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

KYRAN JONES, §

§

Defendant Below, § No. 315, 2017

Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1307021270A

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: March 7, 2018

Decided: March 8, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

O R D E R

This 8th day of March 2018, it appears to the Court that the judgment of the 

Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the 

Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2017, adopted by the 

Superior Court’s Order dated July 13, 2017.

1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

1 Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, 

State v. Jones, 2017 WL 2465194, at *1 (Del. Super. June 6, 2017), adopted by State v. Jones, Cr. 

ID No. 1307021270A (Del. Super. July 13, 2017).
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

s0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

141125

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141125 COA: 282606 Wayne CC: 07-011146-FH JAMES LEON BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 6, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NO. 07-09-0137-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	NOVEMBER 9, 2009

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF M.G., D.G., S.G., E.G., AND R.M., CHILDREN	

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2008-542,603; HONORABLE KEVIN C. HART, ASSOCIATE JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	CONCURRING OPINION

	I join in the Court’s opinion, and write simply to add that, were we to find that the merits of this father’s appellate contentions were preserved for our review, I still would affirm the trial court’s judgment.  I cannot agree with appellant’s contention the evidence that termination of his parental rights is in the best interest of his children is insufficient, legally or factually.  The children ranged in ages from four to thirteen at the time of trial.  Their mother’s parental rights have been terminated.  Their father is incarcerated and may remain so until 2016.  He could present no plan for the care of the children until his release.  Those facts, coupled with the evidence of a history of family violence and other criminal conduct, were sufficient, in my view, to permit the trial court to find termination of the father’s parental rights in the best interest of the children.  See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2004) (legal sufficiency standard).  The contrary evidence, showing appellant desired to maintain a relationship with his children, and had participated in programs and taken other steps to address his destructive behaviors, is not insignificant.  Considering the entire record, however, the evidence permitted the trial court reasonably to form a firm belief or conviction termination was in the children’s best interest.  See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency standard).        

							James T. Campbell

					 		         Justice
#### Charles Alvin KENNEDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lawrence MORRIS, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 17617.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 3, 1981.

Douglas E. Wahlquist, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

*143David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Robert N. Parrish, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

In December, 1979, defendant was convicted by a jury of a sex offense, involving the forcing of his wife into sex relations with other men. He appealed to this Court on two grounds, unconstitutionality of the statute under which he was charged, and insufficiency of the evidence. This Court, whose opinion was reported at *State v. Kennedy,*616 P.2d 594 (1980), affirmed the lower court.

On the appeal of his conviction, defendant did not contend that he was denied a jury trial, or that he did not voluntarily waive such right. His counsel, Mr. Warner, was an experienced lawyer and member of the Bar in good standing, who, as the record reveals, faithfully and capably represented defendant from the time defendant was charged, through preliminary examination and trial. Warner also filed notice of appeal, and wrote a brief. At that juncture, defendant employed different counsel.

His new counsel consulted with Mr. Warner, and asked him, “Why did you waive the jury?” and continued by saying, “He (Kennedy) didn’t waive it at all.” Yet, instead of adding the point on appeal, which appears they could have done, defendant and his new counsel chose to defer asserting the jury trial issue, until after the decision of this Court affirming the conviction. After the decision of this Court was issued in December, 1980, defendant filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus. Such delayed contention indicates an attempt to do that which this Court many times has disallowed, i.e., to employ the habeas corpus procedure as a substitute for an appeal.1

The decision of the trial judge in the habeas corpus proceeding is affirmed for the foregoing reasons. In any event, there is substantial, admissible evidence which supports the decision. Defendant’s counsel more than once told defendant that, as a matter of strategy, he thought it would be to defendant’s advantage to try the case to the court rather than to a jury. After having been advised of his right to a jury trial, the defendant elected to have the case tried to the court. Thereafter, defendant waived his right in open court, the judge being satisfied that it was done voluntarily and knowingly.

Affirmed.

1

. *Brown v. Turner,*21 Utah 2d 96, 440 P.2d 968 (1968), *Bryant v. Turner,*19 Utah 2d 284, 431 P.2d 121 (1967).
Exhibit 32.2

 

Section 1350 Certifications

 

**CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

 

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, Gordon Samson, Chief Financial Officer and  Director of Cascade Energy Inc., certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") for the period ended May 31, 2006, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof:

 
|   | (i) | fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Act of 1934, as amended, and
|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial |
|--------|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

condition and results of operations of Cascade Energy Inc.
|  

 

  | By: | */s/ Gordon Samson**CFO* and a member of the Board of Directors(who also performs the function of  principal accounting officer) |
|------------------------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cascade Energy Inc., and will be retained by Cascade Energy Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Allan L. ZALESKY, Frances M. Zalesky, Irene R. Harris, Robert S. Harris, Jr., Steven L. Krischer and Miriam L. Krischer, as General Partners of Fleetwood Enterprises, a Florida partnership, Appellants, v. CHEVY CHASE SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., f/k/a Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, Inc., Appellee.

No. 88-408.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1988.

*1042White & Brown, Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin and Linda G. Katsin and Marc Cooper, Miami, for appellants.

