alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry Clay BURKS, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 14, 1956.

*738Henry Clay Burks, pro se, Eddyville, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Matthews, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

We have before us a motion “to prose-' cute a delayed appeal”, a most unusual proceeding in this Court.

Movant was convicted of a crime in the Jefferson Circuit Court sometime prior to March 1954, and sentenced to serve a term in the penitentiary at Eddyville. According to his affidavit he filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Jefferson Circuit Court on March 3, 1954, which was dismissed on March 29. He states that he attempted to appeal from this order, but the warden at the penitentiary refused to permit him to send papers to the Court by which to take an appeal.

Since the time has long since expired for taking an appeal from the order of March 29, movant requests that we permit him to now take a “delayed appeal”.

We have before us no record upon which an appeal could be taken, and neither the Civil Rules nor our Court Rules authorize granting the relief asked. If the movant has any remedy, it is by a new application to the Jefferson Circuit Court, with a right of appeal from an order entered on his new application.

The motion is denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the AnnualReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K forthe annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mandy M.Pope, 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, to myknowledge:

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

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

|  | /s/ Mandy M. Pope       |
|--|-------------------------|
|  | Mandy M. Pope (*)       |
|  | Chief Financial Officer |
|  | February 28, 2008       |

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParkwayProperties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
31.4



Certification
of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

and
Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427



I,
Randy W. Gilbert, certify that:



1.   I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Minn Shares Inc.; and



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.



|Date:
    May 1, 2017 | /s/
    Randy W. Gilbert                                                                                      
|--------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | Randy
        W. Gilbert
        Chief
        Financial Officer
        (Principal
        Financial Officer)
Order entered August 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01724-CR

No. 05-12-01731-CR

No. 05-12-01732-CR

JERMAINE COTTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-51603-W, F12-51604-W, F12-70036-W

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES these appeals.

On June 18, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief had not been filed. On August 13, 2013, we received appellant’s brief, together with an 

extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we VACATE the June 

18, 2013 order to the extent it requires findings.

We GRANT the August 13, 2013 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed 

as of the date of this order.

We DENY as moot appellant’s June 19, 2013 extension motion.
As noted in the June 18, 2013 order, the trial court’s certifications of appellant’s right to 

appeal in these cases are incomplete. None of the boxes is checked on the certifications. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this 

order, completed certifications of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflect the trial court 

proceedings.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Tracy Holmes, Presiding Judge, 363rd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 26, 2024.

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

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 26, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24A1509. MOE'S FRANCHISOR SPV, LLC et al v. TAYLOR INVESTMENT 

PARTNERS II, LLC et al.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and 

jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
Order filed August 8 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00612

- CR

____________ DOMINGO TAJIBOY , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 5658



### ORDER
This is an appeal from a municipal court conviction for a Transportation Code
offense. The conviction was appealed to the County Criminal Court at Law No. 4 from the Municipal Court of Record No. 7. In its opinion, t he County Criminal Court at Law No. 4 referenced testimony during the municipal court trial. The record in
this court does not contain a reporter’s record from the muni cipal court trial.2

T he district clerk i s directe d to file a supplemental c l erk ’ s record containing a

c opy of the reporter’s record of the trial in Municipal Court Case No. 2014 TR
0240581 on or before August 29, 2019

. If the record is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a
supp lemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the record is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS**

Theundersigned hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofInsight Midwest, L.P. (the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended June 30,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|   | /s/ Michael S. Willner                               |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael S. Willner                                   |
|   | Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer            |
|   | Insight Midwest, L.P.                                |
|   | August 14, 2006                                 |
|   |                                                 |
|   | /s/ John Abbot                                       |
|   | John Abbot                                           |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Insight Midwest, L.P.                                |
|   | August 14, 2006                                 |

 

