alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ALI RESHARD BARBOUR

,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL D. CREWS,

SECRETARY OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE M OTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3981

Opinion filed September 17, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Ali Reshard Barbour, pro se , Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PE R CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

LEWIS, C.J., PADOVANO and CLARK, JJ.

, CONCUR.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13403]

[[Page 33994]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Part 252

RIN Number 0750-AG38

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Government 
Support Contractor Access to Technical Data (DFARS 2009-D031); 
Correction

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects the amendatory language to a final rule 
published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2013, 78 FR 30233, 
regarding the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; 
Government Support Contractor Access to Technical Data (DFARS 2009-
D031). This correction makes two corrections to the amendatory 
language.

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction

    In the Federal Register of May 22, 2013 (78 FR 30233) in the 
amendatory language, correct the following:

252.212-7001  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 30238, in the center column, amendatory instruction 6a is 
corrected to read as follows:
0
``6. Section 252.212-7001 is amended--
0
a. By removing the clause date ``(MAR 2013)'' and adding ``(MAY 2013)'' 
in its place.''

252.227-7014  [Corrected]

0
2. On page 30238, in the right hand column, amendatory instruction 8b 
is corrected to read as follows:
0
``8. Section 252.227-7014 is amended--
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(15); and (b)(3)(iii) to read as follows:''

Kortnee Stewart,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2013-13403 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY: 

Federal Election Commission.

# DATE AND TIME: 

Tuesday April 10, 2012 at 10 a.m.

# PLACE: 

999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.

* * * * *

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shelley E. Garr,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012-8359 Filed 4-3-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
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 Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II,
      L.P.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Robert K. Moskovitz, 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 respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











November
      14, 2005  /s/
      Robert K. Moskovitz


Robert
      K. Moskovitz


Chief
      Financial
      Officer
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. L. C. DEMPSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80CA0687.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Jan. 29, 1981.

*375J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Susan P. Mele-Sernovitz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Michael Heher, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery committed on July 28, 1979, and was sentenced to a term of three years, plus one year of parole, to run concurrently with the sentence then being served by him. *See*§ 18-4-301(2), C.R.S.1973; § 18-l-105(l)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1979 Cum.Supp.). The sentence recites: “This sentence is imposed after giving full consideration for all presentence confinement which the defendant has undergone with respect to the transaction for which he is being sentenced, and the sentence imposed reflects that credit was given for such confinement.”

The defendant’s post-conviction motion for correction of the sentence was denied by the trial court in an order reciting “that the Court in giving a three-year sentence did consider the time the defendant spent in the county jail.” The defendant contends that § 16-11-306, C.R.S.1973 (1979 Cum. Supp.) requires the court to make a finding of the amount of the presentence confinement served, and to include this finding in the mittimus. The attorney general agrees, and has confessed error. We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Section 16-11-306, C.R.S.1973 (1979 Cum. Supp.), became effective July 1, 1979. It provides:

> “A person who is confined prior to the imposition of sentence is entitled to credit against the term of his sentence for the entire period of such confinement. At the time of sentencing, the court shall make a finding of the amount of presen-tence confinement to which the offender is entitled and shall include such finding in the mittimus. Such period of confinement shall be deducted from the sentence by the Department of Corrections.”

This section removes from the trial court the discretion whether to grant or deny a defendant credit against his sentence for presentence confinement time, and imposes upon the Department of Corrections a duty to assure that credit is given in every case. Under the later statute, the only judicial function is to make a finding of fact concerning the number of days spent by a defendant in presentence confinement.

The case is remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside the sentence, and for such further proceedings as may be necessary to determine the number of days spent by the defendant in presentence confinement, and to impose an amended sentence and issue a mittimus in compliance with § 16-11-306, C.R.S.1973, (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). In this connection, *see Coleman v. People,*174 Colo. 94, 482 P.2d 378 (1971).

ENOCH, C. J., and TURSI, J., 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 Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended
June 27, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Korzenski, as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert M. Korzenski                                                                
|Robert M. Korzenski Chief
Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)

August 9, 2010

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.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
September 18, 2018

DRAFT TRADE MITIGATION SPECIFICATION FOR TABLE GRAPES

COMMODITY SPECIFICATION 

for FRESH FRUIT AUGUST 2014

This draft specification is for Trade Mitigation purchases only.

New text is in blue.

This purchase must meet all relevant requirements of the Commodity Specification for Fresh Fruit July 

2017, with additional requirements shown below.

Inspection will be at destination.

