alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Royzell EASON v. STATE.

5 Div. 180.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 8, 1987.

*655Lee Sims of Oliver & Sims, Alexander City, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Fred F. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON RETURN TO REMAND

TAYLOR, Judge.

We found it necessary to remand this case to the circuit court for a hearing on the petition for writ of error coram nobis, because of the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, 499 So.2d 819. The office of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court an error of fact not appearing on the face of the record, which was unknown to the court or to the party affected, and which, if known in time, would have prevented the judgment of conviction. *Carter v. State,*473 So.2d 668 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). None of the issues raised by Eason, other than ineffective assistance of counsel, meets the test of *Carter, supra.*

Eason’s allegation of counsel’s ineffectiveness is that, he contends, counsel urged him to testify. Had he not testified, he says, the result in his case might have been different. Both he and his trial counsel testified at the coram nobis hearing. He was accused of raping a woman. During the rape, the woman stabbed him. Thereafter, he took the weapon, chased her down, and cut her. As in the case of most sex crimes, no one else was present. The only testimony regarding the occurrence was the testimony of the victim. Had the appellant not testified, the evidence of the victim in the case would have been uncon-tradicted: that he committed the acts complained of. He did not, therefore, hurt himself by testifying, although his testimony was not believed and, indeed, was not believable. This was not a case of ineffective assistance of counsel. The advice was sound. The standard for ineffective assistance set out in *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), was not met. The judge considering the coram nobis petition must also be convinced of the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony regarding the allegations before he would be authorized to grant the petition. *Bibby v. State,*394 So.2d 73 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied, 394 So.2d 76 (Ala.1981). Obviously, the court saw that without the testimony of the accused, the case was lost. Nothing more was lost by the accused’s taking the stand. His counsel gave good advice when he told him that if the evidence was left in the posture it was in, he would be convicted *unless*the jury totally disregarded the evidence. This case is due to be affirmed.

OPINION EXTENDED; AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 3, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132952 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 132952 

 COA: 271170 

Genesee CC: 00-007094-FC 

ALFRED JACKSON, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0926 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 3, 2007 

 Clerk
#### STATE ex rel. Gregory P. WALKER v. ORLEANS PARISH CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 88-KH-0291.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 1988.

In re Walker, Gregory P.; applying for supervisory/remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 261-201.

Granted for the purpose of transferring the application to the district court with instructions to the trial judge to act on relator’s motion for production of documents if same has been filed in the district court.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL


EXECUTIVE 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 this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report of Profire Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brenton W. Hatch, 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, as amended.











Date:
March 17, 2011

By:
/s/ Brenton W. HatchBrenton W. HatchChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Howard Luther DICKERSON v. STATE.

7 Div. 500.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 10, 1987.

AFTER REMANDMENT FROM THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

McMILLAN, Judge.

This cause is hereby reversed and remanded in accordance with the Alabama

Supreme Court’s decision in *Ex parte Dickerson,*517 So.2d 628 (Ala.1987).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William H. Joyce, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nalco Holdings LLC (‘‘Nalco’’) and Bradley J. Bell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with the filing of Nalco’s 10-Q financial report (the ‘‘Report’’) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, covering the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2007, hereby certify as follows:

| |    |                                                                                            
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | a. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

| |    |                                                                                                                                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | b. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations for Nalco.

/s/ WILLIAM H. JOYCEWilliam H. Joyce
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Date: November 7, 2007/s/ BRADLEY J. BELLBradley J. Bell
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 7, 2007


---
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ m 05-10509

_______________ SUE C. MCNEIL,Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WYETH, Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, Doing Business as A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

_________________________ ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: IT IS ORDERED that the “Motion for Modification of Certain Statements in the Court’s Opinion” and the “Petition for Panel Rehearing for the Limited Purpose of Modifying Certain Statements in the Opinion” are DENIED. /s/ Jerry E. Smith JERRY E. SMITH United States Circuit Judge
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Patrick Bratton, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;



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 quarterly 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 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 we 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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 function):



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.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/    PATRICK BRATTON 
|                        |  | Patrick Bratton        
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Casanave Motor Vehicle Operator License Case.

Argued December 11, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

Before Groshens, J.

*David E.*Thomas, with him Raspin, Espenshade, Heins, *Ershine &*Stewart, for appellant.

*78*Elmer T.*Bolla, Deputy Attorney General, with him *David*Stahl, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.

January 16, 1962:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge David E. Groshens for the court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 678.
#### The STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel., Robert H. MACY, District Attorney of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Appellant, v. William T. JACKSON, Appellee.

