alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Uk' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

AF 06-0090

IN THE MATTER OFTHE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COMMISSION ON PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

# FILED JUN 30 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Coun ORDERstah

' of Montana

Pursuant to Section I ofthe Rules Establishing the Commission on Practice ofthe Supreme Court of the State of Montana (COP), an Order was issued May 21, 2020, requesting that the Honorable John W.Parker conduct an election for appointment to the COP among the resident members ofthe State Bar in COP Area D,and to certify to this Court the results ofthat election. The election was held, and the Judge Parker has certified the results to this Court. By Rule this Court is obligated to appoint from a list of the top three candidates who received votes in this region. The Court extends its gratitude to all attorneys who expressed an interest in serving on the Commission. Based on the election results, the Court hereby appoints the following member to the Commission on Practice ofthe Supreme Court ofthe State ofMontana: Area D: Jean Faure P.O.Box 2466 Great Falls,MT 59403 Effective the date ofthis Order, Ms.Faure is appointed to a four-year term to expire on June 20,2024. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy ofthis Order to the Secretary of State ofthe State ofMontana for filing, to the Honorable John W.Parker,to Jean Faure,to the State 06/30/2020

Case Number: AF 06-0090Bar of Montana, to each member of the Comrnission on Practice, and to Shelly Smith,

Office Administrator for the Commission on Practice. Dated this 3.5 —

day ofJune,2020. ChiefJustice


# S-- - 1 M 41/.,

2
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 18 -C R

______________________________ MARL A AMEL I A RODRI GUEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 35775-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issSee W ill iam so n v . S

tate , 175 S.W .3d 522, 523–24 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.); 1 De lac ru z v . S tate , 167 S.W .3d 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.)). 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Marla Amelia Rodrigue z has appea led from her open plea of guilty to the offe nse of bur g lary of a ha bitation. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 30.02(c) (2) ( Ver non 2003). She wa s sentence d by the tr ia l c ourt

to f ive y e ars ' c on fi ne me nt. On appe al, Rodrig uez contends her sentenc e is disproportionate to the c rime and violate s
s o ci et al n o rm s , thu s v i o l at i n g th e E i gh th Am en dm en t , ci t i n g Kennedy v. Louisiana , ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2 6 4 1 ( 2 0 0 8 )
. T o p r e s e r v e s u c hc o mp la int f

o r a p p e ll a te r e v ie w , Ro dr igu e z mu s t h ave prese nted to the trial cour t a ti mely reque st, objection, or motion that st ated the spe cific grounds for the desire d ru l i n g, o r t h e complaint must be appa rent fr om the context. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 33 .1 (a )( 1) ; Ha rri

so n v . S tate , 1 87 S.W. 3d

42 9, 43 3 (T ex . Crim . App . 2 00 5) ; W illiams v. Sta te , 191 S.W .3d 242, 262 (Tex
. Ap p . — Au s tin 2006, no pet.) (cla ims of crue l and unusual punishment must be presented in t i m ely manner ); Nic ho las v . S

tate , 5 6 S. W. 3 d

7 6 0 , 7 6 8 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2001, pet. re f' d) (f ailure to c omplain to trial court that sentenc es we re
crue l and unusual wa ived claim of e rror for appellate review)
. We have review ed the rec ord of the trial proce eding . No re levant re quest, objection, or moti o n wa s m ad e. And, while this Court has held that a motion for ne w trial is an appr op ri at e wa y t o prese rve this ty pe of c laim for re view, 1 Rod ri g ue z' mot ion fo r n e w tri a l di d n ot c on ta in a n a lle g a tio n th a t th e se nte nc e wa s d isp ro po rt ion a te to t he of fe ns e . Sh e ha s n ot p re se rv e d s uc h a n is su e fo r a

pp e a l.3

Th e re fo re , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

J o s hR
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: August 28, 2008 Date D ecide d: August 29, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of 3Pea International, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:

 

 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2012 (the "Report") of the Company complies in all material respects with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

*/s/ Mark Newcomer*

* *

Mark Newcomer,

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)

 

Date: August 13, 2012
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHANCE M. CLARK

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 3817

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 9, 2017

3.801 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Ci trus County

, Richard A. Howard , Judge.

