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

            Certification 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, Glenn J. Heiar, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Armor Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Armor Holdings, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: March 14, 2006                          By: /s/ Glenn J. Heiar
                                                  ------------------
                                                  Name:  Glenn J. Heiar
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
```
#### STATE ex rel. Russell HOLLIDAY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-2430.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Holliday, Russell; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 315-960; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KW-8491.

Denied.
STEVENSON & MURRAY 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

A PRorI:ssIoNAL CORPORATION 

24 CREENWAY PLAZA, Sum; 750 

JOHN W. Suvr~soN. JR. Housrow, TEXAS 77046 

w_ ROM,“ HAND TELEPHONE : 7I3~622-3223 

MARK T‘ MllRRAYW‘- FACSIMILE : 7|3-622-3224 

JEREMY R_ NEWELL WWW.]OllNSTEVl'NSONl.AW.('OM 

www.sr:vr.NsoNMur<kAr.coM 

'l‘.?i.”..$i2.'1‘i3’.§2.i?‘§:1 .L".’.‘,‘“.¥J:"‘ L“ July 1 7. 201 5 

“Bmln Crlulnuv C.I\‘I| Tun. AIWOLAH Nawm Bmunm Tm; Alwonur 

?Ln run) IN Nm Van. 

The Honorable Christopher A. Prine 

Clerk, First Court ofAppeals 

30] Fannin Street 

Houston. Texas 77002-2066 E—File 

RE: Court ofAppeals No. 01-15-00504-CV 

Trial Court Case No.: 2012-24614 

Style: lnocente Cepeda v. Orion Marine Construction, Inc. 

Dear Mr. Prine: 

This letter in response to your letter of J uly 16.2015 regarding payment arrangements for the 

reporters record in the above—refcrenced appeal. As shown by the attachments, Appellant paid the 

deposit requested by the reporter. Once the reporter advises Appellant's counsel of the remainder 

of the cost for the record, Appellant will remit the remaining amount. 

Should you have any questions. please do not hesitate to call our office. 

Sincerely. 

/s/ William Robert Hand 

William Robert Hand 

WRH/lan 

Enclosure 

cc: Daniel D. Pipitone 

Kcn Bullock E-File

ACCEPTED

01-15-00504-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/17/2015 2:29:32 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/17/2015 2:29:32 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
#### Hubert F. HUTCHINSON, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BI-129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 1987.

Hubert F. Hutchinson, Sr., pro se.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Davis v. State,*455 So.2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); *Swain v. State,*455 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

SMITH, SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
*

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2825

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Mario Antonio Ortega-Ibarra, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2002

Filed: December 16, 2002

___________

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mario Antonio Ortega-Ibarra pleaded guilty to reentering the United States

illegally after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). At sentencing, the district court*

 denied

Ortega-Ibarra's motion for a downward departure based on cultural assimilation and

sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
-2-

On appeal, Ortega-Ibarra's counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel contends the district court

abused its discretion in denying the downward-departure motion. We conclude the

ruling is unreviewable because the district court acknowledged it had discretion to

depart. See United States v. Correa, 167 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1999). On

independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find

no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel's motion to

withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
< comlux 

THE AVIATION CROUP 

Aug. 25, 2010 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerl<, AGC43b 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Dear Hearing Docket Clerk 

Subject: Withdrawal of request for hearing /5 ^ (^ "^-^( 7 

Comlux Aviation Services 

2640 S Cargo Drive 

Indianapolis, IN 46241 

317.472.7370 

^1 2010 

'•^(^ DOCKET 

As a result of acceptance of our settlement offer, this letter is provided to withdravi^ our request for 

hearing related to case CP10GL003. This matter has also been identified as 2009-GL-11-0044. 

Should any additional information be required regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me 

personally. 

Mark A. Nelson 

Vice President 

Comlux Aviation Services 

Mark.nelson@comluxaviation.us 

CC: Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

Attorney Chris Zurales 

THE COMPLETE LUXURY AVIATION SERVICE
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

The following statement is being made to the Securities and Exchange Commission
solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1349), which carries with it certain criminal penalties in the event of a
knowing or willful misrepresentation.

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

      Re: DRAXIS Health Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1349), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

            (i) this Annual Report on Form 20-F, for the period ended
      December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
      78o(d)); and

            (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of DRAXIS Health Inc.

Dated as of this 14th day of May, 2003.


/s/ Martin Barkin, M.D.                      /s/ Jim A.H. Garner
---------------------------------------      -----------------------------------
Martin Barkin, M.D.                          Jim A.H. Garner
President and Chief Executive Officer        Senior Vice President, Finance and
                                             Chief Financial Officer






A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO DRAXIS HEALTH INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRAXIS HEALTH INC. AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### M.G., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-564.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Burke, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

M.G. appeals from an order of the trial court finding him guilty of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of section 790.-01, Florida Statutes (1987). We perceive no difference between a partially concealed firearm and a partially concealed wooden club and, accordingly, affirm the order under review. *Ensor v. State,*403 So.2d 349 (Fla.1981) (object partially hidden under automobile floor mat and believed by trained police officer to be weapon would not preclude weapon from also being a “concealed weapon” within meaning of statute prohibiting carrying concealed weapon).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-690]

[[Page 2287]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 12921-002 and 14076-000]

FFP Project 32, LLC and Northland Power Mississippi River LLC; 
Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications 
deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed 
projects to be located on the Mississippi River, in Tensas Parish, 
Louisiana, and Jefferson County Mississippi. The applications were 
filed by FFP Project 32, LLC for Project No. 12921-002, and Northland 
Power Mississippi River LLC for Project No. 14076-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any 
document received after regular business hours is considered filed 
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the 
Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine 
the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The 
Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided 
in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The priority established by this 
drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with 
identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the 
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing 
the results of the drawing.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-690 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### Manuel AGUILERA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-54.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 8, 1988.

Manuel Aguilera, in pro. per.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*320Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends, by this appeal from a ruling denying his Rule 3.850 motion for post conviction relief, that the court erred in sentencing him to three consecutive three-year mandatory minimum sentences for use of a firearm, where all three offenses arose out of a single criminal episode. We agree, and the State concedes, that the stacked mandatory minimum sentences violate the dictates of *Palmer v. State,*438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), which has retroactive application, *Cisnero v. State,*458 So.2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

The cause is remanded for a correction of sentence so that the minimum mandatory sentences run concurrently.
Order entered August 13 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01703
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01704
- CR JOHN RUIZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No s . F11
- 31859
- H, F10
- 31315
- H



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeals. On June 26, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s record had not been filed. On August 8, 2013, we received the record. T herefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE the June 26, 2013 order requiring findings. Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 111 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 111

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding ensuring a competitive North 
                  American market for softwood lumber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2000

   Mr. Nickles (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
Grassley, and Mr. Lugar) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
             which was referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding ensuring a competitive North 
                  American market for softwood lumber.

Whereas the United States and Canada have, since 1989, worked to reduce tariff 
        and nontariff barriers to trade;
Whereas free trade has greatly benefited the United States and Canadian 
        economies;
Whereas the United States and Canada have been engaged in an ongoing dispute 
        over trade in soft-wood lumber for 18 years;
Whereas on May, 29, 1996, the United States and Canada entered into an agreement 
        to temporarily resolve the dispute;
  Whereas the United States-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement of 1996 does not 
        promote open trade;
Whereas the scope of the United States-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement of 1996 
        has been expanded, leading to uncertainty for importers, distributors, 
        retailers, and purchasers of softwood lumber products;
Whereas the availability of affordable housing is important to the American 
        homebuyer;
Whereas lumber price volatility jeopardizes housing affordability; and
Whereas the United States-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement of 1996 will expire 
        on April 1, 2001: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the United States-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement of 
        1996 should terminate on April 1, 2001, with no extension or 
        further quota agreement;
            (2) the President should continue discussions with the 
        Government of Canada to promote open and Competitive trade 
        between the United States and Canada of softwood lumber; and
            (3) the President should consult with all stakeholders, 
        including consumers of softwood lumber products, in future 
        discussions regarding the open trade of softwood lumber between 
        the United States and Canada.
                                 <all>
```
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.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated August 9, 2011, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on August 18, 2011, 76 FR 51401, Austin Pharma LLC., 811 Paloma Drive, Suite C, Round Rock, Texas 78665-2402, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Drug
ScheduleMarihuana (7360)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
I
 The company plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic THC (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Austin Pharma LLC. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Austin Pharma LLC. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: January 6, 2012. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2012-663 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
-- 

