alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1 D 2 0 2 3

- 0920

_____________________________
E DDIE W. H YSLOPE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Paul S. Bryan , Judge

.

May 16, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# C_2009282EN.01003203.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-509/08) (1)

1

2009/C 282/57

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          24,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,034,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,965,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,609,037
<PP&E>                                      38,780,884
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              87,914,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,575,222
<BONDS>                                     66,620,558
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,429
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,824,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                87,914,268
<SALES>                                     93,962,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            93,962,979
<CGS>                                       77,767,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               74,767,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,725,795
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,661,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,575,352)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,597,755)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,977,597)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,977,597)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Advance Welding Workforce Initiative FAQs, October 2020 Page 1 of 2

Advance Welding Workforce Initiative 

FAQs

1) Must applicants be based in the ARC Region?

a. No. They must provide the training services to residents of the Region but may be 

based anywhere.

2) How much funding is available for this program in total?

a. $1,000,000

3) How many grants will be awarded?

a. A total of three to six awards is anticipated. 

4) Is this initiative is focused more on pipe or flat plate welding? 

a. The focus will include joining a range of components and geometries, including 

but not limited to pipe, tube, assemblies of membrane walls, rotor discs, valves, 

turbine airfoils.

5) Are there more specific alloys other nickel involved?

a. Yes, the full suite of high-temperature materials present in existing and new-build 

fossil power generating units, not just alloys with nickel are of interest. As an 

example, this would include but not be limited to the ferritic and austenitic 

stainless steels. It would also include compositions used for joining and coating 

various components as well.

6) Are only vocational schools eligible for this program or can other institutes of higher 

education apply?

a. All institutions of higher education are eligible to apply. As per the RFP: 

Eligible ARC applicants are the following:

• Local development districts

• Indian tribes or a consortium of Indian tribes

• States, counties, cities, or other political subdivision of a state, including a 

special purpose unit of a state or local government engaged in economic or 

infrastructure development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions

• Institutions of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher 

education 

• Public or private non-profit organizations or associations, including unions 

with non-profit status

Appalachian Regional Commission in partnership

with the U.S. Department of Energy
Advance Welding Workforce Initiative FAQs, October 2020 Page 2 of 2

7) How can I determine the required minimum match rate for my county?

a. Please see County Economic Status and Distressed Areas by State, FY 2021, scroll 

down and select your state for Fiscal Year 2021.

8) Do all projects need to budget expenses for two-in-person training as listed in section 5.1?

a. Yes. 

9) Is the purchase of equipment an eligible cost?

a. Expenses that are directly related to and necessary for training in the advanced 

welding skills are allowable. This would include essential equipment.
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 on Form 10-K of Bedford Property Investors, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter B. Bedford, 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 (Section 906), 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.





March 11, 2005

/s/ Peter B. Bedford

Peter B. Bedford

Chief Executive 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### O’BRIEN v. SWOPE, Warden.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 29, 1939.

James W. O’Brien, in pro. per.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner asks for a writ of habeas corpus. Pie alleges that he is imprisoned in the United States Penitentiary at McNeil Island, Washington, by reason of a judgment and commitment issued by the United Slates District Court of Oregon. He alleges that he plead guilty but claims that he was denied assistance of counsel. A prior application for a writ of habeas corpus was made to the United Slates District Court for the Western District of Washington and denied. The application to the Senior Circuit Judge for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. See United States ex rel. Bernstein v. Hill, 3 Cir., 71 F.2d 159.
#### RICHARD TAYLOR, ET AL., PROSECUTORS-APPELLANTS, v. THE CITY OF HACKENSACK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued December 13, 1948

Decided December 20, 1948.

*Mr. David Cohn*argued the cause for the prosecutors-appellants *{Mr. Herman Greenstone,*attorney; *Mr. Abram Simon,*on the brief).

*Mr. Ralph W. Chandless*argued the cause for the defendant-respondent, The City of Hackensack (Messrs. *Chandless, Weller, Kramer & Fmnk,*attorneys; *Mr. Ernest Weller,*on the brief).