Chance M. Clark, Live Oak, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

We affirm the summary denial of Appellant’s rule 3.800(a) /3.801 motion without

prejudice to Appellant seeking relief pursuant to a timely filed rule 3.850 motion.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J.

, and PALMER and EVANDER, , JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001006591
<NAME> CUSEEME NETWORKS, INC
<CURRENCY> USDOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      18,122,121
<SECURITIES>                                   795,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,748,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                   197,609
<INVENTORY>                                    362,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               875,341
<PP&E>                                       4,550,748
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,646,161)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,655,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,772,273
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       122,143
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,655,435
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,687,433
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,925,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,390,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,040
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,241,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,241,887)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
#### Robert Earl WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-562.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 22, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Allen Medof, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES A. CARROLL and SWANN, JJ-

*606PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction of the crime of conspiracy to commit robbery we have considered the contentions presented by appellant for reversal, in the light of the record, briefs and argument, and conclude that no reversible error has been shown. The record reveals that the trial was not without certain errors, but those were not, in the opinion of this court, harmful so as to require or justify reversal. See § 924.33 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1 Albano v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 342; Casso v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 252.

Affirmed.

1

. “No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.”
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3451

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a cost-of-living

adjustment for the thresholds used in determining the 85 percent inclusion of social security and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 4, 1993

Mr. KLECZKA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

a cost-of-living adjustment for the thresholds used in

determining the 85 percent inclusion of social security

and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Equity

5 Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 3451 IH

1 SEC. 2. COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN THRESHOLDS

2 USED IN DETERMINING THE 85 PERCENT IN3 CLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND TIER 1

4 RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

5 Subsection (c) of section 86 of the Internal Revenue

6 Code of 1986 (relating to social security and tier 1 rail7 road retirement benefits) is amended by adding at the end

8 thereof the following new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(3) COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT.—In the

10 case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar

11 year after 1994, each dollar amount contained in

12 paragraph (2) shall be increased by an amount equal

13 to—

14 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by

15 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter16 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar

17 year in which the taxable year begins, by sub18 stituting ‘calendar year 1993’ for ‘calendar year

19 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

20 If any increase determined under the preceding sen21 tence is not a multiple of $100, such increase shall

22 be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.’’

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6451

KENNETH D. SMITH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN SCOTT LEWIS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:17-cv-00408-JMC)

Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 24, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth D. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth D. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
#### Alden C. OLANDER, a contract purchaser and President of the Edgewater Condominium Association, Inc., for himself, and on behalf of all contract purchasers similarly situated, Appellants, v. HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF HOLLYWOOD, a corporation existing under the laws of the United States of America, K. S. L. Building Corporation, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 15, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; L. Clayton Nance, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CALEB HERRERA MUNOZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00084

- C R

Appeal from the

39th Judicial District Court

of Throckmorton County, Texas

(TC# 1302 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for obs ervance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023.

L ISA J. SOTO

, Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
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 of Savvy Business Support, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Virginia K. Sourlis, 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 16, 2011

By: /s/ VIRGINIA K. SOURLISName: Virginia K. SourlisTitle: President and Director(Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officerand Principal Accounting Officer)
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3330

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to civil rights related

crimes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 21, 1993

Mr. CONYERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

civil rights related crimes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Civil Rights Crimes

5 Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. REVISION OF SECTION 242.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 242 of title 18 of the

8 United States Code is amended to read as follows:

9 ‘‘§ 242. Interfering with civil rights

10 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—Whoever—
2

HR 3330 IH

1 ‘‘(1) under color of law, intentionally engages in

2 conduct and thereby recklessly deprives another per3 son of a right, privilege, or immunity secured or pro4 tected by the Constitution or laws of the United

5 States; or

6 ‘‘(2) intentionally injures, oppresses, threatens,

7 or intimidates another person because of such other

8 person’s having exercised a right, privilege, or immu9 nity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws

10 of the United States;

11 or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in sub12 section (b) of this section.

13 ‘‘(b) PUNISHMENT.—The punishment for an offense

14 under this section is—

15 ‘‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for

16 life or for any term of years, or both such fine and

17 imprisonment, if the defendant intends to produce

18 bodily injury and recklessly causes the death of any

19 person;

20 ‘‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for

21 not longer than 10 years, or both such fine and im22 prisonment, if the defendant intentionally causes

23 bodily injury to another person; and
3

HR 3330 IH

1 ‘‘(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for

2 not longer than 1 year, or both such fine and impris3 onment, in any other case.

4 ‘‘(c) QUESTION OF LAW.—In a prosecution under

5 this subsection, it is a question of law (as to which no

6 state of mind need be proved) whether what the victim

7 was deprived of or exercised was a right, privilege, or im8 munity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws

9 of the United States.’’.

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

11 at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18 of the United

12 States Code is amended so that the item relating to sec13 tion 242 reads as follows:

‘‘242. Injuries and deprivations of rights under color of law.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          73,447
<SECURITIES>                                     3,671
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,038
<INVENTORY>                                      4,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               230,855
<PP&E>                                         357,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                 201,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 541,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,605
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                     315,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   541,846
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               388,905
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  266,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,163
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,566
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,294
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88


</TABLE>
# CA2013160EN.01000501.xml

| 6.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 160/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 160/5

---

Corrigendum to the reserve list of the open competition EPSO/COM/AD/11/10 — Research Administrators (AD 6) in the domain of environmental sciences

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 54 A of 23 February 2013
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 54 A of 23 February 2013

(2013/C 160 A/03)

On page 8, ‘Field 1: Environmental Chemists and Biologists’:

On page 8, ‘Field 1: Environmental Chemists and Biologists’:

for:

| ‘KATSOYANNIS | Athanasios’, |
| --- | --- |

‘KATSOYANNIS

Athanasios’,

read:

| ‘KATSOGIANNIS | Athanasios’. |
| --- | --- |

‘KATSOGIANNIS

Athanasios’.

---
#### CAPITAL RENT A CAR, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Edward RUDOLPH and Alice Rudolph, Respondents.

No. 73-773.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 22, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### Billy Joe ALBRITTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 46700.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 15, 1972.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1972.

Travis H. Clark, Jr., Greenwood, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gil-foy, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 12-32
 THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Twelve Months Ended December 31(Millions of Dollars)
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings:Pretax earnings
    
    $
    517
    
    
    $
    466
    
    
    $
    482
    
    
    $
    426
    
    
    $
    214Fixed charges
    
    
    324
    
    
    
    319
    
    
    
    299
    
    
    
    280
    
    
    
    294Net earnings
    
    $
    841
    
    
    $
    785
    
    
    $
    781
    
    
    $
    706
    
    
    $
    508Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    293
    
    
    $
    294
    
    
    $
    278
    
    
    $
    267
    
    
    $
    280Adjustments
    
    
    31
    
    
    
    25
    
    
    
    21
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    14Fixed charges
    
    $
    324
    
    
    $
    319
    
    
    $
    299
    
    
    $
    280
    
    
    $
    294Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.60
    
    
    
    2.46
    
    
    
    2.61
    
    
    
    2.52
    
    
    
    1.73
Order entered July 26, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00120
- CV
BRUCE DWAIN COPELAND , Appellant

V. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL. , Appellee On Appeal f

rom the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 20
- 15575

O RDER The reporter’s record is past due and the court reporter has notif ied the Court that appellant has not requested the reporter’s record. By letter dated Ju ne 25, 2021, we instructed appellant to file, within ten days, notice that he has requested preparation of the reporter’s record and written verification that he has paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply may result in an order that the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. As of today’s date, appellant has not responded. Accordingly,we ORDER the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R.

A PP
. P. 37.3(c). Appel lant shall file his brief on the merits within thirty days of the date of
this order.
/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE