alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rankin Hubert FUSSELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27291.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for 'appellant. ■1

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM. ■

Appellant appeals from a conviction’ for the offense of driving while intoxicated, committed on January 5, 1952 (which was prior to the effective date of Art. 802, .Vernon’s Ann.P.C., as amended by the Acts1 of the 53rd Legislature), the jury assessing a fine of $50.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence ■of which nothing is presented for review.

The1 judgment of the trial' court is affirmed.
City of Aberdeen

Mike Levsen

123 South Lincoln

mayor@aberdeen.sd.us

Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401·4215 (605) 626·7025

November 25, 2013

Kevin Schlemmer

U.S. Department of Transportation

Chief, Essential Air Service Division

Office of Aviation Analysis

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC. 20590

Dear Mr. Schlemmer,

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the Department of Transportation witr our comments and

recommendation for an Essential Air Service provider at the Aberdeen Regional Airport. The Aberdeen

City Council has carefully reviewed the sole proposal submitted by SkyWest Airlines and feels it meets

the needs of our community.

SkyWest Airlines has been serving Aberdeen since March of 2012. SkyWest Airlines has provided our

community with quality air service and we are pleased that they wish to continue to provide us with this

high level of service. The Aberdeen market has seen increased passenger enplanements over the past

three years which appears to have resulted in a lower subsidy request by SkyWest. The airline currently

receives a subsidy of $1.2M per year and is requesting a subsidy of $1.04M per year in this latest

proposal. The proposal includes two flights per day on CRJ200 aircraft to the Minneapolis/St. Paul

lnternationa] Airport. This proposal provides the same level of air service that OUI' community currently

receives and it meets the minimums required by the Essential Air Service program.

The Aberdeen City Council would like to see passenger counts high enough to support a third flight and

to allow an airline to operate without a subsidy. We feel that SkyWest has proven to be a reliable air

carrier that is able to continue working with the City to make this a reality.

Therefore, the Aberdeen City Council recommends that the DOT select SkyWest A.irlines as the

subsidized carrier for the Aberdeen Regional Airport.

Sincerely,

Mike Levsen, Mayor

City of Aberdeen
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION




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 for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) of Parke Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we, Vito S. Pantilione, President and Chief Executive Officer, and John F. Hawkins, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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) 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/ Vito S. Pantilione


/s/ John F. HawkinsVito S. Pantilione


John F. HawkinsPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


(Principal Financial Officer)










March 25, 2011
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
      OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES
      CODE as adopted pursuant to
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,  Edward  Alexander,  the
      chief executive officer and chief financial officer
      of  Proton  Laboratories,  Inc.  ,
      certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBAmendment
      Number 1for the quarter
      ended March 31, 2007, as filed by the Company with the
      Securities  and  Exchange Commission, to which this
      Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of  1934, as amended;
      and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB
      financial  statements  fairly  presents, in all
      material respects, the financial
      condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Proton  Laboratories,  Inc.





January
                4, 2008
            By:  /s/
                Edward
                AlexanderEDWARD
                ALEXANDERChief
                Executive Officer and
                President








This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Section
      906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  shall
      not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes  of  Section  18  of  the  Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A  signed  original  of  this
      written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided  to  Proton  Laboratories,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Proton
      Laboratories,  Inc.  and  furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its  staff  upon  request.
Motion Granted; Order filed December 5, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00587

- CR

____________ LONNIE RAY MOORE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court Washington County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16,197



### ORDER
Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this Court his desire to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 73 8 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 21st District Court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; that
the clerk of that cou rt furnish the record to appellant on or before December 20, 2013 ;that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to

appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this court within thirty days
of that date.

PER CURIAM
#### HUDSON v. STATE.

No. 26558.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*713WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated. Upon a plea of guilty his punishment was assessed by the court at a fine of $100, jury having been waived.

The record before this court contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
From: Withey, Charlotte [ mailto:Withey.Charlotte@epa.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:02 PM

To: Giff, Jennifer; Tsiolis. George ( gtsiolis@nj.rr.com )

Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; McKaughan, Colleen Subject: RE: Followup to November 14 Call Between SRPMIC, Phoenix Cement

and EPA

Jennifer and George,

I wanted to follow up and see whether you and your clients had any questions regarding the draft regul atory text that I sent on November 25, or any other input to share with us. I also wanted to let you know that we would need to receive any additional information by December 17, in order to have time to incorporate it into our analysis for the proposal.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Charlotte Withey Office of Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 972

- 3915 Fax: (415) 947

- 3570 withey.charlotte@epa.g ov

________________________________________ The information contained in this message, including any attachments hereto, may be privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended for the recipient only. If you are an agency employee or consultant, please consult with the sender prior to disclosing the contents of this message to third parties. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any atta chments.
CERTIFICATION OF
          PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Segway
III Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, I, Richard I. Anslow,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Segway III Corp.
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
          2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Segway
          III Corp.