1. Grade – U.S. No. 1 Table.

2. Type of pack – 19 lb. cartons containing multiple retail size bags.

3. Variety – red, green, or black.

4. Type – seedless.

5. Must be loaded into a refrigerated trailer capable of holding air temperature not to exceed 36° F.

6. Refrigerated shipment at 32° to 36° F, (32° to 34° F, optimal).

Failure to meet all the Solicitation and USDA Purchase specification requirements will result in 

automatic rejection of the load at destination. No adjustments will be allowed. It is the vendor’s 

responsibility to ensure the delivery of acceptable product. The replacement of any failed deliveries with 

acceptable product, will be the vendor’s responsibility.

 All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Specialty 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Crops Room 1536-S, STOP 0240

Program Washington, DC 20250-0240
**
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Stefan Berndt-von Bülow, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Mynaric AG;

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 
4.
The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 
 (a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 
 (b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 company’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 
5.
The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 inthe company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 6, 2022 

 
By: 
/s/ Stefan Berndt-von Bülow
 Stefan Berndt-von Bülow Chief Financial Officer**
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2021-4 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofOctober 27, 2021, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2021-4 and Citibank, N.A. (the “Agreement”) during the periodthat is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: /s/ Marc WomackName: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2023By: /s/ Vikas GuptaName: Vikas GuptaTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2023**
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 June 30, 2012, 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 20th day of August, 2012.








MICHEL ST-PIERREMichel St-PierreChief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60613

Summary Calendar

 

SALVATORE D’ANGELO,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A14 757 553

- - - - - - - - - -

February 19, 1999

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Salvatore D’Angelo petitions for review of the decision of

the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an

order of deportation. D’Angelo was ordered deported because he

was convicted of distribution of heroin in 1989. Pursuant to

section 309(c)(4) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009

(Sep. 30, 1996), we lack jurisdiction to entertain D’Angelo’s

appeal.

PETITION DISMISSED.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00230-CR

WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-675-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant filed what appeared to be a pro se interlocutory notice of appeal of the 

trial court’s ruling on his motion for bond reduction. A week later he filed a similar 

notice of appeal in this case.
Webb v. State Page 2

The Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that this case was subject to dismissal 

for want of jurisdiction and that the Court might dismiss his appeal unless he showed 

grounds for continuing it. Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s letter.1

This Court lacks jurisdiction over a trial court‘s denial of a motion for bond 

reduction when the appeal is not from the trial court’s denial of a pretrial application 

for writ of habeas corpus in which the appellant sought bond reduction. See Benford v. 

State, 994 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Sanchez v. State, 340 

S.W.3d 848, 849 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.). Accordingly, this appeal is 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 30, 2012

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

1 Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in this appeal. We dismiss it for lack of 

jurisdiction because courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law 

matters. See Ex parte Price, 228 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Hearon, 

3 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding).

2 We dismiss as moot Appellant’s pending motion for speedy trial and motion to withdraw attorney of 

record.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 623 

To constitute the majority party’s membership on certain committees for 

the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To constitute the majority party’s membership on certain 

committees for the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, 

or until their successors are chosen. 

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the ma2 jority party’s membership on the following committees for 

3 the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, or until their suc4 cessors are chosen: 

5 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Inhofe 

6 (Chairman), Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Cotton, Mr. 

7 Rounds, Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Perdue, 

8 Mr. Cruz, Mr. Graham, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Scott, Mr. Kyl. 

9 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOV10 ERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: Mr. Johnson (Chairman), Mr. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 623 ATS 

1 Portman, Mr. Paul, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hoeven, 

2 Mr. Daines, Mr. Kyl. 

3 COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS: Mr. Hoeven 

4 (Chairman), Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Murkowski, Mr. 

5 Lankford, Mr. Daines, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Moran, Mr. Kyl. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
#### TIMOTHY H. KENNEY, P.A., Appellant, v. Richard G. FIELD and Linda L. Field, Appellees.

No. 87-0836.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 14, 1987.

Keith W. Meisel of Timothy H. Kenney, P.A., Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this proceeding for dissolution of marriage the trial court denied a motion for enforcement of a charging lien for attorney’s fees for the wife’s counsel on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

We reverse the order appealed from and remand the cause for further proceedings. The relief sought is expressly provided for in *Kozich v. Kozich,*501 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and *Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom,*428 So.2d 1383 (Fla.1983).

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of Hawk Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph J. Levanduski,
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; and





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














/s/ JOSEPH J.
LEVANDUSKI


Joseph J.
Levanduski


Chief Financial
Officer





March 17,
2008





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the
knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other
purpose.




















































































83