----
Exhibit – A

DJI PHANTOM 2 VISION+ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

1 9HOP only utilizes safe and reliable UASs. DJI is an industry leader in small UAS production. DJI UASs are loaded with ground breaking software enabling the user to set parameters which will not allow flight into controlled airspace. Parameters can also be set to limit flight to no higher than a predetermined and set altitude as well as limit f l ight to a predetermined and set distance. In addition, DJI software provides real- time altitude and location information to the PIC via the linked monitor (smart phone/t ablet devices)

1.1 D JI Phantom 2 Vision+

1.1.1 A ircraft 1.1.1.1 Supported Battery – DJI 5200mAH LiPo Battery 1.1.1.2 Weight (Battery & Propellers Included) – 2lbs 11.810oz (1242g) 1.1.1.3 Hover Accuracy (Ready to Fly) – Vertical: .8m; Horizontal: 2.5m 1.1.1.4 Max Yaw Angular Velocity - 200 0 /s 1.1.1.5 Max Tilt Angel - 35 0 1.1.1.6 Max Ascent Speed – 6m/s 1.1.1.7 Max Descent Speed – 2m/s 1.1.1.8 Max Flight Speed – 15m/s (NOT RECOMMENDED)

1.1.2 G imbal 1.1.2.1 Working Current – Static: 750mA; Dynamic: 900mA 1.1.2.2 Control Accuracy - ±0.03 0 1.1.2.3 Controllable Range – Pitch: -90 0 - 0 0 1.1.2.4 Maximum Angular Speed – Pitch: 90 0 /s

1.1.3 C amera 1.1.3.1 Operating Temperature Range - 32 0 F - 104 0 F (0 0 C - 40 0 C) 1.1.3.2 Sensor Size – 1/2.3” 1.1.3.3 Effective Pixels – 14M 1.1.3.4 Resolution – 4384x3288 4.1.3.5 HD Video Recording – 1080p30 & 720p 4.1.3.6 Recording Field of View - 110 0 /85 0

1.1.4 T ransmitter 1.1.4.1 Operating Frequency – 5.728GHz – 5.85GHz 1.1.4.2 Communication Distance (unobstructed) – FCC Compliance: 800m 1.1.4.3 Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER) - -93dBm 1.1.4.4 Transmitter Power – FCC Compliance: 100mW 1.1.4.5 Working Voltage – 120mA@3.7V

1.1.5 R ange Extender 1.1.5.1 Operating Frequency – 2412-2462MHz

361.1.5.2 Communication Distance (unobstructed) – 500-700m 1.1.5.3 Transmitter Power – 20dBm 1.1.5.4 Power Consumption – 2W

37
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 566 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 566

                 For the relief of Richard M. Sakakida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 1995

 Mr. Akaka (for himself and Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Richard M. Sakakida.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD.

    (a) Authority.--Upon a determination that it is appropriate to do 
so, the President is authorized and requested to award a medal of 
honor, distinguished-service cross, or silver star to Richard M. 
Sakakida of Fremont, California, for action by the said Richard M. 
Sakakida in the Philippines during World War II.
    (b) Responsibilities of the Secretary of the Army.--Not later than 
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
the Army shall--
            (1) review the military records of Richard M. Sakakida; and
            (2) on the basis of the review, submit to the President a 
        recommendation on the appropriateness of granting Richard M. 
        Sakakida an award in accordance with subsection (a).
    (c) Applicability of Standards and Limitations.--(1) In making a 
recommendation under subsection (b), the Secretary of the Army shall 
apply sections 3741, 3742, and 3746 of title 10, United States Code, 
and the standards and, except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
limitations prescribed for the administration of such provisions of 
law.
    (2) The limitations under section 3744(b) of title 10, United 
States Code, shall not apply to an award authorized under subsection 
(a).

                                 <all>
```
#### Ex parte Lavern Neal RIDLEY.

No. 27805.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1955.

*748No appearance for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County remanding appellant to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County to be delivered to an agent of the demanding State.

No statement of facts accompanies the record, and no bills of exception are found therein.

The proceedings being in all things regular and no errors appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
#### Jodie ASBERRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28781.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*958Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for.the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to he regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1
 
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;
       /s/ Christopher M. CondronChristopher M. CondronChairman of the Board,President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
DEP Corporation


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement 
(No. 33-8500) on Form S-8 of DEP Corporation and subsidiaries of our report 
dated September 20, 1996, except for Notes 1, 15 and 16, which date is 
October 23, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of DEP 
Corporation and subsidiaries as of July 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related 
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows 
and related schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended 
July 31, 1996, which report appears in the July 31, 1996 report on Form 10-K 
of DEP Corporation and subsidiaries.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Los Angeles, California
November 11, 1996





                                  Exhibit 23.1


                                         64
#### Guy S. HARMON et al., Respondents. v. Charles Kenneth FOSTER, Appellant.

No. 7564.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Jan. 30, 1957.

Not to be published in. State Reports.

Henson & Henson, Poplar Bluff, for appellant.

C. Á. Powell, Dexter, Elvis Mooney, Bloomfield, for respondents.

*784McDOWELL, Presiding Judge.

This was an action for damages for the wrongful death of plaintiffs’ minor child in the sum of $15,000. The cause was tried on change of venue in Butler County where plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $2500. New trial was awarded plaintiffs on the ground of insufficiency and inadequacy of the verdict and because it was against the weight of the evidence. From the granting of this new trial, defendant appealed to this court where the cause is now pending.

January 25, 1957, defendant (appellant) filed a motion to transfer the cause to the Supreme Court on the ground that the Springfield Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction.

It is the duty of this court, before deciding the case on its merits, to determine whether or not we have jurisdiction. For this purpose we must determine the amount involved in the lawsuit which actually remains in dispute on appeal. Palmer v. Lasswell, Mo.App., 279 S.W.2d 535.

The law is well settled that where damage is sought in an amount in excess of $7,500, and, in the trial of the case, a judgment is recovered for a less amount, and, upon motion of plaintiff, the trial court sets aside the judgment because of inadequacy of damages, and the defendant appeals, the amount involved is the full 'amount sued for in the petition. Ford v. K. Jones Motor Co., Mo.App., 115 S.W.2d 3; Sofian v. Douglas, 324 Mo. 258, 23 S.W.2d 126; Stein v. Baskowitz, Mo.App., 157 S.W.2d 807; Craton v. Huntzinger, Mo.Sup., 187 S.W. 48.

In the instant case the amount of damages sought in the petition was $15,-000. Plaintiffs recovered in the trial a judgment for $2,500. The trial court set aside the judgment and awarded plaintiffs a new trial on the question of damages for the reason that the verdict and judgment was inadequate and against the weight of the evidence. Defendant appealed.

The amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of $7,500. Article 5, Sec. 3, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S.; Section 477.040 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.

This court being without appellate jurisdiction, the cause is transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri.

STONE and RUARK, JJ., concur.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04161**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 04161\04161 Ash Calc Sheet.xlsx EPA Technical Review Notes

04161\04161_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 04161\04161_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 04161\04161_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 04161\04161_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04161\04161_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04161\04161_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04161\04161_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04161\04161_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04161\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\2009 Ash report.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x x 04161\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Plant property.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04161\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Water Balance Diagram.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Palmieri, Appellant.

(No. 27395

Decided January 25, 1939.)

*Mr. Hugo Alexander,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. C. J. Borkowski,*for appellee.

*Mr. Hugo F. Chestosky*and *Mr. L. O. Ealy,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams and Hart, JJ., concur.
TS-UVCA02

Attachment #13

Other Data Not in the Possession or Control of the Submitter

The new chemical substance is an acrylate monomer identified under the trade name, Medol10. The compound is manufactured by Osak a Organic Chemical Industry, Ltd. (OOC)

which is based in Japan. The substance w ill then be imported by Kowa American

Corporation (Kowa).
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14513-14514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 14514]]

amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Scientific and Technical Review Board on 
Biomedical and Behavioral Research Facilities.
    Date: March 28, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Santanu Banerjee, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2106, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
435-5947, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, 
Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan 
Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, 
Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 
Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, 
Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 
Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 21, 2024.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03915 Filed 2-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```