Dated:  August 12, 2004

Segway III Corp.


By: /s/ Richard I. Anslow
-------------------------------------
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

____________ ____________ No. 15

- 13567

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:13

- cv

- 01533

- SDM

- JSS

SAGO NETWORKS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,

Plaintiff,
AMERICAN INFOAGE, LLC, a Florid a limited liability company,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus REGIONS BANK,
an Alabama banking corporation,
Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( May 27, 2016 ) Case: 15-13567 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 1 of 22 Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge , DUBINA , Circuit Judge, and HUCK, ∗ District Judge

. PER CURIAM: American Infoage, LLC, brought this lawsuit against Regions Bank after Regions imposed a “swap breakage fee” under the parties’ written swap agreements. Infoage assert ed claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings, and unjust enrichment. The district court grante d partial summary judgment to Regions with respect to some of the claims and, after a bench trial, entered judgment in favor of Regions on the rest of the claims. This is Infoage’s appeal. 1
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Regions, which was filed on September 25, 2014, as well as its judgment in favor of Regions based on its thorough and well

- reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law filed on July
9, 2015

. AFFIRMED. 2

∗ Honorable Paul C. Huck , United States Distric t Judge for the Southern District of Florida , sitting by designation.
1 The district court also entered judgment against another plaintiff, Sago Networks, LLC, on an unrelated claim and Sago appealed. In a previous order, this Court granted Sago’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal.
2 This case was originally schedul ed for oral argument but was removed from the oral argument calendar by unanimous consent of the panel under 11th Circuit Rule 34

- 3(f).

Case: 15-13567 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,752
<SECURITIES>                                     6,829
<RECEIVABLES>                                       27
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (10)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,563
<PP&E>                                           9,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,570)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,598
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,467
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,250
<SALES>                                            168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,422
<CGS>                                            2,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,523
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,816)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,816)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,816)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES L. PETTUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:07-cr-00009-HEH-1)

Submitted: June 15, 2010 Decided: July 13, 2010

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James L. Pettus, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James L. Pettus appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to alter or amend a judgment. We affirm.

Pettus’s motion to alter or amend was filed in 

response to the district court’s partial grant of his motion for 

a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2006). The district court awarded Pettus a two-level reduction 

in his total offense level pursuant to Amendment 706 of the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual and reduced Pettus’s 

sentence from 180 months imprisonment to 154 months. Pettus 

claimed in his motion to alter or amend that he should have been 

sentenced at the low end of the revised Guidelines range. On 

appeal, he argues that he was entitled to a full resentencing 

under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 245 (2007). 

In United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 

(4th Cir. 2010), we concluded that a district court is without 

jurisdiction to entertain a motion to alter or amend a judgment 

granting or denying relief on a § 3582(c) motion unless the 

motion to alter or amend was made to correct “an arithmetical, 

technical, or other clear error.” Because Pettus challenges the 

merits of the district court’s decision in his motion to alter 
3

or amend, we conclude that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to hear the motion.*

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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

 * Our decision to affirm is also supported by the Supreme 

Court’s recent holding that the remedial aspect of Booker does 

not make the Sentencing Guidelines advisory in a § 3582(c) 

proceeding. Dillon v. United States, 2010 WL 2400109 (U.S. June 

17, 2010) (No. 09-6338); see also United States v. Dunphy, 551 

F.3d 247, 251-52 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 

(2009) (holding same).
Exhibit 31.1
  CERTIFICATION
  I, David S. Boone, hereby certify that:
  1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of American CareSource Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”); 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 2, 2011/s/ David S. BooneDavid S. BooneChief Executive Officer(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 Quarterly Report of Unico, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Lopez, 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, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 the operation of the Company.  Date: July 16, 2007/s/ Mark A. Lopez
Mark A. Lopez
Chief Executive Officer
#### Rena REAGIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27283.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*829PER CURIAM. ■

The unlawful possession of whisky, beer, and gin for the purpose of sale in a dry area is the offense, with punishment assessed at a fine of $400.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

          - [OMB Number 1121-0100]

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Justice published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 26, 2024, concerning request for comments on an information collection. The document contained incorrect dates.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Zhen Zheng, (202) 598-9955.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of February 26, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-03768, on page 1, in the third paragraph column, correct the                     **Dates**                     caption to read:                

**DATES:**                     Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until March 27, 2024.                

Dated: February 26, 2024.

Darwin T. Arceo,

DOJ Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-04276 Filed 2-28-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-CW-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6566

ANTHONY S. FAIR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-00- 604) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Anthony S. Fair, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony S. Fair seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Fair v. Conroy , No. CA-00-604 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED