alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2018

No. 04-18-00133-CV

IN THE MATTER OF S.T.,

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. JV-17-035

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s motion to reconsider denial of oral argument is hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on October 11, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
#### William WHITTINGTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold BRAY, Sheriff of Jefferson County, Colorado, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 79SA183.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

June 16, 1980.

J. Gregory Walta, Colo. State Public Defender, Michael Heher, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner-appellant.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Anthony Marquez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent-appellee.

HODGES, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a petition- for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Section 16-19-101, *et seq.,*C.R.S.1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). The appellant raises three issues relating to the propriety of the extradition proceedings. He first challenges the validity of the governor’s warrant due to the alleged failure of the governor to personally review the requisition documents. Secondly, he questions the sufficiency of the requisition documents from North Carolina used to support the warrant. Finally, he attacks the sufficiency of the proof of his identification as the person sought by the demanding state. We reject each of these arguments and affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition.

The appellant’s first argument was not raised in the trial court; however, it was recently rejected by this court in *Whittington v. Bray,*Colo., 612 P.2d 72 (1980). We find no reason to elaborate further on the issue. Additionally, the remaining arguments have been raised for the first time on appeal,1 and thus will not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. The appellant did challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of his identity in the trial court on a ground other than the primary thrust of his argument to this court. We note that this secondary ground is without merit. *See Allen v. Cronin,*189 Colo. 540, 543 P.2d 707 (1975).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1002

LAURA D. COOPER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN HASTY, Individually and as Director of

the Virginia Department of Health Professions;

EVELYN R. FLEMING, Individually and as Assistant Attorney General assigned to advise the

Virginia Department of Health Professions;

WARREN W. KOONTZ, M.D.; KAREN E. KNAPP, M.D.;

CHARLES H. CROWDER, JR.; JOSEPH A. LEMING,

M.D.; ANTHONY U. MOORE; PAUL M. SPECTOR, D.O.;

THOMAS A. WASH, M.D., Individually and as

Members of the Virginia Board of Medicine; THE

VIRGINIA BOARD OF MEDICINE, as an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Virginia; GEORGE

ALLEN, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia; U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

as an executive agency within the United

States Department of Justice; SEVEN UNKNOWN

NAMED AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, designated herein as

T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z, Individually and as

Officials of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration; CLARKE RUSS, M.D.;

THERESA FAHY KASEMAN, D.P.M.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-780)
2

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Laura D. Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Carlotta

Porter Wells, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,

D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her

civil action. The district court found that Appellant lacked standing. We find no reversible error. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S.

737, 751 (1984) (party must allege personal injury fairly traceable

to allegedly unlawful conduct). Consequently, we affirm the district court's dismissal of her action. To the extent Appellant appeals the denial of her motion for a temporary restraining order,

we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Ridgewood Energy L
Fund, 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 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(s) 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 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(s) 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 functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the 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.



Dated:       March 9, 2007

        /s/  ROBERT E. SWANSON
      Name:  Robert E. Swanson

     Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
             (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:/s/ Kimberly K. SchaeferKimberly K. Schaefer
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
**
**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 Bridger Aerospace Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), the undersigned officers of the Company herebycertify, 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 Exchange Act of1934; and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report. 

 
Dated: March 20, 2023     By: 
*/s/ Timothy Sheehy*
   Name: Timothy Sheehy   Title:   Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 20, 2023     By: 
*/s/ Eric Gerratt*
   Name: Eric Gerratt   Title:   Chief Financial Officer**
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy L
Fund, 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 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(s) 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 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(s) 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 functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the 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: August 11, 2005

/s/ Robert E. Swanson
---------------------
Robert E. Swanson
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
From: Llenza, Charles

Sent: Sat May 01 00:27:47 2010 Subject: DOE Announces a Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Public Meeting, May 18, 2010

The Department will hold an informal public meeting as a first step in the standards rulemaking process for commercial refrigeration equipment. This meeting is the starting point for the standards -development process and familiarizes interested stakeholders with the approach and analytical tools that the DOE anticipates using. The meeting highlights issues on which DOE requests feedback from interested parties on the assumptions, methodology, and analytical tools the DOE proposes to use. In addition, the Department requests data and information
that DOE should co nsider in its analysis of commercial refrigeration equipment.

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Public Meeting Information:

DATE: May 18, 2010 TIME: 9:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. EST

LOCATION: U.S. Department of Energy Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Room 8E

- 089 Washington, DC 20585

For more information please click on the framework document on the Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Public Meeting page:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrig_equip_ mtg_2010.html

Regards,

Charles Llenza Project Manager/Engineer US Department of Energy (202)586 -2192(work) (202)287 -1590(fax) Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

*********************************************************************************

**********
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE ISCONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMESABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR ANEMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE TO THEINTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU
ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OFTHIS COMMUNICATION IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NON -PUBLICPERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT ANY CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER OF THE SENDER OR INTENDEDRECIPIENT, YOU ARE
FURTHER PROHIBITED U NDER PENALTY OF LAW FROM USING ORDISCLOSING THE INFORMATION
TO ANY THIRD PARTY BY PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERALGRAMM -LEACH-BAILEY ACT. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONICMESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY
NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN ORDE STROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO ASSURE THAT IT IS NOT READ, COPIED, ORDISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS.
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm’s Consent

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in this Shell Company Report of Critical Metals Corp. on Form 20-F of our report dated March 27, 2023, withrespect to our audits of the financial statements of Sizzle Acquisition Corp. as of December 31, 2022 and 2021 and for the years thenended, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the ability of Sizzle Acquisition Corp. to continue as a going concern, which reportappears in the Registration Statement on Form F-4 (File No. 333-268970). We also consent to the reference to our Firm under the headings“Auditors” and “Statements by Experts”.