No. O-81-405.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 17, 1983.

*362Robert H. Macy, Dist. Atty., Susan L. Palmer, Asst. Dist. Atty., Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Mike W. Speegle, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CORNISH, Judge:

The State is seeking to appeal a decision of the District Court of Oklahoma County, sustaining the appellee’s “motion to quash the information” in Case No. CRF-80-3999. The district judge ruled that Jackson had been illegally arrested and therefore any evidence obtained pursuant to the illegal arrest should be suppressed.

The State apparently seeks to appeal the district court’s decision under the authority of Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1053(1). This statutory section, however, does not authorize the State to appeal a district court ruling dismissing the information based upon insufficient evidence as a result of a suppression of the evidence. Section 1053(1) merely allows the State to appeal from a district court’s ruling setting aside an indictment pursuant to Title 22 O.S.1981, § 493. *State v. Patton,*637 P.2d 1266 (Okl.Cr.1981).

In this case, the district court’s action does not bar the State from refiling another information for the same offense. Title 22 O.S.1981, § 817. Therefore, since the district court’s ruling does not constitute a final order, the State has no standing to appeal pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 1053. *State v. Tieman,*626 P.2d 1360 (Okl.Cr.1981).

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the above styled and numbered cause be DISMISSED.

BUSSEY, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.14



                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
             ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. 1991 INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN
                   (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED ON MARCH 29, 2001)

      THIS AMENDMENT, is made and entered into on August 8, 2001, by ALLIED
WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Employer").

                                R E C I T A L S:

      1. The Employer maintains the Allied Waste Industries, Inc. 1991 Incentive
Stock Plan, as amended and restated effective March 29, 2001 ("Plan");

      2. The Employer has reserved the right to amend the Plan in whole or in
part; and

      3. The Employer intends to amend the Plan.

      THEREFORE, the Employer hereby adopts this Amendment as follows:

      1. Section 7(c) of the Plan is revised to read as follows:

            (c) Transfers Prior to Vesting. Prior to the vesting of a share of
      Restricted Stock, a Participant shall be entitled to assign or transfer
      such share and all of the rights related thereto to the extent permitted
      by this Section 7(c). Any such assignment or transfer must not be for
      value. Any such assignment or transfer is limited to an assignment or
      transfer to: (i) a child, stepchild, grandchild, sibling, niece, nephew,
      mother-in-law, father-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law
      or sister-in-law, including adoptive relationships, (ii) any person
      sharing the Participant's household (other than a tenant or employee),
      (iii) a trust in which the persons described in (i) or (ii) (or the
      Participant) hold more than 50% of the beneficial interest or (iv) a
      private foundation in which the persons described in (i) or (ii) (or the
      Participant) own more than 50% of the voting interests. A transfer to any
      entity in which more than 50% of the voting interests are owned by the
      persons described in (i) or (ii) (or the Participant) in exchange for an
      interest in that entity shall not constitute a transfer for value.

      2. The Effective Date of this Amendment shall be August 8, 2001.

<PAGE>


      3. Except as amended, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan shall
remain in full force and effect.

                                       ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., a
                                         Delaware corporation



                                       By
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                          Steven M. Helm, Vice President, Legal
                                          and Corporate Secretary


                                      -2-
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 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, Michael Siegel, 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 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








MICHAEL SIEGELMichael SiegelChief Executive Officer
#### Samuel SHERADSKY, Esquire, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. WALSH, THEISSEN & BOYD, P.A., Appellee/Cross Appellant, v. Rosa Lee COLSTON, David Lee Colston, and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Appellees.

No. 87-1793.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 14, 1988.

Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant/cross appellee.

Gilbert E. Theissen of Walsh, Theissen and Boyd, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for ap-pellee/cross appellant.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the record in this case and the facts pertinent thereto.

We conclude that the division of the attorney’s fees in this particular case should have been decided pursuant to *Florida Patients Compensation Fund v. Rowe,*472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1986).

Sub judice, the trial court did not comply with the *Rowe*formula. Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for a further hearing in accordance herewith.

LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., JR., Associate Judge, concur.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of Medical Technology & Innovations, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 33-27610-A)
of our report dated September 11, 1996, except for Note 16 as to which the date
is October 21, 1996, on the consolidated financial statements of Medical
Technology & Innovations, Inc. and subsidiary appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB/A of Medical Technology & Innovations, Inc. for the year ended
June 30, 1996.