*Mr. John J. Breslin*argued the cause for the defendants-respondents Fred Ingannamort et al. *{Mr. George I. Marcus,*attorney).

■Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Eastwood.

*F.or affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Heher, Oliphant, Wagheneeld and Ackerson—6.

*For reversal:*None.
# Steuben - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board Executive Director Chelsea Robertson Email &#x63;&#x72;&#111;&#98;&#101;r&#x74;&#x73;&#x6f;&#110;&#64;st&#x63;&#x70;&#x6c;&#97;&#110;n&#x69;&#x6e;&#x67;&#46;&#111;&#114;gThe post Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 17

- 5043

_____________________________

L EE A NTWAN J OHNSON ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell Wallace, Judge.

September 19, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

R AY , C.J., and B.L. T HOMAS and W INOKUR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Rodney G. Gregory, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia C. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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 Gammacan International Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Tovi Ben Zeev, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (3)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date:  February 9, 2005                                 By: /s/ TOVI BEN ZEEV
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Tovi Ben Zeev
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: LG Chem, Ltd. v. Tommy Morgan

Appellate case number: 01-19-00665-CV

Trial court case number: 100728-CV

Trial court: 239th District Court of Brazoria County

The appellee, Tommy Morgan, has filed a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Angela 

J. Nehmens and a Motion of A. Craig Eiland in Support of Motion Seeking Permission for NonResident Attorney, Angela J. Nehmens, to Participate in the Above-captioned Proceeding. Both 

motions lack the certificate of conference required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). 

Accordingly, we deny the appellee’s motions without prejudice to refiling with the proper 

certificates of conference.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___October 17, 2019__
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Howard Washington, Respondent.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered on September 25, 1990, convicting defendant, after a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 265.02 (4) and sentencing him to five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

This is an appeal by the People who contend that the sentence imposed for gun possession was invalid as a matter of law because there were no mitigating circumstances which would have rendered a prison sentence unduly harsh. (Penal Law § 70.02 [2].) Defendant pleaded guilty to charges contained in two separate indictments. In one case he pleaded guilty to possession of a gun and drugs. The allegation was that he possessed 56 vials of cocaine at the time of his arrest. In the other indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the possession of 17 vials of cocaine. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years’ probation on all of those charges.

Penal Law § 70.02 (2) (c) (i) provides that a person convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree must receive a prison sentence unless he has not been convicted of a Class A misdemeanor in the previous five years and "having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and to the history and character of the defendant, [the court] is of the opinion that such sentence would be unduly harsh”.

Absent any error of law, the People have no right to appeal and this court may not interfere with the trial court’s decision to impose a probationary sentence. (CPL 450.30 [2]; *People v Williams,*164 AD2d 1, 7-8 [1990].) Although we believe that having regard to the ¡particular circumstances of this gun possession case, there were no mitigating circumstances and the sentence was inappropriate and an abuse of discretion, it was not invalid as a matter of law. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 30, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00625

- CV

Dr. Kyle Janek, Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission; and Doug Wilson, Inspector General for the Office of Inspec tor General, Appellant s

v.

Harlingen Family Dentistry, P.C., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from th e judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 2, 2013. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court ’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
EXHIBIT 32


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

     I, Paul G. Laird, Chief Executive Officer and I, Les Bates, Chief Financial
Officer of New Frontier Energy, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of New Frontier
Energy, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report; and

     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
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

Date:    October 9, 2007



/s/ Paul G. Laird
-----------------
Paul G. Laird,
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Les Bates
-------------
Les Bates,
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                        69,258
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,738,511
<ALLOWANCES>                  (75,000)
<INVENTORY>                   3,797,740
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              7,220,465
<PP&E>                        3,907,553
<DEPRECIATION>                (1,685,205)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                13,672,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         11,349,475
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   4,100,000
<COMMON>                      500
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  13,672,917
<SALES>                       19,222,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              19,230,736
<CGS>                         13,334,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 13,334,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              12,328,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            792,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (7,224,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (7,224,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (1.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.000
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24

                            POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned, being a
director or officer, or both, of MB FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint MITCHELL FEIGER and JILL
YORK, with full power to each of them to act alone, as the true and lawful
attorneys and agents of the undersigned, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution to each of said attorneys, to execute, file or deliver any of
them, deem advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any requirements of the Securities and
Exchange Commission in respect thereto, relating to annual reports on Form
10-K, including specifically, but without limitation of the general authority
hereby granted, the power and authority to sign such person's name in the
name and on behalf of the Company as a director or officer, or both, of the
Company, as indicated below opposite such person's signature to annual
reports on Form 10-K or any amendments or papers supplemental thereto; and
each of the undersigned does hereby fully ratify and confirm all that said
attorneys and agents, or any of them, or the substitute of any of them, shall
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has subscribed these
presents, this 30th day of January, 2001.


                 NAME                            TITLE


/s/  Mitchell Feiger
------------------------------- Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
     MITCHELL FEIGER


/s/  Jill E. York
------------------------------- Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
     JILL E. YORK


/s/  Robert S. Engelman, Jr.
------------------------------- Director
     ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, JR.


/s/  R. Thomas Eiff
------------------------------- Director
     R. THOMAS EIFF


/s/  Alfred Feiger
------------------------------- Director
     ALFRED FEIGER


/s/  Burton J. Field
------------------------------- Director
     BURTON J. FIELD


/s/  Lawrence E. Gilford
------------------------------- Director
     LAWRENCE E. GILFORD


/s/  Richard I. Gilford
------------------------------- Director
     RICHARD I. GILFORD



/s/  David L. Husman
------------------------------- Director
     DAVID L. HUSMAN


/s/  Arthur L. Knight, Jr.
------------------------------- Director
     ARTHUR L. KNIGHT, JR.


/s/  Peter G. Krivkovich
------------------------------- Director
     PETER G. KRIVKOVICH


/s/  Clarence Mann
------------------------------- Director
     CLARENCE MANN


/s/  Hipolito Roldan
------------------------------- Director
     HIPOLITO ROLDAN


                                     137
**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 amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBA of Blast Energy
        Services, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        John O’Keefe, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
        Accounting 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; 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:
      March 29, 2006





By:
            /s/
                John O’KeefeJohn
                O’KeefeCo-Chief
                Executive OfficerChief
                Financial OfficerPrincipal
                Accounting Officer
#### HOUZE v. LAZARD et al.

No. 8999.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 7, 1939.

Brittan & Mack, of Bakersfield, Cal., for appellant.

McKinstry, Haber & Coombes and J. C. McKinstry, all of San Francisco, Cal., and Cosgrove & O’Neil, T. B. Cosgrove, and John N. Cramer, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees Anglo-California Nat. Bank and Fleishhacker.

Hanna & Morton and Leon B. Brown, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees Lazard et al.

Before, WILBUR, GARRECHT, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

This case presents an appeal by the Administrator of the Estate of David Cahn who -intervened in the case before this court of Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco, and Herbert Fleishhacker v. Jean Lazard et al., 9 Cir., 106 F.2d 693, No. 8975, this day decided. We refer to our opinion in that case for the facts pertinent to the proceedings in intervention. The appeal is from the order striking appellant’s complaint in intervention.

We affirm the decision of the trial court upon the following grounds: Assuming that the plaintiffs’ and appellees’ cause of action is real property (see Zartner v. Holzhauer, 204 Wis. 18, 234 N.W. 508), then the right to recover was vested in the heirs. (Cal. Probate Code, Sec. 581) and the administrator was a proper but not a necessary party. Sec. 581. On the other hand, assuming that the cause of action was personalty the heirs still had the right to recover, for under the laws of France, they were vested with an absolute title. See Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco v. Lazard, No. 8975, supra, where the questions are fully discussed.

Affirmed.