alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of Michael J. KLEINFIELDT, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 83CA0233.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

March 29, 1984.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Dolores S. Atencio, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioner-ap-pellee.

B.J. Fett, Jr., Colorado Springs, for respondent-appellant.

VAN CISE, Judge.

Respondent, Michael J. Kleinfieldt, appeals an order for long-term care and treatment pursuant to § 27-10-109, C.R.S. We affirm.

*865Contrary to respondent’s first contention, we agree with the district court that there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent poses a danger to himself and others.

His other contention is that the requirements of § 27-10-109(l)(b), C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 11) were not complied with. That statute provides, in pertinent part:

> “... [T]he professional person ... may file a petition with the court for long-term care and treatment of the respondent under the following conditions:

> 

> “(b) The respondent has been advised of the availability of, but has not accepted, voluntary treatment; but, if reasonable grounds exist to believe that the respondent will not remain in a voluntary treatment program, his acceptance of voluntary treatment shall not preclude an order pursuant to this section.”

Respondent asserts that, prior to the filing of the petition, he was not advised of the availability of voluntary treatment. He also claims that there was no record of his acceptance or refusal of such treatment. The record shows otherwise.

Respondent was represented by counsel at all stages in these proceedings. The petition states that he had been advised of the availability of voluntary treatment. A copy of that petition was served on him three days before it was filed with the court. At the hearing, he admitted that he had been advised previously by a person at the hospital. Also, the attending physician testified that respondent would not remain in a voluntary treatment program. The requirements of the statute were met.

Order affirmed.

STERNBERG and METZGER, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 138 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 138

 Supporting the goals and ideas of National Community Residential Care 
                                 Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2001

   Mr. Ose submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting the goals and ideas of National Community Residential Care 
                                 Month.

Whereas the need for quality and dependable health care for the elderly, 
        disabled, and mentally ill increases every year;
Whereas community residential care provides medical, social, and nutritional 
        assistance to those in need who cannot provide for themselves;
Whereas both the national and international community residential care industry 
        is deserving of recognition and appreciation;
Whereas the community residential care industry is staffed by committed, 
        hardworking professionals who dedicate their working lives to the care 
        of the elderly, disabled, and mentally ill;
Whereas those providing community residential care must meet stringent licensing 
        requirements;
Whereas the community residential care industry provides a workable and homelike 
        environment for those unable to care for themselves at home, in a manner 
        which promotes confidence, support, and self-esteem; and
Whereas the Community Residential Care Association of California recognizes the 
        month of May as ``National Community Residential Care Month'': Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress supports the goals and ideas of National Community 
Residential Care Month and requests that the President issue a 
proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe such 
a month with appropriate programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Thomas W. Winfree, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Southern Community Financial Corp.;



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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  August 13, 2004

By: /s/ Thomas W. Winfree

Thomas W. Winfree

President and

Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18685-18686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7532]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 516


New Animal Drugs for Minor Use and Minor Species

CFR Correction

    In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500 to 599, 
revised as of April 1, 2011, on page 96, in Sec.  516.20, (b)(2) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  516.20  Content and format of a request for MUMS-drug 
designation.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The name and address of the sponsor; the name of the sponsor's 
primary contact person and/or permanent-resident U.S. agent including 
title, address, and telephone number; the established name (and 
proprietary name, if any) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient of 
the drug; and the name and address of the source

[[Page 18686]]

of the active pharmaceutical ingredient of the drug.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-7532 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
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 Ecolocap Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Michel St-Pierre, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 16th day of November, 2009








MICHEL ST-PIERREMichel St-PierreChief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Liquidation of HORNSBY & LANDRY.

No. 87-CC-2683.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Landry, Ashton J. — Other; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 871456; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW87-1225.

Denied.

COLE, J., would grant the writ.
#### Willie J. PICKETT, Appellant, v. PROBUILT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. BH-108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 14, 1986.

Charles E. Pettit of Butler and Pettit, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.