I 12/12/2003 13:59 FAX 415 896 2450 rn 012 

1 . 

a 

ri wP

0 

.I=

3 

a

.K
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-5148

ORION INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

FIORE INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________

DECIDED: June 16, 2006

__________________________

Before NEWMAN, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges

.

PER CURIAM.

The government's motion to vacate and dismiss is denied , for a bid protest is not

routinely mooted whenever the agency terminates the protested contract for convenience.

On the appeal, the decision of t he Court of Federal Claims is affirmed on the

grounds set forth in that court's opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

69 

KA 11-00349 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID J. YAW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, TREVETT CRISTO SALZER

& ANDOLINA, P.C. (ERIC M. DOLAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered December 20, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law §

160.05). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime

as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we

reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight

of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 

It is well settled that “[g]reat deference is to be accorded to the

fact[]finder’s resolution of credibility issues based upon its

superior vantage point and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe

demeanor and hear the testimony” (People v Aikey, 94 AD3d 1485, 1486,

lv denied 19 NY3d 956 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v

Gay, 105 AD3d 1427, 1428). “[A] jury’s verdict is not necessarily

against the weight of the evidence merely because it accepts part of a

witness’s testimony and rejects other parts” (People v Alteri, 49 AD3d

918, 920; see People v Paulk, 107 AD3d 1413, 1414, lv denied 21 NY3d

1076, reconsideration denied 22 NY3d 1157). We perceive no reason to

disturb the jury’s resolution of the credibility issues or the weight

that the jury accorded to the evidence (see Gay, 105 AD3d at 1428). 

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly

harsh and severe.

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Pedro Pablo PERDOMO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2119.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 1, 1988.

Pedro Pablo Perdomo, in pro. per.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order under review revoking defendant’s probation, without prejudice to defendant’s filing of a Rule 3.850 *328motion in the trial court on the grounds raised herein.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of the Navy published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         (77 FR 11497) on February 27, 2012, concerning public scoping meetings to support the development of an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area. The document contained an incorrect comment period closing date.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Kimberly Kler, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale,                               ( print page 17039)                            Washington 98315-1101, Attention: NWTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager.                    

*Correction:*                         In the                         **Federal Register**                         (77 FR 11497) of February 27, 2012, on page 11498, in the third column, last paragraph, correct the comment period date to read:                    

Written comments must be postmarked no later than April 27, 2012, and should be mailed to: Ms. Kimberly Kler, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale, Washington 98315-1101, Attention: NWTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager.

Dated: March 16, 2012.

J.M. Beal,

Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-7018 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P