alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon E. GOSSETT, Bondsman-Appellant.

No. 83CA0475.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV.

Feb. 9, 1984.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1984.

*1324Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Maureen Phelan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Clawson & Potter, P.C., Kimball Gardner, Colorado Springs, for bondsman-appellant.

*

 Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of the *Colo. Const.,*Art. VI, Sec. 5(3) and § 24-51-607(5), C.R.S. (1983 Repl.VoI. 10).

SILVERSTEIN *, Judge.

Gossett seeks reversal of the trial court’s denial of his motion for refund of a forfeited bond. We affirm.

Gossett, a licensed bail bondsman, posted a $2,000 corporate surety bond to assure the appearance of an accused, one McRey-nolds, at a hearing on April 19, 1982. McReynolds did not appear on that date, nor subsequently, and therefore, the trial court ordered the bond forfeited.

McReynolds’ mother had guaranteed to repay the bondsman for any funds paid out under the bond. Gossett obtained a judgment for $2,000 against the mother, and, on discovering that she was financially unable to pay the judgment, filed his motion for reimbursement on the ground that the judgment was working a severe hardship on the guarantor. Following the hearing on the motion, the trial court found that the mother was “judgment proof” and that the benefit of any remittance would, therefore, inure only to the bondsman. Evidence supported these findings.

In *Owens v. People,*194 Colo. 389, 572 P.2d 837 (1977), our Supreme Court noted that whether a forfeited bond should be remitted is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, but, under the circumstances presented there, it ordered the return of the bond. Gossett contends that *Owens*mandates reversal here. However, the facts here are significantly different from the facts in *Owens,*which the court described as “unique.”

Here, contrary to the situation in *Owens,*accused had not been returned to custody at the time of the hearing on the motion to remit the bond. Further, in *Owens*the record established that the ' guarantor would suffer extreme hardship as a result of the forfeiture, while here such was not the case. *Cf. People v. Saviano,*677 P.2d 414 (Colo.App.1983). Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. *See People v. Johnson,*155 Colo. 392, 395 P.2d 19 (1964).

Judgment affirmed.

ENOCH, C.J., and HODGES,* J., concur.
No. 99-20221 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20221 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALDEMAR ANGUILO-GONZALEZ, also known as Carlos Ramon Fernandez, also known as Chile, also known as Aldomar Angulo-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-398-ALL

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Represented by retained counsel, Aldomar Anguilo-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by an illegal alien and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and he was sentenced to the lowest sentence recommended under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Federal Public Defender, Anguilo-Gonzalez’s counsel on appeal, argues that his conviction and sentence must be vacated because the district court violated F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(c)(3) by failing to advise Anguilo-Gonzalez that he had a right to appointed counsel at trial if he could not afford aNo. 99-20221 -2- retained attorney. Counsel does not otherwise challenge the validity of Anguilo-Gonzalez’s conviction and sentence. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court’s omission was not material to Anguilo-Gonzalez’s decision to plead guilty. United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc); see United States v. Caston , 615 F.2d 1111, 1115 (5th Cir. 1980). Vacating and remanding for a trial or a new guilty plea would be an exercise in futility which could easily result in a harsher sentence. Thus, the appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
**EXHIBIT
32.2**
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
M. Blodgett, 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
      respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 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.
 
 
 /s/
Robert M. Blodgett
 Name: 
Robert M. Blodgett
 Title:   
Chief Financial Officer
 Date:  
May 10, 2005
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 21, 2007/s/ R. Michael Andrews, Jr.R. Michael Andrews, Jr.Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
[No. 18577-6-II.

Division Two.

August 23, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Anthony G. Fellis, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kit-sap County, No. 93-1-00943-5, M. Karlyn Haberly, J., entered June 24, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Turner, JJ.
#### STATE ex rel. Tyrone JACKSON v. C. Paul PHELPS.

No. 87-KH-1356.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1987.

In re Tyrone Jackson, applying for reconsideration of writ denial of July 1, 1987, 508 So.2d 829, to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. CA86 0633; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 291970.

Denied.
United States Steel Corporation

– Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request April 24, 2012

**Item 16**

Id entify all persons, including employ ees, consultants, representatives of the taconite industry , or representatives of air pollution control manufacturers, who assisted in the preparation, or were consulted for the purpose of preparing, the BART report. **Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or were consulted in the preparation of the response:**  Chrissy Bartovich

– U. S. Steel
**Answer:** The Minntac BART report was written b y Barr Engineering, who als o wrote BART reports for other taconite facilities. Below is a list of individuals from U. S. Steel and Barr who worked on the subject report. MPCA staff who were consulted during the course of writing the report were not included. This list may not be all inclusive, but it is the best information we have available after going through information from 2006. Individuals listed were employ ees of the companies at the time of the BART report. Since that time some have moved to other companies or retired. For U. S. Steel those individuals who are still employ ed b y the compan y have been identified with the word “active” after their name. U. S. Steel: Chrissy Bartovich

– active Kevin Py lka Ray Potts Bill Kubiak Scott Vagle

– active Barr Engineering: Erik Boleman Andrew Skoglund Joel Trinkle Tony Shoberg George Pruchnofski Mike Hansel Beth Havlik Jack Kenned y
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 25 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Antho ny Thras h ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. Dus ti n M cDan ie l, i n h is in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Ark an sa s St at e Att orne y Gene ral ; J im

