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

No. 84-2160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 6, 1987.

*344Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Mark J. Ber-kowitz, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from an order departing upward from the sentencing guidelines for the following reasons:

> 1. The perpetration of these offenses created an extreme risk to the physical safety of both citizens and law enforcement officers. At least four people who were inside the victim’s residence were subjected to having machine guns pointed at them by this defendant and threatened with bodily harm. Furthermore, the defendant threatened to kill everyone in the residence on at least two or three occasions. When the attempt was made to pick up the ransom money, the defendant, who was armed with a submachine gun, fired a substantial number of shots at one of the victims. This shooting took place at an Exxon Gas Station which was open for business and in the public thoroughfares of Dade County. Present, nearby, were other civilian witnesses as well as an FBI Agent assisting in the investigation into this kidnap for ransom. *Garcia v. State,*455 [454] So.2d 714 (Fla 1st DCA 1984); *Johnson v. State,*462 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); *Scurry v. State,*489 So.2d 25 (Fla.1986); *Davis v. State,*476 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); *Brinson v. State,*[478 So.2d 1174] (Fla. 2 DCA [1985]).

> 2. The commission of offense created severe psychological trauma to members of the victim’s family. The testimony established that the defendant tied up and abducted the victim in the victim’s own residence in the presence of the victim’s common law wife as well as other family members. Those family members were threatened with bodily harm if they resisted in any fashion. The emotional trauma on the victim’s family members, who themselves witnessed the abduction of the victim, at machine gun point from his own residence, and not knowing whether they would ever see him alive again cannot be understated. The Court considers as especially compelling the fact that the victim was abducted from within his own home in the presence of his loved ones. *Davis v. State,*[489 So.2d 754] (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); *Olive v. State,*489 So.2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *Scurry v. State,*supra.

We conclude that both grounds are supported by the reasons and the authorities cited.

Affirmed.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 148

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 12, 2000

Referred to the Committee on House Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To provide for the disposition and archiving of the records,

files, documents, and other materials of joint congressional committees on inaugural ceremonies.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. RECORDS OF EACH JOINT CONGRESSIONAL

4 COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Upon the conclusion of the busi6 ness of a joint congressional committee on Presidential in7 augural ceremonies and the closing out of its affairs, all

8 records, files, documents, and other materials in the pos9 session, custody, or control of the joint committee shall

10 be transferred subject to—

11 (1) such terms and conditions relating to access

12 and use of such materials as the Committee on
2

SCON 148 RFH

1 Rules and Administration of the Senate shall pre2 scribe; and

3 (2) the provisions of Senate Resolution 474

4 (96th Congress, 2d Session).

5 (b) PRIOR RECORDS.—The records, files, documents,

6 and other materials of any joint congressional committee

7 on Presidential inaugural ceremonies in the custody of the

8 Senate on the date of adoption of this resolution shall be

9 shall be transferred subject to—

10 (1) such terms and conditions relating to access

11 and use of such materials as the Committee on

12 Rules and Administration of the Senate shall pre13 scribe; and

14 (2) the provisions of Senate Resolution 474

15 (96th Congress, 2d Session).

Passed the Senate October 11 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 05-10379

Summary Calendar

LAURANCE KRIEGEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE; FARM SERVICE AGENCY

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

5:04-CV-132

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant, Kriegel, has had a long standing dispute (since

1986) with the United States Department of Agriculture, the Small

Business Administration and related agencies of the United States.

This is the second suit he filed seeking relief. These disputes

are related inter alia to denied loan applications from Farmer’s
2

Home Administration and the Agriculture Stabilization and

Conservation Service along with perceived failures to properly

service his loans. Kriegel also challenged the Small Business

Administration’s offset of Kriegel’s farm program payments against

sums owed the Small Business Administration. Kriegel sued in tort

and contract and also pursued an administrative claim against some

or all of these agencies. The district court found that Kriegel’s

request for declaratory judgment, relief for breach of contract,

violation of his constitutional rights, civil conspiracy and tort

claims were all barred by statutory limitation. Because Kriegel

did not bring his action timely as required by the relevant statute

waving sovereign immunity, the court concluded it had no

jurisdiction over his claims.

As to the review of the administrative determination rejecting

Kriegel’s §741 discrimination claims, the district court determined

that Kriegel alleged no facts to show any basis for the alleged

discrimination and therefore his complaint failed to state an

actionable §741 claim.

Appellant’s brief addresses the merits of his long standing

controversy with the governmental agencies he sued. He fails to

address in any coherent way the reasons the district court

dismissed his claims. 
3

Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in

its comprehensive order of January 26, 2005 we affirm the district

court judgment.

AFFIRMED.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 23, 2015

No. 04-14-00246-CR

Destyn David FREDERICK,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-09-00041-CRL

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s third motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due 

April 17, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### STATE ex rel. James Earl WILLIAMS v. Honorable Judge Frank A. MARULLO, Jr., Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, and the Honorable Edwin A. Lombard, Clerk of Court, Orleans Parish.

No. 87-KH-1208.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Williams, James Earl; applying for writ of mandamus and remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 219-697-D.

Granted. The district court is ordered to act, if it has not already done so, on the motion for production of documents submitted on or about March 30,1987, if it has been filed.
50604.

#### ROBERSON et al. v. EVERGREEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Webb, Judge.

Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to defendants’ counterclaim. Accordingly it is sufficient to say, for reasons stated in *Peachtree Bottle Shop v. Bessemer Securities Corp.,*134 Ga. App. 729, the order granting summary judgment to plaintiff on the counterclaim must be reversed. Our ruling here, however, does not necessarily mean that defendants are entitled to finally prevail *(Ray v. Webster,*128 Ga. App. 217 (196 SE2d 175)), nor does it necessarily fix the law of the case. *Grantham Transfer Co. v. Hawes,*225 Ga. 436 (1) (169 SE2d 290); *Venable v. Grage,*116 Ga. App. 340 (1) (157 SE2d 519); *E. Raymond Smith, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*127 Ga. App. 571, 572 (1) (194 SE2d 339).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*

*882Submitted May 5, 1975

Decided May 23, 1975.

*Word, Nicholson & Cook, Reuben M. Word,*for appellants.

*Trauner, King & Cohen, Kevin S. King,*for appellee.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frederick J. ENCALADE and Vergie T. Encalade. STATE of Louisiana v. Irvin A. CROSS.

No. 87-K-0796.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Encalade, Frederick J.; Encalade, Vergie T.; Cross, Irvin A.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. KA-6445, KA-6446; Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, Nos. 86-1722, 86-1721.

Prior report: La.App., 505 So.2d 87.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.
#### Eustace H. WINN, Jr. v. FIRST SOUTH PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION.

No. 91-CA-0337.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 23, 1993.

James T. Milam, Campbell Delong Hag-wood & Wade, Greenville, for appellant.

David E. Flautt, Oxford, for appellee.

Appeal No. 11869 from Judgment dated Feb. 21, 1991, Durward Gray Evans, Ruling Judge, Lafayette County Circuit Court.

Before HAWKINS, C.J., and SULLIVAN and SMITH, JJ.

Affirmed.
Order entered November 2 4 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01047
- CV
MARK AND D'NELLA SHE RBET, Appellant s

V. RAFAELLA BENDER, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 12935
- I



### O RDER By order dated November 5, 2014, we granted court reporter Sheretta L

. Martin’s request to extend the time for filing the reporter’s record to November 14, 2014. To date, however, the
record has not been filed. A ccordingly, we ORDER Ms. Martin to file the record within TEN (10) DAYS . We expressly caution Ms. Martin that failure to comply with this order may result in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Cou rt to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to the Honorable Phyllis Lister Brown, Judge of the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas; Ms. Martin; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the periodic report of ENERGENX, INC., a Nevada corporation
      (the
“Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, GARY A. BEDINI, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.





Date:
      August 9, 2006





By: /s/
      Gary A. Bedini  Gary
      A.
      Bedini
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the annual report of Presstek, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward J. Marino,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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
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/ Edward J. Marino
------------------------------------
Edward J. Marino
President and Chief Executive Officer
March [  ], 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Presstek, Inc. and will be retained by Presstek, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MORGAN COUNTY, Colorado, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Rainsford J. WINSLOW, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 82CA0417.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Aug. 25, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1983.

Certiorari Granted April 9, 1984.

*1090E. Ord Wells, Fort Morgan, for petitioners-appellees.

Rainsford J. Winslow, pro se.

BERMAN, Judge.

Rainsford Winslow appeals the trial court’s injunction which prevents him from “filing as plaintiff any further actions in the District Court ... wherein he appears *pro se*....” We reverse the judgment of the trial court granting the permanent injunction because we hold that sole jurisdiction relative to this issue is vested in the Colorado Supreme Court.

Our Supreme Court’s power to issue injunctions against *pro se*plaintiffs derives from and “is based upon Article YI, Section 2(1) of the Colorado Constitution which vests [the Supreme Court] with general superintending power over all inferior state courts.” *Board of County Commissioners v. Barday,*197 Colo. 519, 594 P.2d 1057 (1979). The authority to hear matters dealing with injunctions against abuse of the judicial process by a *pro se*litigant rests exclusively with the Supreme Court. *See, e.g., Board of County Commissioners v. Howard,*640 P.2d 1128 (Colo.1982); *People v. Dunlap,*623 P.2d 408 (Colo.1981); *Board of County Commissioners v. Barday, supra.*Thus, we conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue the injunction.

Judgment reversed.

SMITH and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
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 Atlas America Public #15-2005 (A) L.P.
(the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      13, 2008
##### 



EXHIBIT (31.1)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PeopleSupport, Inc.;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 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(s) 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 subsidiaries, 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(s) 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/ Lance RosenzweigChairman of the Board of DirectorsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 36
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned officer of WII Components, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 to which this certificationis being furnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. Thiscertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated underthe Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the ExchangeAct. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification(A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theExchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shallnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Companyspecifically incorporates it by reference.

 
| **Date: May 16, 2005** | ** **                                     |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                        | /s/ Dale B. Herbst                             |   |
|                        | Name: Dale B. Herbst                           |
|                        | Title: Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50847 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERARDO LOPEZ-LUEBANO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-95-CR-229-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - May 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gerardo Lopez-Luebano appeals his jury convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and the importation of marijuana. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew that there was marijuana hidden in the tires of the truck that he was driving. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold thatthe evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find LopezLuebano guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Diaz-No. 95-50847 - 2 -
Carreon , 915 F.2d 951, 953 (5th Cir. 1990) (possession with intent to distribute narcotics); United States v. Ojebode , 957 F.2d 1218, 1223 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 113 S. Ct. 1291 (1993) (importation of narcotics). Lopez-Luebano also contends that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury that his nervousness alone was insufficient to support a finding of guilty knowledge. The requested instruction did not concern an important point in the trial such that its omission seriously impaired the appellant's ability to present a given defense effectively. United States v. Chaney , 964 F.2d 437, 444 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 13.2

[exhibit132002.gif]



Unit 1  15782 Marine Drive, White Rock, B.C. V4B 1E6 Canada

Tel: (604) 536-2711  |  Fax: (604) 536-2788





Certification of CFO 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 Annual Report of Asia Pacific Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert Scott, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date: May 11, 2006





signed  Robert Scott

______________________________________________

Robert Scott, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary





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.