alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Craig Allen CHRISTIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1859.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 9, 1987.

*771James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The written judgment herein refers to a thirty-year sentence, whereas a thirty-month sentence was actually imposed. We remand for correction of this clerical error. Otherwise, we affirm.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Ben ARNETT, Respondent.

No. 67478.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 8, 1986.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1986.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Carolyn V. McCann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, 15th Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We review *Arnett v. State,*471 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), because of direct and express conflict with *State v. Jackson,*478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

The district court below held, inter alia, that sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, but not in effect at the time the offense was committed, could not be applied. We quash the portion of the decision so holding on the authority of *Jackson*and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

EHRLICH, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which SHAW, J., concurs.

EHRLICH, Justice,

concurring specially.

I concur because of this Court’s decision in *State v. Jackson,*478 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1985), but I adhere to the views expressed in my dissent therein.

SHAW, J., concurs.
EX-10.2


  Exhibit 10.2

   

  May 20, 2022             	

  Robert Krakowiak

   

  Dear Robert:

  This letter amends the offer letter of employment between you and Vroom, Inc. (“Company”) dated September 13, 2021 (“Offer Letter”). The bulleted paragraph labeled “Annual Grants” is hereby amended to delete the first sentence of such paragraph and insert in lieu thereof the following:  “Subject to your continued employment with Vroom through the grant date, your annual equity award grant for 2022 shall be 500,000 restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and 300,000 stock options, in each case, on terms and conditions consistent with those applicable to the RSUs and/or stock options granted to the Company’s executive leadership team.”

  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Offer Letter remains in full force in effect in accordance with its terms.  

  Sincerely,

    

  			
	/s/ C. Denise Stott 
	 
	05/20/2022

	C. Denise Stott | Vroom
	 
	Date

	Chief People and Culture Officer
	 
	 



   

  By signing below, I agree to the provisions stated in this letter. I acknowledge that this letter, together with the Offer Letter as amended herein and Vroom’s Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between Vroom and me and supersedes any prior verbal or written agreements, arrangements, or understandings pertaining to my offer of employment. 
 

  			
	/s/ Robert R. Krakowiak
	 
	05/20/2022

	Employee Signature
	 
	Date

	 
	 
	 

	Robert R. Krakowiak
	 
	 



   

  1
(a)  A
        review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 15, 2021, as amended (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as
        seller, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2021-D Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2023 has been made under my supervision.
  (b)  To


        the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
    /s/ James Schofield
`[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
                        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                          APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019 
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________






                                 HEARINGS 

                                 BEFORE A 

                            SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

                        COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

                      ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

                             SECOND SESSION 

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, 
                           AND RELATED AGENCIES 

                      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman 

   RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey      MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 
   KEN CALVERT, California                  PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 
   CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee        DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 
   JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska               PETE AGUILAR, California 
   KAY GRANGER, Texas                       JOSE E. SERRANO, New York  
   JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 
   DAVID G. VALADAO, California 
   
   NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the full 
     committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full committee, 
     are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees. 

                    ANGIE GIANCARLO, LORAINE HECKENBERG, 
                       PERRY YATES, and AMY MURPHY 

                               Subcommittee Staff 
                                    _________
                                    
                                    
                                    PART 6 

                             DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

                                                                        Page 
Fiscal Year 2019 Members� Day Hearing ...........................          1
Testimony of Interested Individuals and Organizations                     43 