Hann ah , Chi ef J us ti ce, Ark an sa s Supr em e Co urt; KarenR. Bak er, J us ti ce, Ark an sa s Supr em e Co urt; Don al d L. Co rb in , Ju st ic e, Ark an sa s Supr em e Co urt; Pau l E. Dan ie ls on , Ju st ic e, Ark an sa s Supr em e Co urt; Co urtn ey Hud so n- Goo ds on , Ju st ic e, Ark an sa s Supr em e Co urt; Jo se ph in e L. Hart, J us ti ce, Ark an sa s Supr em e Co urt; Cli ff Ho of m an , Ju st ic e, Ark an sa s Supr em e Co urt ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 14 Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 30 , 20 14 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , andGRUENDER, Circu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Ark an sa s pr is on er Antho ny Thra sh ap pe al s th e di st ric t co urt’s pr es er v i c e 1 d i s m is sa l of hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n ch al le ng in g Ark an sa s’s pr oc edur es fo r is su in g writ s of erro r co ram no bi s. Fo ll owi ng care fu l rev ie w of th e rec o rd an d Th r a s h ’s br ie f, we co nc lu de th at , fo r th e reas on s ex pl ai ne d in th e di st ric t co ur t ’s or de r, th e co urt di d no t err in di sm is si ng th e act io n fo r f a i l u r e to st at e a cl ai m . See 28 U.S.C. §§ 19 15 A(b ), 19 15 (e)( 2 ) ( B ) ; Co op er v. Sch rir o, 18 9 F.3 d 78 1, 78 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m ) (d e n ov o re vi ew). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s. -2

-
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 05, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 05, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A2401. RUSSELL GAITHER v. MARTY ALLEN et al.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On August 05, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and 

a brief no later than August 15, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
**Exhibit 15**

May 9, 2007

GFI Group Inc.100 Wall StreetNew York, New York

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards ofthe Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unauditedinterim financial information of GFI Group Inc. and subsidiaries for thethree-month periods ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, and have issued ourreport dated May 9, 2007. As indicated in our report, because we did notperform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, whichis included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2007, is being incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-122905on Form S-8.

Wealso are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

| /s/ DELOITTE &  TOUCHE |   |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|
| New York, New York              |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.0

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SI Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 consolidated financial condition and results of the Company as of and for the period covered
by this Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Rheo A. BrouillardRheo A. BrouillardPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 12, 2006By:

/s/ Brian J. HullBrian J. HullExecutive Vice President, Treasurerand Chief Financial OfficerMay 12, 2006
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 State

          - [Public Notice 7812]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be included in the exhibition “Decree Stele” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Getty Villa, Pacific Palisades, CA, from on or about April 25, 2012, until on or about March 30, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including the art object list, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: March 20, 2012.

J. Adam Ereli,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2012-7348 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Charles LANDRY, et ux v. NOBILITY HOMES, INC., et al.

No. 86-C-1076.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Nobility Homes Inc.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-143; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 52133.

Prior reports: La.App., 484 So.2d 325; 488 So.2d 726.

Denied.
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 Annual Report of Allion Healthcare, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 31, 2005, each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on
the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
his 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.  The
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Allion Healthcare, Inc.





Date: March
      29, 2005****/s/ Michael P. MoranMichael
      P. Moran
      Chief
      Executive Officer/s/ James G. SpencerJames
      G. Spencer
      Chief
      Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 264 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.264
                                      Agreed to November 9, 2001        

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas Congress is pleased to welcome the Prime Minister of India, 
  Atal Bihari Vajpayee, on his visit to the United States;

Whereas the United States and India, the world's two largest 
  democracies, are natural allies, based on their shared values and 
  common interests in building a stable, peaceful, and prosperous world 
  in the 21st century;

Whereas from the very day that the terrorist attacks in New York and 
  Washington occurred, India has expressed its condolences for the 
  terrible losses, its solidarity with the American people, and its 
  pledge of full cooperation in the campaign against international 
  terrorism;

Whereas India, which has been on the front lines in the fight against 
  international terrorism for many years, directly shares America's 
  grief over the terrorist attacks against the United States on 
  September 11, 2001, with the number of missing Indian nationals and 
  persons of Indian origin estimated at 250;

Whereas the United States and India are engaged as partners in a global 
  coalition to combat the scourge of international terrorism, a 
  partnership that began well before the tragic events of September 11, 
  2001;

Whereas cooperation between India and the United States extends beyond 
  the current international campaign against terrorism, and has been 
  steadily developing over recent years in such areas as preserving 
  stability and growth in the global economy, protecting the 
  environment, combating infectious diseases, and expanding trade, 
  especially in emerging knowledge-based industries and high technology 
  areas; and

Whereas more than 1,000,000 Americans of Indian heritage have 
  contributed immeasurably to American society: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress--
        (1) to welcome the Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari 
    Vajpayee, to the United States;
        (2) to express profound gratitude to the Government of India 
    for its expressions of sympathy for the September 11, 2001, 
    terrorist attacks and its demonstrated willingness to fully 
    cooperate with the United States in the campaign against terrorism; 
    and
        (3) to pledge commitment to the continued expansion of 
    friendship and cooperation between the United States and India.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 28240 2001