 

/s/ Marcum LLP

 

Marcum LLP

Houston, Texas

March 4, 2024
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Roebling  Financial  Corp,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005  (the
"Report")  as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof, we, Frank J. Travea,  III,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and
Janice A. Summers,  Senior Vice  President,  Chief  Operating  Officer and Chief
Financial Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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) 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.


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.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                                           <C>
/s/Frank J. Travea, III                          /s/Janice A. Summers
-------------------------------------            --------------------------------------------------
Frank J. Travea, III                             Janice A. Summers
President and Chief Executive Officer            Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
</TABLE>




August 8, 2005
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 99 

Recognizing the 11 African-American soldiers of the 333rd Field Artillery 

Battalion who were massacred in Wereth, Belgium, during the Battle 

of the Bulge in December 1944. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2017 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. BOOZMAN) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

OCTOBER 16, 2017 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 11 African-American soldiers of the 333rd 

Field Artillery Battalion who were massacred in Wereth, 

Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge in December 

1944. 

Whereas, in December 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge 

in Belgium, soldiers of the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, an African-American unit of the Army, were operating in support of the 106th Infantry Division when the 

106th Infantry Division and the soldiers from the 333rd 

Field Artillery Battalion were overrun; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 99 ATS 

Whereas, months after the Battle of the Bulge, the frozen 

bodies of 11 soldiers from the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion were found near the Belgian hamlet of Wereth; 

Whereas the bodies of the 11 soldiers were— 

(1) identified as James Stewart of West Virginia, 

Due Turner of Arkansas, Curtis Adams of South Carolina, Mager Bradley of Mississippi, George Davis, Jr., of 

Alabama, Thomas Forte of Mississippi, Robert Green of 

Georgia, James Leatherwood of Mississippi, Nathaniel 

Moss of Texas, George Motten of Texas, and William 

Pritchett of Alabama; 

(2) examined by Army Medical Corps officials; and 

(3) found to have been stabbed, shot, and struck by 

blunt force; 

Whereas the massacre of the 11 African-American soldiers of 

the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion in Wereth remains 

unknown to the vast majority of the people of the United 

States; 

Whereas, in 2004, a permanent monument in Wereth was 

dedicated to the 11 African-American soldiers of the 

333rd Field Artillery Battalion who lost their lives in 

Wereth during the Battle of the Bulge in the effort to 

defeat fascism and defend freedom; and 

Whereas the 11 patriots have become known as the ‘‘Wereth 

11’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate, on behalf of the United 

2 States, recognizes the dedicated service and ultimate sac3 rifice of the 11 African-American soldiers of the 333rd 

4 Field Artillery Battalion who were massacred in Wereth, 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 99 ATS 

1 Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge in December 

2 1944. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Jean L’AQUARIUS, et al., Appellants, v. Gary MAYNARD, et al., Appellees.

No. 56604.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 29, 1981.

*1311Jean L’Aquarius, pro se.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Jack Eliot, Norman, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, inmate in custody of the Department of Corrections, brings this pro se appeal in forma pauperis from the February 20, 1981, order of the District Court of Cleveland County, which, *inter alia,*denied to appellant the “use of marijuana as a sacrament.” Petition in error was not forwarded to the Clerk of this Court until March 24,1981, and not received by the Clerk until March 27, 1981. More than 30 days had passed between the entry of the order appealed from and the filing of the petition in error. Appellate proceedings concerning district court’s judgments or ap-pealable orders must be commenced by filing in the Supreme Court a petition in error within 30 days from date of final order or judgment appealed. Timely filing of the petition in error is jurisdictional and failure to file petition in error in a timely manner will result in dismissal of appeal. *Warehouse Market, Inc. v. Berry,*Okl., 459 P.2d 853 (1969).

Complaint is made by appellant L’Aquarius that he did not receive a copy of the complaint of district court order until March 20,1981, and he was hampered in his efforts to timely file his appeal by lack of an adequate law library and alleges there were no inmate law clerks to assist him. Assuming these allegations to be true, we do not pass upon the question of whether or not they may excuse the late filing of a petition in error. Suffice it to say, examination of appellant’s amended petition in error and his brief demonstrate appellant has clearly articulated his position, i. e., that refusal to permit the use of marijuana for religious purposes violates the guaranties of the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution.

We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive under the rationale of *Lewellyn v. State,*Okl.Cr., 592 P.2d 538 (1979), together with the authorities cited.

Appellant’s request for ancillary relief in the nature of injunction is Denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION DENIED.

IRWIN, C. J., BARNES, V. C. J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, DOOLIN, HAR-GRAVE and OPALA, JJ., concur.