Alley, Maass, Rogers, Lindsay & Chauncey and George Ord, Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Ethyl Corp. v. Balter,*386 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), *rev. denied,*392 So.2d 1371 (Fla.), *cert. denied,*452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981); *Lawler v. Eugene Wuesthoff Memorial Hosp. Ass’n,*497 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); *Rosa v. Florida Coast Bank,*484 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
# Iris Oifigiúil C NaN/16 A

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | Eagrán Speisialta (
  *1
  ) |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 6316 Aibreán 2020 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

Eagrán Speisialta (
  *1
  )

*1

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

6316 Aibreán 2020

---

| Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- |
| | Ceartúcháin |
| | Ceartúchán ar an bhfógra comórtas oscailte — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Danmhairgise (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Gréigise (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Fraincise (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Cróitise (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Polainnise (PL) ( IO C 72 A, 5.3.2020 ) — (Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge an 5 Márta 2020) | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

Ceartúcháin

Ceartúchán ar an bhfógra comórtas oscailte — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Danmhairgise (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Gréigise (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Fraincise (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Cróitise (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Polainnise (PL) ( IO C 72 A, 5.3.2020 ) — (Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge an 5 Márta 2020)

( IO C 72 A, 5.3.2020 )

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (*1)   Faoin tagairt C 123 A a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh. |

---

(*1)   Faoin tagairt C 123 A a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh.

*1

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

Ceartúcháin

| 16.4.2020 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

1

---

Ceartúchán ar an bhfógra comórtas oscailte — EPSO/AD/375/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Danmhairgise (DA) — EPSO/AD/376/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Gréigise (EL) — EPSO/AD/377/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Fraincise (FR) — EPSO/AD/378/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Cróitise (HR) — EPSO/AD/379/20 — Dlítheangeolaithe (AD 7) Polainnise (PL)

(
  Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 72 A an 5 Márta 2020
  )

(Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge an 5 Márta 2020)

Ar leathanach 1:

in ionad:

“Ní foláir clárú faoin sprioc-am seo: 7 Aibreán 2020 ar 12.00 (meán lae), am na Bruiséile”

léitear:

léitear:

“Ní foláir clárú faoin sprioc-am seo: 5 Bealtaine 2020 ar 12.00 (meán lae), am na Bruiséile”

Ar leathanach 6

in ionad:

in ionad:

“Is féidir iarratas a dhéanamh ar shuíomh gréasáin EPSO (http://jobs.eu-careers.eu) faoin:

7 Aibreán 2020 ar 12.00 (meán lae), am na Bruiséile.”

léitear:

léitear:

“Is féidir iarratas a dhéanamh ar shuíomh gréasáin EPSO (http://jobs.eu-careers.eu) faoin:

“5 Bealtaine 2020 ar 12.00 (meán lae), am na Bruiséile.”

---
**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 Macquarie Infrastructure Company
        LLC
        (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, Francis T. Joyce, 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 the
        best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (1) the
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2) the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Francis
                  T. JoyceFrancis
                  T. Joyce
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
                November
                  6, 2008
  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.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Leonard A. Foxman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Test Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange 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 tobe 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) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release No. 34-47986];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 02, 2007/s/ Leonard A. Foxman
**Exhibit 31.1**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002I, Dan S. Dugan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certifythat:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 14, 2006   /s/ Dan S. Dugan Dan S. Dugan  Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
steam

_ record - Re: Plant ID's 06599 and 00664 Sect ion 308 ICR Response Extension Request

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an ex tension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agre es to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely,

-----"Eric Holder" <EHolder@indepmo.org> wrote: -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Eric Holder" <EHolder@indepmo.org> Date: 06/28/2010 10:47AM cc: "Leon Daggett" <LDagge tt@indepmo.org>, "Paul Mahlbe rg" <PMAHLBERG@indepmo.org> Subject: Plant ID's 06599 and 00664 Sectio n 308 ICR Response Extension Request From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: "Eric Holder" <EHolder@indepmo.org> Date: 6/28/2010 4:01 PM Sub j ect: Re: Plant ID's 06599 and 00664 Section 308 ICR Response Extension Reques t Pa g e 1 of 2

3/17/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C28C74BD

...** High Priority   Reply Requested When Convenient ** 

Ms. Alicea,

Pursuant to your June 18, 2010 ICR Letter for our Missouri City (ID 06599) and Blue Valley (ID 00664) Power Plants, Independence Power & Light formally requests a 45 day extension to the response period (i.e., response would be due Tuesday November 2, 2010). The extension is necessary for the following reasons:

1) We are a small, municipally-owned utility with limited resources; 2) The amount of information requested is extensive requiring input from various departments; and, 3) The standard response period occurs during the summer, our busiest time of year, when our limited staff is already booked.

Thank you for your kind consideration of this extension request.

Regards, Eric Holder Environmental Compliance Engineer Independence Power & Light 21500 E. Truman Road Independence, MO 64051 (816) 325-7455 off (816) 325-7474 fax (816) 365-2378 cell Pa g e 2 of 2

3/17/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C28C74BD

...
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020

    Focus on Priorities





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (2.18 MB)
 
 IHA FS Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center AFIMSC innovation AFMCInnovates2019 installation health assessment
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit