alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CHARLES LEON LOYE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:99-cr-00284-WO-1; 1:08-cv-00700-WO-DPD) 

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Charles Leon Loye, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Charles Leon Loye seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Loye 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 the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Mosquito pesticide use in Florida 

Dwinell, Steve 

to: 

Jack Faulk 

09/18/2009 02:37 PM 

Cc: 

"Coram, Phil", "Caton, William", "Dennis Howard" 

Show Details 

On the conference call yesterday someone asked if there were data on what pesticide products would be used in 

mosquito control. In Florida, regulated districts report pesticide use on a monthly basis. These are compiled by 

the Department and posted as annual reports on our website - http://www.flaes.org/pdf/FY07-

08_Annual_Pesticide_Activity_Report.pdf

Below is an example of what is collected - 

http://www.flaes.org/pdf/FY07-08_Annual_Pesticide_Activity_Report.pdf

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this data. Thanks. 

Steven E. Dwinell

Assistant Director

Division of Agricultural Environmental Services

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

3125 Conner Boulevard

Tallahassee Florida 32399

850-488-7447

850-488-2164 Fax

 

Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from state officials 

regarding state business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail 

communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.

 

 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web6023.htm 5/11/2010
| **EXHIBIT 23**                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |
| **Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants** |

 

To the Board of Directors

 

Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

 

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report dated October 19, 2006, relating to the financial statements of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd., which report appears in the Annual Report dated July 31, 2006 on Form 10-K of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

 

October 24, 2006

 
| /s/ Quick & McFarlin, P.C. |
|--------------------------------|
| Quick & McFarlin, P.C.     |
**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 Lounsberry Holdings I, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I,
        Mark Allen, 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
        Mark
        Allen
 Mark
        Allen
 Principal
        Executive Officer and
 Principal
        Financial Officer
 November
        14, 2005
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0347. DAVID RANDY SABBY v. THE STATE.

David Sabby was convicted of aggravated child molestation and other crimes,

and we affirmed his convictions on appeal in an unpublished opinion. Sabby v. State,

Case No. A15A1105 (Nov. 20, 2015). Sabby later filed a motion in arrest of judgment,

arguing among other things that the aggravated child molestation statute is

unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Sabby’s

constitutional challenge was untimely because it was not made before the return of his

guilty verdict.1Sabby filed a timely application for discretionary appeal in the Supreme

Court, which transferred the matter here upon finding no basis forjurisdiction there.

See Case No. S24D0978 (May 1, 2024).

“[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion in arrest of judgment is normally directly

appealable towhichever appellate court hassubject-matterjurisdictionover the case.”

Lay v. State, 289 Ga. 210, 211 (2) (710 SE2d 141) (2011). And this Court will grant a

timely application for discretionary appeal where the lower court’s order is subject to

direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, Sabby’s application is hereby

GRANTED. 

1 The court found that Sabby’s motion in arrest of judgment was timely filed

within the same term of court as his amended sentence.

June 07, 2024
He shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal with the

trial court, if he has not already done so. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (g). The clerk of the trial

court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court

of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/07/2024
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# DATES:

*Time and Date:*                         10 a.m., Friday,         March 30, 2012.                    

# Place:

1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

## Matters To Be Considered

                    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.cftc.gov.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012-4853 Filed 2-24-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
#### Whitehead’s Estate.

(No. 2).

Argued Sept. 27, 1917.

Appeal, No. 26, Oct. T., 1917, by G. E. Whitehead, from decree of O. 0. Westmoreland Co., May T., 1916, No. 33, dismissing exceptions to adjudication, in Estate of Sarah Whitehead, deceased.

Before Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.

Affirmed.

Exceptions to adjudication. Before Copeland, P. J.

The facts appear in Whitehead’s Est. (No. 1), 260 Pa. 22.

The court dismissed the exceptions. G. E. Whitehead appealed.

*Error assigned*was in dismissing the exceptions.

*Ourtis H. Gregg,*with him *Sidney J. Potts,*for appellant.

*James S. Moorhead,*with him *Róbt. W. Smith,*for appellees.

January 7, 1918:

Per Curiam,

The decree entered in the estate of Peter Whitehead by the Orphans’ Court haying been affirmed, the decree in this appeal is, by agreement of counsel, affirmed.
October 21, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LINDA HERNANDEZ, JOS E HERNANDEZ, JAVIER VASQUEZ, CLAUDIA GIL, RAUL VASQUEZ AN D VIRGINIA VASQUEZ , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 13

- 00567

- CV V.

ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NI CHOLS SORRELS & FRIE ND, A TEXAS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, RANDALL SORRELLS AND BERNARDINO AGOSTO, JR. , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favo r of appellee s , Abraham, Watkins, Nichols Sorrels & Friend, a Texas General Partnership, Randall Sorrells and Bernardino A gosto, Jr., signed January 29, 2013 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant s , Linda Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Javier Vasquez, Claudia Gil, Raul Vasquez and Virginia Vasquez, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We furth er order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

        Written Description of Compensatory Plan for Keith E. Gottfried
     (Approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
               Borland Software Corporation on December 19, 2000
               -------------------------------------------------

     On December 19, 2000, the Compensation Committee ("Compensation Committee")
of the Board of Directors of Borland Software Corporation ("Borland) approved a
forgivable loan (the "Loan") to Keith E. Gottfried, Senior Vice President-Law
and Corporate Affairs, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Borland. The
Loan may only be used to purchase a residence (the "Residence"), including
related purchase closing costs, within a reasonable commuting distance of
Borland's corporate headquarters in Scotts Valley, California. The principal
amount of the Loan will be five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), will bear
interest at a rate still to be determined by the Compensation Committee and will
be secured by a security interest in the Residence. The Loan will be forgivable
over a five (5) year period, provided that Mr. Gottfried remains employed by
Borland over this five-year period. As of March 27, 2001, the Loan has not yet
been drawn upon by Mr. Gottfried and, when drawn upon, will be made pursuant to
a promissory note and a related deed of trust, both in forms acceptable to
Borland.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 16

- 00028

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.C.R., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 81,870

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronnie Sue Miller and Timothy Andrew Miller timely filed a notice of appeal on April 20,

2016. The reporter’s record was filed May 10, 2016. The clerk’s record was filed May 13, 2016.

The Millers’ brief was due to be filed in this Court on June 13, 2016. When neither a brief nor a

motion to extend time for filing same was rec eived by June 28, this Court advised the Millers by

letter dated June 28, 2016, that the brief was late. We further extended the deadline for filing the

brief to July 13, 2016. We warned the Millers that failure to file the brief by July 13, 2016, would

subject this appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),

(c).

We have received no responsive communication from the Millers and have not received

their appellate brief. Having not received any response to this Court’s letter of June 28, 2016, the

Miller’s appeal is ripe for dismissal for want of prosecution. Consequently, p ursuant to Rules 38.8

and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of

prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3 (b), (c).

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: August 4, 2016

Date Decided: August 5, 2016
Docket Number FAA-2014-0621
Exhibit 32.1   Section 1350 Certification  STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   The undersigned is the CEO and President of ONLINE-REDEFINED, INC.  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-Q of ONLINE-REDEFINED, INC. for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.   The undersigned certifies that such 10-Q Report 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 such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ONLINE-REDEFINED, INC. as of March 31, 2013.    This Certification is executed as of May 20, 2013.   /s/ Dan Faiman Dan Faiman CEO and President (principal executive, financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, S. Randall Smallbone, Executive Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Decoma International Inc. (the "Registrant"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



|1.                   | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Registrant dated May 20, 2003, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2.                   | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.                                                                                                                                                    
|Dated:  May 20, 2003 | /signed/ "S.R. Smallbone"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



|A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0796 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-111-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 10.57

AMENDMENT NO. 13 TO  LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 13, dated as of March 21, 2003, to the LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT, dated as of March 31, 1998, as amended prior to the date hereof
(as so amended, the "Loan and Security Agreement"), between FOOTHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, with a place of business located at
2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 3000W, Santa Monica, California 90404 ("Foothill"), and AXS-ONE INC. (formerly known as COMPUTRON
SOFTWARE, INC.), a Delaware corporation, with its chief executive offices located at 301 Route 17 North, Rutherford, New Jersey 07070 (the
"Borrower").

Preamble

The Borrower has requested Foothill to amend the Loan and Security Agreement to revise the financial covenants. Accordingly, the Borrower and Foothill hereby
agree as follows:

1.Definitions.    All terms used herein which are defined in the Loan and Security Agreement and not otherwise
defined herein are used herein as defined therein.

2.Financial Covenants.    Section 7.20 of the Loan and Security Agreement is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:



Quarter End

EBITDA3/31/03

($
650,000
)6/30/03

($
850,000
)9/30/03

($
200,000
)12/31/03

$
350,000




3.Conditions Precedent.This Amendment shall become effective (and the covenants set forth in Section 2
above shall be applicable as of the date of this Amendment) only upon satisfaction in full of the following conditions precedent (the date upon which all such conditions have been satisfied being
herein called the "Effective Date"):



---



4.Representations and Warranties.    The Borrower hereby represents and warrants to Foothill as follows:



5.Continued Effectiveness of the Loan and Security Agreement and Loan Documents.    The Borrower hereby
(i) confirms and agrees that each Loan Document to which it is a party is, and shall continue to be, in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects except that on
and after the Effective Date of this Amendment all references in any such Loan Document to "the Loan and Security Agreement", the "Agreement", "thereto", "thereof", "thereunder" or words of like
import referring to the Loan and Security Agreement shall mean the Loan and Security Agreement as amended by this Amendment and (ii) confirms and agrees that to the extent that any such Loan
Document purports to assign or pledge to Foothill, or to grant a security interest in or Lien on, any collateral as security for the obligations of the Borrower from time to time existing in respect
of the Loan and Security Agreement and the Loan Documents, such pledge, assignment and/or grant of the security interest or Lien is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.

6.Miscellaneous.

2

---



| |  | AXS-ONE INC.,
a Delaware corporation                  
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                   
| |  | FOOTHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION,
a California corporation
| |  | By:                                                   

3

---

QuickLinks