                                            By /s/ Simon Lever & Company
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Simon Lever & Company

Lancaster, Pennsylvania
October 29, 1996
# Europeiska unionens C 138I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1061 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 138I |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 63 årgången28 april 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1061

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 138I

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

63 årgången28 april 2020

---

| Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Upplysningar |
| | UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN |
| | Europeiska kommissionen |
| 2020/C 138 I/01 | Uttalande från kommissionen som rör Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) 2020/560 om ändring av förordningarna (EU) nr 508/2014 och (EU) nr 1379/2013 vad gäller särskilda åtgärder för att lindra de effekter som covid-19-utbrottet får inom fiskeri- och vattenbrukssektorn | 1 |

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

IV   Upplysningar

UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN

Europeiska kommissionen

2020/C 138 I/01

Uttalande från kommissionen som rör Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) 2020/560 om ändring av förordningarna (EU) nr 508/2014 och (EU) nr 1379/2013 vad gäller särskilda åtgärder för att lindra de effekter som covid-19-utbrottet får inom fiskeri- och vattenbrukssektorn

1

---

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

IV Upplysningar

UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN

Europeiska kommissionen

| 28.4.2020 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CI 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2020

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CI 138/1

---

Uttalande från kommissionen som rör Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) 2020/560 om ändring av förordningarna (EU) nr 508/2014 och (EU) nr 1379/2013 vad gäller särskilda åtgärder för att lindra de effekter som covid-19-utbrottet får inom fiskeri- och vattenbrukssektorn

(2020/C 138 I/01)

Kommissionen välkomnar att Europaparlamentet och rådet snabbt har antagit förslaget om att ändra Europeiska havs- och fiskerifonden för att mildra verkningarna av covid-19-utbrottet och hjälpa EU:s fiskare och vattenbruksproducenter.

Kommissionen vill understryka att fiskerikontroll och insamling av vetenskapliga data är av stor betydelse för en hållbar förvaltning av fiskbestånden på grundval av bästa tillgängliga vetenskapliga rådgivning och en tillförlitlig efterlevnadskontroll. En minskning av de ekonomiska resurserna till detta bör inte leda till en försämring av resultatet av dessa viktiga delar av den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken.

Kommissionen vill betona att den i sitt förslag, liksom i de ändringar som gjorts av förslaget, hanterar den unika krissituation som covid-19-utbrottet orsakat och det exceptionella och akuta behovet av stöd för att bemästra konsekvenserna av utbrottet. Detta föregriper inte den kommande förordningen om Europeiska havs- och fiskerifonden.

---
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 81

Designating the year of 1999 as ‘‘The Year of Safe Drinking Water’’ and

commemorating the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 21, 1999

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. BAUCUS, and Mr. REID) submitted

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating the year of 1999 as ‘‘The Year of Safe Drinking

Water’’ and commemorating the 25th anniversary of the

enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Whereas clean and safe drinking water is essential to every

American;

Whereas the health, comfort, and standard of living of all

people in this Nation depends upon a sufficient supply of

safe drinking water;

Whereas behind every drop of clean water are the combined

efforts of thousands of water plant operators, engineers,

scientists, public and environmental advocacy groups, legislators, and regulatory officials;
2

•SRES 81 IS

Whereas public health protection took an historic leap when

society began treating water to remove disease-causing

organisms;

Whereas over 180,000 individual water systems in the United

States serve over 250,000,000 Americans;

Whereas the Safe Drinking Water Act is one of the most significant legislative landmarks in 20th century public

health protection;

Whereas the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act on

December 16, 1974, enabled the United States to take

great strides toward the protection of public health by

treating and monitoring drinking water, protecting

sources of drinking water, and providing consumers with

more information regarding their drinking water;

Whereas Americans rightfully expect to drink the best water

possible, and expect advances in the public health

sciences, water treatment methods, and the identification

of potential contaminants; and

Whereas the continued high quality of drinking water in this

country depends upon advancing drinking water research,

vigilantly monitoring current operations, increasing citizen understanding, investing in infrastructure, and protecting sources of drinking water: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates the year of 1999 as ‘‘The Year

3 of Safe Drinking Water’’;

4 (2) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the

5 enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act; and
3

•SRES 81 IS

1 (3) requests that the President issue a procla2 mation calling upon the people of the United States

3 to observe the year with appropriate programs that

4 enhance public awareness of—

5 (A) drinking water issues;

6 (B) the advancements made by the United

7 States in the quality of drinking water during

8 the past 25 years; and

9 (C) the challenges that lie ahead in further

10 protecting public health.

Æ