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

No. 88-754.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 18, 1988.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and John M. Koenig, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Because only two of the six reasons given for departure from the sentencing guidelines are valid, and because the crime was committed prior to the effective date of Section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes, this case must be remanded for a determination whether the same sentence would have been imposed if only the two valid reasons for departure were considered. *Albritton v. State,*476 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1985). We conclude that the following reasons are valid: the professional manner employed in the commission of a crime (paragraphs 2 and 5 read in conjunction *932with one another), *see Martin v. State,*523 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and the timing of the crime in relation to prior offenses and release from incarceration or supervision (paragraph 4). *See Stubbs v. State,*522 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); *Williams v. State,*504 So.2d 392 (Fla.1987). The remaining reasons given are invalid because either the facts supporting them are too speculative or the law does not support them.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ERVIN, WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Samuel Duncan, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

August 14, 1958.

*Daniel V. Sullivan, District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

*Samuel Segal*for defendant.

Charles A. Loreto, J.

Petitioner seeks a certificate of reasonable doubt and release under bail pending determination on appeal from a judgment of conviction of the crime of possession of marijuana. This application is pursuant to sections 527 and 529 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term in the State prison of not less than four nor more than six years. His notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department, was served on June 19, 1958.

Petitioner asserts that there were only two factual witnesses, the arresting officer and himself, who were-in a position to give testimony as to whether or not he knowingly possessed mari*1069juana. He asserts that this issue was decided on prejudice and unfair remarks by the District Attorney and on collateral matters introduced by the latter, not proved. Petitioner had been convicted of possession of marijuana in Panama 15 years ago. The District Attorney questioned him regarding an alleged arrest in February, 1957, and possession of narcotics on other dates, which he denied. Confronted with these denials, the District Attorney declared before the jury ‘1 am in a position to bring in any witnesses ”, to which objection was made, the court observing to the District Attorney, *“*Be careful as to the scope of your remarks.”

The petitioner asserts that the cross-examination as to asserted collateral misconduct prior to petitioner’s arrest on the charge at hand was in violation of his right to a fair trial. There is strength in the argument that the District Attorney knew that he could not introduce proof of the alleged collateral misconduct and that his declaration that he could bring in witnesses, by reason of the fact that he spoke as an official, could have caused the jury to disbelieve the petitioner as to those charges. Therefore, it is urged that the single issue in the case not proved beyond a reasonable doubt was erroneously decided by the jury by reason of the prejudicial cross-examination and remark.

The court will not consider other points raised on this application. It is satisfied that an appellate court may deem the matter herein alluded to of sufficient significance and possible prejudice to warrant a new trial. The court can well appreciate the natural revulsion that the able District Attorney had toward one whom he believed to be a substantial trafficker in narcotics. However, he was carried away by his zeal during the trial and it may be held on appeal that he overstepped the limits of proper prosecution of this case *(Berger*v. *United States,*295 U. S. 78, 88; *People*v. *Fielding,*158 N. Y. 542).

The motion is granted. Settle order on notice, with suggestions as to amount of bail and the reasons therefor.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Cogent, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Kim, Chief Financial 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 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.
That the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: November 6, 2008



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ PAUL KIM                 
|Paul Kim                     
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

The undersigned officer of WIIComponents, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’squarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2008 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the “Report”),as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgatedunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and theExchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), thiscertification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and(B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filingunder the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

 
| **Date:  May 12, 2008** | ** **                                               |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | /s/ Dale B. Herbst                                       |
|                         | Name: Dale B. Herbst                                     |
|                         | Title: Chief  Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |

 

1

----
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Jeff W. Shirley, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Development Funding III, L.P.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Intentionally omitted;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of our annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Dated this 14th day of August, 2006.       /s/ Jeff W. Shirley         Jeff W. Shirley    President and Chief Executive Officer ofUMTH
#### STATE ex rel. Jesse James WASHINGTON v. Hilton BUTLER, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 87-KH-1168.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Washington, Jesse James; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”.

Denied.
#### Carl W. HOFFER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TOWN OF CARBONDALE and Board of Trustees of the Town of Carbondale, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 81CA1254.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

March 10, 1983.

No appearance for plaintiff-appellee.

*496T. Peter Craven, P.C., T. Peter Craven, Glenwood Springs, for defendants-appellants.

COYTE, Judge.

The Town of Carbondale and Board of Trustees of Carbondale appeal from a judgment of the trial court determining that a rezoning ordinance is void. We reverse.

Carbondale Ordinance No. 18.88.02(a) provides for initiation of a zoning amendment and states that:

> “Amendments to this title shall be processed as follows:

> (a) A request for amendment may be initiated by the Town Planning and Zoning Commission, or may be presented to the Town Planning and Zoning Commission by those owning at least 50% of the area of real estate within the area proposed for change;”

After the Carbondale Board of Trustees had rezoned a portion of the town, plaintiff filed a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) proceeding in the district court seeking to have the rezoning ordinance declared void. The trial court held that the rezoning was deficient for two reasons.

> “First, the petition must be signed by the owners of 50% of the land to be rezoned, not 50% of the owners [of the land]. Second, the finding [of the Board of Trustees] refers to residents, not owners.”

We disagree with the selection of the applicable portion of the ordinance.

Here, petitions were presented to the Carbondale Planning & Zoning Commission requesting the rezoning of certain land within the Town of Carbondale. A public hearing was held at which no one spoke in opposition to the requested change. The Planning & Zoning Commission passed a motion recommending to the Town Council that it enact an ordinance for the proposed rezoning which action represented an initiation of the amendment in accordance with the first alternative specified in Ordinance 18.88.02(a). Also, no objection was made to the procedure followed until the instant suit was filed. Hence, the rezoning ordinance was enacted in compliance with the established procedures and was valid.

Judgment reversed.

PIERCE and KELLY, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Laurence Warren AREND, and His Spouse Orissa Eckhardt Arend.

No. 87-C-1113.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Arend, Laurence W., Matter of; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-6356; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “H”, No. 84-5405.

Prior report: La.App., 504 So.2d 632.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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 Mercantile Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael P. McGrath, Vice President and Chief Financial 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 operating results of the Company. 

| /s/ MICHAEL P. MCGRATH                                  |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                         |   |
| Michael P. McGrath                                      |   |
| Vice President, Treasurer   and Chief Financial Officer |   |

May 12, 2005
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Dieter K. Dankerl, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Albany County,

January 14, 1959.

*Herbert Champagne*for petitioner.

Harold E. Koreman, S.

This is a proceeding for the appointment of an ancillary administrator in the estate of Dieter K. Danlcerl. The petition is by the brother of the deceased as attorney in fact of the parents of the deceased. The petition alleges that the parents are both residents and citizens of West Germany and that the deceased was, at the time of his death, a resident of Albany County and a citizen of West Germany.

Since the deceased was a resident of this county at the time of his death, the petition for ancillary letters of administration must be denied. Section 160 of the Surrogate’s Court Act provides for the granting of ancillary letters of administration. These may be granted by the Surrogate’s Court having jurisdiction of the estate where there is a decedent who resided at the time of his death without this state, but within the United States * * * or, in cases where the decedent, at the time of his death, resided without the United States”. There is no authority or need to grant ancillary letters of administration in a county where the deceased was a resident at the time of his death, particularly when primary letters have not been issued in any other jurisdiction.

*752If this proceeding is treated as one for the appointment of an administrator, the application must again be denied. The distributees of the deceased are his mother and father. (Decedent Estate Law, § 83.) Both are aliens and not inhabitants of this State and not, therefore, competent to serve as administrator. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 94, subd. 3.) The petitioner, though a brother of the deceased, is not entitled to take or share in the personal property of the deceased and is not entitled to letters of administration merely because of his relationship. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 118; *Matter of Wenkhous,*158 Misc. 663; *Matter of Foote,*2 A D 2d 687; *Matter of D’Adamo,*212 N. Y. 214.) Nor is he entitled to letters as attorney in fact of the parents of the deceased for they cannot designate him to receive letters for them. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 118; *Matter of Kroog,*84 Misc. 676, 683; *Matter of Mora,*133 Misc. 254.) The case cited by petitioner, *Matter of Taormina*(2 A D 2d 711, affd. 2 N Y 2d 878) is not applicable since it involved ancillary letters of administration upon the estate of a nonresident alien.

Petition denied.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03561**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 03561\03561_Checklist.xlsx EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03561\03561_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03561\03561_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 03561\03561_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03561\03561_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03561\03561_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03561\03561_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03561\03561_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03561\Certification Statement_03561.pdf Plant certification statement x 03561\Correspondence\030111 response\03561_Correspondence_030111.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 03561\Correspondence\030111 response\03561_Follow up Questions.xlsx Draft Questions for Follow Up x 03561\Correspondence\030111 response\03561_Follow-Up Questions_II.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up x 03561\Correspondence\030111 response\Part C_5.0.commentECKERT_AshHandlingDATA2.21.11.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 03561\Correspondence\03561_Correspondence.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

03561\Supporting Documentation\03561_EckertAerial map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03561\Supporting Documentation\03561_EckertWaterBalance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03561\Supporting Documentation\3561EckertWWT.1Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2656

GERALD F. FLENTJE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ITO CORPORATION OF BALTIMORE; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO; LOCAL 953, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-2062-WMN) Submitted: October 24, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ransom J. Davis, LAW OFFICES OF RANSOM J. DAVIS, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Ernest L. Mathews, Elizabeth Alexander, GLEASON & MATHEWS, P.C., New York, New York; James R. Rosenberg, Paul D. Starr, ABATO, RUBENSTEIN & ABATO, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Gil A. Abramson, HOGAN & HARTSON, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Gerald F. Flentje appeals the district court’s order dismissing his suit as barred by the statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Flentje v. ITO Corp. , No. CA-99-2062-WMN (D.Md. Nov. 10, 1999). Further, because Flentje did not timely request discovery and because his complaint did not support a tolling of the statute of limitations, we find that the district court did not err in failing to order discovery. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32(a)
                                 TO FORM 10-K OF
                           SEA PINES ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sea Pines
Associates, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge,
that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31,
2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  January 31, 2005                                 /s/ Michael E. Lawrence
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Michael E. Lawrence
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:* National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Translational Stroke SEP.

*Date:* April 18, 2012.

*Time:* 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

*Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications.

*Place:* National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

*Contact Person:* Shanta Rajaram, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6033, *Rajarams@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: March 23, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-7587 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P