                      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

[TEXT NOT AVAILABLE]`
```

                                                                    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 Rand Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I Laurence S. Levy, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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 result of operations of the
Company.

By:/s/ Laurence S. Levy                                 Dated: December 14, 2004
  --------------------------------------
      Laurence S. Levy
      Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Gilberto Miranda, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), rendered June 8, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), rendered June 8, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's contention that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because the court failed to inquire whether he was under the influence of any drugs at the time of the plea, is unpreserved for our review, since defendant did not move to vacate the judgment of conviction (<i>see</i> CPL ยง440.10; <i>People v Lopez</i>, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; <i>People v Galagan, </i>35 AD3d 973, 974 [2006])<i>. </i>The narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable because nothing in the record engenders significant doubt on the knowing or voluntary nature of defendant's guilty plea (<i>see People v Diaz</i>, 112 AD3d 423, 424 [2013], <i>lv denied</i> 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]).</p><p>As an alternative holding, we also reject defendant's contention on the merits. The record establishes that defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and there was nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's ability to make a voluntary decision to plead guilty was impaired in any way by his use of drugs (<i>see People v Rodriguez</i>, 83 AD3d 449 [2011], <i>lv denied </i>17 NY3d 800 [2011];<i> People v Royster</i>, 40 AD3d 885 [2007], <i>lv denied </i>9 NY3d 881 [2007). In this regard, defendant was rational and coherent throughout the plea proceedings, capably responded to the questions put to him, and gave no indication of mental impairment which would have alerted the court to the need of a further inquiry (<i>see People v Brooks</i>, 89 AD3d 747 [2011], <i>lv denied </i>18 NY3d 955 [2012];<i> see also People v Francis</i>, 38 NY2d 150, 154 [1975]). </p><p>In any event, the only relief defendant requests is a dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since dismissal is not warranted, we affirm on that basis as well (<i>see People v Diaz, </i>112 AD3d 423, 424 [2013], <i>lv denied </i>23 NY3d 1036 [2014]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<p></p><div align="center"></div>Decision Date: October 21, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 13
- 00040
- CR No. 10
- 13
- 00041
- CR DARRYL DEWAYNE WILLI AMS , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No s . 2012
- 0750
- C1 and 2012
- 0835
- C1

MEMORAN DUM OPINION
Darryl Dewayne Williams’s pro se notices of appeal in the underlying criminal actions complaining of the trial court’s rulings on motions to withdraw as attorney of record were filed on February 7, 2013. By letter dated February 15, 2013, t he Clerk of this Court notified Williams that these appeals were subject to dismissal because it appeared the Court does not have jurisdiction of an appeal of a ruling on a motion to withdraw by counsel. By the same letter, the Clerk warned Williams that, unless anyWilliams v. State Page 2

party filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals within 21 days of the date of the letter, the appeals would be dismissed. Williams has filed a response for both appeals but it does not provide grounds for continuing the appea ls. We do not have jurisdiction of an interlocutory appeal of the grant or denial of a motion to withdraw as attorney of record. See Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696

- 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for determining jurisdiction is whether the app eal is authorized by law); Everett v. State , 91 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, no pet.) (Court has jurisdiction over criminal appeals only when expressly granted by law). No law authorizes the interlocutory appeal of a denial of these motions. The app eals are dismissed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 7 , 2013 Do not publish [CR25]
s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 30, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00539

- CV

Randall Carlton ORNDOFF

, Appellant

v.

Terri Lee ITALIAN

, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Tex as

Trial Court No. 04

- 1876

- CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The appellant ’ s m otion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED. The appellant ’ s

brief is due on December 1, 2014.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justic e

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cler k of Court
Exhibit 35.1

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 24, 2021 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2021-4 Owner Trust, as follows:

(i) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2022, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.


(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of May, 2022.



| |                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)







---
[Cite as State v. Collingsworth, 2024-Ohio-3234.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

MICHAEL COLLINSWORTH,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2024-04-050

D E C I S I O N

 8/26/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. CR2023-11-1697

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John Heinkel, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Engel & Martin, LLC, and Mary K. Martin, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Michael Collinsworth, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the 

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common 

Pleas, and upon the briefs.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record 
Butler CA2024-04-050

- 2 -

from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the 

rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists three

potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744; (3) requests that 

this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free 

from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) 

requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is 

wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have 

been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response 

having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error 

prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel 

for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed 

for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
[Cite as State v. Collingsworth, 2024-Ohio-3234.]
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

10/8/14

The Honorable Dana Aunkst, Acting Secretary

Pennsylvania Department of the Environment

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-2063

Dear Secretary Aunkst:

On August 28, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department of the Environment

(PADEP) pertaining to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the control of 

volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from flexible packaging printing presses, offset lithographic 

printing presses and letterpress printing presses, and from adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents. EPA 

has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to 

prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) action. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Maria A. Pino, Office of 

Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2181, or at pino.maria@epa.gov. She is the principal contact for 

this rulemaking.

Sincerely, 

/s/

David L. Arnold, Acting Director

Air Protection Division

cc: Joyce Epps, Director

 Bureau of Air Quality, PADEP
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the amendment
      to the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q of Blackhawk Capital Group BDC, Inc. (the "Company") for
      the
      quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig A. Zabala, as acting Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, hereto certifies, 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 his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities 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 Company.




Date: May
              8,
              2006/s/ Craig
              A.
              ZabalaCraig
              A.
              ZabalaActing Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
              Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Blackhawk Capital Group BDC and furnished
      to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


25
----

**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**

| (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                  Partnership. |

|   | By:    | /s/                  Freddie M. Kotek    |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Freddie                  M. Kotek        |
|   | Title: | Chief                  Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | August                  15, 2005         |

----
Opinion issued September 1 2 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00749
- CR

——————————— IN RE JOSUE CERVANTE S , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Josue Cervantes has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order granting a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served by relator on a non

- party. * We d eny the petition. To the extent that the petition requests an emergency stay of the underlying trial court proceedings pending our determination on the petition, we dismiss the request as moot.

* The underlying case is State of Texas v. Josue Cervantes , cause number 1410156, pending in the 248th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Katherine Cabaniss presiding.PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report of LatAmGrowth
SPAC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Gerard Cremoux, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
 §1350, as added by §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) | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 12, 2022



| | By: | /s/ Gerard Cremoux           
| | --- | -----------------------------
| |     | Gerard Cremoux               
| |     | Chief Financial Officer      
| |     | (Principal Financial Officer)



|* | The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------