appellant’s passenger’s identification. The officers arrested appellant for possession of marijuana to which charge he later pled nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

As we have noted many times before, an investigatory detention is valid only when a police officer had a reasonable or founded suspicion of the presence of criminal activity. *Foss v. State,*355 So.2d 225 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); *Lower v. State,*348 So.2d 410 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); *Lewis v. State,*337 So.2d 1031 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Clearly, then Officer Wakowiak’s detention of appellant was improper. While appellant’s stare was most certainly annoying to Wakowiak, neither it nor the fact that appellant had visited a person alleged to be a drug dealer could serve as the basis for a founded suspicion of criminal activity. *See Vollmer v. State,*337 So.2d 1024 (Fla.2d DCA 1974).

Since the detention initially was improper, the seizure of the marijuana was also illegal. *Lower v. State, supra.*Accordingly, we vacate the order withholding adjudication and placing appellant on probation and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
#### Robin Hood BELL, Petitioner, v. Malcolm BEARD, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-192.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 1974.

Habeas corpus denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7261 

TODD NEIL HOLTZMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; FRANK B. BISHOP; GARY

D. MAYNARD, Secretary; TICHNELL,

Classification Department; CROWE,

Classification Department; ATTORNEY GENERAL;

JEFFREY NINES; THOMAS K. WOLFE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(07-1473-WDQ)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd Neil Holtzman, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Todd Neil Holtzman appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holtzman v.

Shearin, No. 07-1473-WDQ (D. Md. Aug. 8, 2007). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the First Amended Annual Report of EntreMetrix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, George LeFevre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:  September 14, 2007/s/ George LeFevreBy:  George LeFevreIts:  Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EntreMetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntreMetrix Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Obbie Lee HOLLIMON and Cleveland Williams, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 22, 1970.

Rehearng Denied Oct. 12, 1970.

Jack H. Eakle and Edward C. Vining, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

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

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendants appeal from their criminal convictions and adjudications after a non-jury trial.

They charge the trial judge committed reversible error in trying four separate criminal cases against them. They reason that he erred in trying the four separate criminal cases in sequence since he had previously denied a motion of the state for consolidation. This was, in their opinion, de facto if not de jure consolidation.

This argument fails to consider that the trial judge set forth the procedure under which the four separate criminal cases against these defendants would be tried and their privately retained counsel made no objection. By implication, at least, the defendants agreed to the procedure followed in the trial of these cases and cannot *515complain on appeal of error made without objection on their part.

We have considered the other points raised by the defendant-appellants for reversal of their convictions and adjudications of guilt and find them to be insufficient to warrant reversal.

Affirmed.
#### Conrad Layton, Appellant, v Mark Krassner, Respondent.

[654 NYS2d 766]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeíf, J.), entered on or about November 3, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this legal malpractice action arising out of the parties’ disagreement as to trial strategy in the underlying action, there are no triable issues of fact *(see, Rodriguez v Fredericks,*213 AD2d 176, *lv denied*85 NY2d 812). Plaintiff has failed to establish, as a matter of law, counsel’s negligence, and has also failed to demonstrate that but for the nature of the representation, he would have prevailed in the underlying action *(Pacesetter Communications Corp. v Solin & Breidel,*150 AD2d 232). Counsel properly refused to pursue, and to retain a handwriting expert in support of, plaintiff’s patently meritless claim that his signature on a mortgage was a forgery.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.
**Exhibit      13.1**

----

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

The undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge: 

|  |  | 1.     | this annual report on Form 20-F of BT Group plc 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 this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BT Group plc. |
|--|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: May 17, 2006 | /s/ Bernardus Verwaayen |
|--------------------|-------------------------|
|               |                         |
|               | Name:         | Bernardus Verwaayen |
|               | Title:                  | Chief Executive |

 

| Date: May 17, 2006 | /s/ Hanif Lalani  |
|--------------------|-------------------|
|               |                   |
|               | Name:   | Hanif Lalani |
|               | Title:            | Group Finance Director |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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. 02-30408

_________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GENARO EDGARDO CORTES-URBINA, also known as Hernando Cortez, also known as Eddie Urbina-Cortez, also known as Geraldo Garcia, also known as Jose Jimenez
Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(01-CR-293-ALL)

_________________________________________________________________ December 11, 2002 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Genaro Edgardo Cortes-Urbina pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326,
after being deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. In challenging sentence enhancements he received, pursuant to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines, for several prior convictions,
Cortes-Urbina contends those convictions were improperly considered2

because they were not imposed within ten years of commencement of
the instant offense. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2) and (3).

We have read the briefs and the applicable law, have heard the
arguments of counsel, and have considered pertinent parts of the
record. Our court has held that a “found in” violation is a continuing offense that co mmences when an illegal alien surreptitiously reenters the United States. U nited States v.
Santana-Castellano , 74 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 1996). As such, CortesUrbina’s prior convictions wer e within ten years of the

commencement of the instant offense.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in real estate, and
real estate joint ventures.  In accordance with industry practice,
its balance sheet is unclassified.  For full information, refer to
the accompanying audited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         624,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,797,232<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,421,332<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,797,232<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,214,571<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,104,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             20,110,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         20,110,183
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                20,110,183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   113.03<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net investments
in real estate of $10,345,864, investment in joint venture of $2,373,176,
net deferred expenses of $223,878 and other assets of $63,676.
<F2>Other Stockholders' Equity represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $321,506
and other liabilities of $54,394.
<F4>Total revenue includes rent of $2,722,329, gains on sales of real
estate of $19,097,127, equity in earnings of joint venture of $226,269,
and interest and other revenues of $168,846.
<F5>Represents net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DAY
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,499
<INVENTORY>                                     35,626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,191
<PP&E>                                          92,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,435
<BONDS>                                        269,991
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           44,516
<PREFERRED>                                     43,186
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (92,749)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,244
<SALES>                                        140,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,720
<CGS>                                           84,996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,067
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,287
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,287
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2022276EN.01002502.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/25

---

Order of the General Court of 8 April 2022 — EurO3zon v ECHA

(Case T-199/21) (1)

(2022/C 276/36)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
#### Nelson C. WHITMER, Appellant, v. HORNE-WILSON, INC., a Georgia corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-912.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 3, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Johnson, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David E. JohnsonName:

David E. JohnsonTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

May 10, 2006


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 required by Section 906, has been provided to The First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.1



I, Michel de Rosen, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the registrant, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViroPharma
Incorporated.



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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
report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial
statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 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 subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) 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



c) 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 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 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.



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michel de Rosen                                                      
|Michel de Rosen                                                          
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Directors



November 8, 2005
No. 10675.

#### The Incorporated Village of Ottawa *v.*Salsbury.

Decided January 26, 1909.

Error to ..Circuit Court of Putnam county.

*Messrs. Bailey & Leasure,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Watts & Moore*and *Messrs. Risser & Smith,*for defendant in *error.*

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
[No. 855-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

May 1, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. George P. Mann, *Appellant.*
-  Advisory Committees 
-  Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability 
-  Advisory Committee on Minority Health 
-  COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force 
-  National Clinical Care Commission 
-  National Vaccine Advisory Committee 
-  2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee 
-  Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria 
-  Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS 
-  President's Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition 
-  Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections 
-  Secretary’s Healthy People 2030 Advisory Committee  
-  Tick-Borne Disease Working Group 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Contact Us

## General Inquiries

Email us at longcovid@hhs.gov

## Media Inquiries

Send general or specific media questions to Ashmedia@hhs.gov or phone (202) 205-0143.

## Mailing Address

200 Independence Avenue, SW Room 716G Washington, DC 20201

Content last reviewed November 16, 2023