Judith S. Nelson of Law Offices of James 0. Nelson, Ft. Lauderdale, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

We find that the deputy commissioner erred in sustaining the employer/carrier’s *159objection to the proffered testimony of Dr. Bodden. However, we find the evidence, even considering the proffered testimony, insufficient to sustain an award of TTD benefits, and therefore AFFIRM the deputy commissioner’s order.

NIMMONS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, 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 SmartPros Ltd. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, the undersigned,
Allen S. Greene, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stanley P.
Wirtheim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: November
9, 2010

| |     |                                | 
| | --- | ------------------------------ | 
| | /s/ | ALLEN S.
 GREENE               | 
| |     |                                | 
| |     | Allen S.
 Greene              
| |     | Chief
 Executive Officer      
| |     | (Principal
 Executive Officer)

| |     |                                | 
| | --- | ------------------------------ | 
| | /s/ | STANLEY P.
 WIRTHEIM           | 
| |     |                                | 
| |     | Stanley P.
 Wirtheim          
| |     | Chief
 Financial Officer      
| |     | (Principal
 Financial Officer)

---
#### Alvaro LUJAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2382.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 30, 1989. .

Bennett H. Brammer, Public Defender, and Howard E. Landau, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our review of the record and the state’s confession of error, we vacate the defendant’s enhanced sentence. The defendant was convicted of attempted trafficking in cocaine. The guidelines score sheet recommended a sentence of any non-state prison sanction. After hearing arguments, the trial judge entered a sentence that departed upward from the guidelines. The sole basis for the upward departure was the quantity of drags involved in the crime. The quantity of drags involved in a crime may not be utilized as a proper reason to support departure from the sentencing guidelines. *Atwaters v. State,*519 So.2d 611 (Fla.1988); *see Cauthen v. State,*522 So.2d 374 (Fla.1988); *State v. Stanley,*519 So.2d 613 (Fla.1988); *Hernandez v. State,*538 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Accordingly, the sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing.
1

The Honorable Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3967

___________

Farideh Richardson, *

personally and on behalf *

of my children, Fraydoun *

Soltani; Farhad Soltani & * Appeal from the United States

Ladan Richardson, * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Appellant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

v. *

*

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of *

Social Security, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 3, 2009

 Filed: December 11, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Farideh Richardson, on behalf of herself and her children, appeals the district

court’s1

 dismissal of her pro se social security appeal for lack of subject matter
-2-

jurisdiction based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have carefully

reviewed the record de novo, see In Home Health, Inc. v. Shalala, 272 F.3d 554, 559

(8th Cir. 2001), and conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons stated by the

district court. Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny the pending motions. 

______________________________
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 377

Authorizing the taking of photographs in the Chamber of the United States

Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 17 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the taking of photographs in the Chamber of

the United States Senate.

1 Resolved, That (a) paragraph 1 of rule IV of the

2 Rules for the Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United

3 States Capitol (prohibiting the taking of pictures in the

4 Senate Chamber) is temporarily suspended for the pur5 pose of permitting photographs as provided in subsection

6 (b).

7 (b) The photographs shall be—

8 (1) taken during the period that the Senate of

9 the 106th Congress stands in recess or adjournment

10 and prior to the convening of the 107th Congress;
2

•SRES 377 ATS

1 (2) taken for the purpose of allowing the Senate

2 Commission on Art to carry out its responsibilities

3 to preserve works of art and historical objects within

4 the Senate Chamber and to document those works

5 and objects; and

6 (3) subject to the approval of the Committee on

7 Rules and Administration.

8 SEC. 2. The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate shall

9 make the necessary arrangements to carry out this resolu10 tion.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

YASSIN H. MOHAMAD, : No. 69 WM 2023 Petitioner V. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA, FAYETTE COUNTY, Respondent ORDER

PERCURIAM AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2024, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the "Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief" is DENIED.
*

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3976

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Jesus Ojeda-Martinez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 3, 2005

 Filed: February 15, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Ojeda-Martinez (Ojeda) appeals the sentence the district court*

 imposed

after Ojeda pleaded guilty to a drug charge. Ojeda’s counsel has moved to withdraw

and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ojeda has filed a

supplemental brief challenging the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief, and

arguing amphetamine is improperly scheduled as a controlled substance. Having

carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in

denying Ojeda safety-valve relief. See United States v. Gutierrez-Maldonado, 328
-2-

F.3d 1018, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). We also conclude the drugs Ojeda was

convicted of distributing provide a proper basis for criminal penalties, as both

substances are explicitly referenced in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Upon our

independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no

nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Neurogen Corporation  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as follows: 

-  I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Neurogen Corporation (the "Company"). 

-  To the best of my knowledge:       -  The Company's Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"); and    
  -  The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|   | By:   | /s/ William H. Koster        William H. Koster         President and        Chief Executive Officer        Date:  April 29, 2004 |
|--------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
##### 



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 Form 10-Q of AMH Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended October
2, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
D. Keith LaVanway, Vice President  Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Treasurer and
Assistant Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; and2)
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 17, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ D. Keith LaVanwayD. Keith LaVanway  Vice
President  Finance,  Chief
Financial Officer,  Assistant
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary  (Principal
Financial Officer and  Principal
Accounting Officer)
 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. -27-
#### Gloria CURTIS and Nelson J. Curtis v. GMAC LEASING CORPORATION, Benson Nissan, Inc. and Nissan Motor Corporation In U.S.A.

No. 87-C-1095.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Benson Nissan, Inc.; applying for supervisory writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-0769; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 322-786.

*71Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 209.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., recused.
#### Anneliese PASBRIG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman E. WALTON and Barbara J. Walton, Defendants-Appellants, and Connie Copenhaver, Public Trustee of Teller County, Colorado, Defendant.

No. 81CA0894.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Sept. 2, 1982.

*460No appearance for plaintiff-appellee.

Walton & Robinson, P. C., Norman E. Walton, Colorado Springs, for defendants-appellants.

KELLY, Judge.

Norman E. and Barbara J. Walton appeal the ruling of the trial court that the failure to insure premises subject to deed of trust is a curable default under § 38-39-118, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.). We conclude that the judgment is not final, and therefore, dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff, Anneliese Pasbrig, alleged in her complaint that she and her husband had purchased a home from the Waltons, executing a promissory note and deed of trust in their favor. Plaintiff further alleged that she was in default under the note because she had failed to make several payments and to insure the premises as required under the deed of trust. She requested that the court order the Public Trustee to allow a cure of the default, enjoin the foreclosure sale to permit cure, and determine the amount necessary to cure.

When the hearing on these issues was commenced, the trial court announced it would rule from the bench without taking any evidence. The trial court refused the defendants’ request for evidence of current insurance on the premises, and ruled summarily that the plaintiff’s failure to insure the premises as required by the deed of trust is a curable default under § 38-39-118, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.).

This ruling on the legal issue cannot be reviewed because it is merely a statement of a proposition of law without application to any underlying facts. For example, there is in the record no deed of trust, no promissory note, no evidence of insurance, the default, nor the attempt to cure. If facts were stipulated, the record does not reveal it. Because there were no facts in the record, the trial court could not make the factual findings necessary as a basis for its legal conclusion, C.R.C.P. 52(a), and we cannot review the propriety of that legal conclusion.

Even had there been facts before the trial court, its ruling was not a final judgment because it was not entered in the register of actions as required by C.R.C.P. 58(a). Although a minute order may be a sufficient substitute for a formal written order, *Hebron v. District Court,*192 Colo. 346, 558 P.2d 997 (1977), the terse entry in the register of actions in this case was insufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of C.R.C.P. 65(d). Generalized bench statements alone are not enough to constitute an injunction which parties are obliged to obey, and a minute order entry that “there is a right to cure” does not provide a basis for review.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final judgment.

SMITH and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., concur.