alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT L. TAYLOR FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS § § No. 459, 2017 § § Submitted: December 18, 2017 Decided: December 20, 2017 Before VAUGHN , SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices. O R D E R This 20 th day of December 2017, having considered the notice to show cause and the petitioner’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On November 6, 2017, the petitioner, Robert L. Taylor, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Taylor had previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Co urt that was denied on October 24, 2017. In a November 6, 2017 letter, th e Senior Court Clerk advised Taylor that if he wished to appeal the October 24, 201 7 Superior Court order, then he needed to file an Official Form A in this Court by November 21, 2017. The Senior Court Clerk also advised that if Taylor wished to proceed with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court a notice to show cause would issue because this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Taylor did not re spond to the November 6, 2017 letter or file an Official Form A.2 (2) On December 5, 2017, the Chief De puty Clerk issued a notice directing Taylor to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed fo r this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. In his re sponse to the notice to show cause, Taylor addresses the merits of his petition, but does not address this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of ha beas corpus. This Court has no original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. 1 Taylor’s petition must therefore be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice

1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(5); 10 Del. C. § 6901; In re Cantrell , 678 A.2d 525, 526 (Del. 1996).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the Form 10-Q and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                           5,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,653
<INVENTORY>                                     10,286
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,527
<PP&E>                                          33,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,854
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           888
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,932
<SALES>                                         88,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,594
<CGS>                                           54,706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (482)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,607
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (78)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (32)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (46)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (46)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
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 Somerset International Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ending March 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, John X. Adiletta, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief
Financial Officer 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 of the Company as of
              the dates presented and the results of operations of the Company.


                                          /s/ John X. Adiletta
                                          ---------------------------
                                              John X. Adiletta
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer

                                          Dated: May 16, 2005
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 Science Dynamics Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joe
Noto, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and 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.

      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.


August 22, 2005                              /s/ Joe Noto
                                            -----------------------
                                            Joe Noto
                                            Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1242 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1242

 To amend the Natural Gas Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
 Commission to consider regional constraints in natural gas supply and 
  whether a proposed LNG terminal would benefit regional consumers of 
natural gas before approving or disapproving an application for the LNG 
                   terminal, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2015

   Mr. King introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Natural Gas Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
 Commission to consider regional constraints in natural gas supply and 
  whether a proposed LNG terminal would benefit regional consumers of 
natural gas before approving or disapproving an application for the LNG 
                   terminal, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Regional Gas Consumer Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF 
              APPLICATIONS FOR LNG TERMINALS.

    Section 3(e) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(e)) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Required considerations.--Before the Commission may 
        approve or disapprove an application for the siting, 
        construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal under 
        this subsection, the Commission shall consider--
                    ``(A) regional constraints in the natural gas 
                supply of the United States; and
                    ``(B) whether the application includes provisions 
                of benefit to the regional consumers of natural gas 
                that would be affected by the exportation of natural 
                gas.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      20,155,935
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,392,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,388,803
<PP&E>                                      14,092,323
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,349,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,841,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,166,172
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,328
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,424,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,841,869
<SALES>                                     14,830,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,830,348
<CGS>                                       15,333,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,032,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,865,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             315,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,948,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,948,662)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,948,662)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.51)


</TABLE>
Vincent A. Flanagan, MBA

7170 Holly Ave,

Cocoa FL 32927

321-652-1256

Vincent A. Flanagan petitions the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21, 

subpart H; and Sections 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 

91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a)and(b), 91.207(a)(2) and (b),91.319(a)(1) 91.405(a)(b), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), 91.9(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption would allow Vincent Flanagan to operate the PHANTOM 3 quad-copter (drone) 

unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial videography and cinematography as part of existing 

environmental spill response for the purpose of acquiring before and after pictures/video of the cleanup. The Phantom 3 will also be used for gaining an aerial perspective for customers and providing 

market research, aerial surveys, mapping, inspections and general videography/cinematography.

I have over 10 years of flying remote control aircraft as a hobbyist without incident. I’ve been involved 

in the Aerospace industry for over 20 years. I also have an FAA A&P certificate and am aware of the 

need to stay away from air traffic. 

The Phantom 3 weighs 2.8 pounds fully loaded and has a top speed of 35 mph.

1. The Phantom 3 will be inspected before and after each flight. 

2. All batteries on the aircraft and transmitter will be fully charged before takeoff. 

3. GPS acquisition and calibration will be performed before flight.

4. The “Return Home” point will be set on the aircraft. 

5. DJI no fly zone software will be installed. 

6. All manufacturer guidelines will be followed.

7. A map of the local area will be reviewed prior to any flight to double check for any local 

obstacles or restrictions. 

8. The aircraft will be flown in a safe manner at all times.

9. Landing will occur at or before 20% battery life is reached.

Sincerely,

Vincent A. Flanagan, MBA

Flanagan.vincent@yahoo.com

321-652-1256

7170 Holly Ave Cocoa FL, 32927
• REF ID:A57367 • 

USCIB: 9.3/JJ 

17 November 1954 

J.mMORftJIDUll FO..tt M MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Approval of USCIB 9.3/10 dated 1 November 1954, 

No objection having been received to the reference, the USCIBECl 

decision reported therein is considered approved. 

USCIB: 9.3/13 

AV.~A~ 

Deputy Executive H.~ Secretary, USCIB 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 09-05-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Dione Bitzer, Chief Financial Officer of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Date: May 11, 2004





Signed:  /s/Dione Bitzer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 
                                                              Exhibit 23.1     
   
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT     
   
We consent to the use in this Amendment No.    to Registration Statement
No.333-74359 of Linkage Solutions, Inc. on Form S-1 of our report dated March
11, 1999 (except for Note 2 as to which the date is        , 1999), appearing
in the Prospectus, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the
reference to us under the headings "'Selected Financial Data" and "Experts" in
such Prospectus.     
   
   , 1999     
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
The foregoing consent is in the form that will be signed upon completion of
the reorganization and the exchange of shares discussed in note 2 to the
consolidated financial statements, assuming that from March 11, 1999 to the
date of such completion, no other material events have occurred that would
affect the accompanying consolidated financial statements or require
disclosure therein. If the share exchange ratio changes, all references to
numbers of shares, per share amounts and stock option data included within the
consolidated financial statements will also change.     
   
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP     
   
Boston, Massachusetts     
   
April 15, 1999
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SAMUEL Q. NORWOOD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3766 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 21, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; James A. Yancey, Judge. Samuel Q. Norwood, pro se.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, CRENSHAW, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.4





Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Christina L. Maier, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Carver Bancorp, 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:August 13, 2020/s/ Christina L. MaierChristina L. MaierFirst Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# CE2004078EN.01081402.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/814 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/814

---

(2004/C 78 E/0864)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3452/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Exclusion of environmental NGOs from environmental education

Subject:

Under the terms of a decision (47587/G7/15.05.03) by the Greek Ministry of Education, NGOs are not authorised to engage in any teaching or coordination activities and are thereby excluded from environmental education, an area in which many of them have for many years been making an effective contribution in Greece, as is the case in other Member States of the Union. The NGOs affected are the Arktouros Organisation, the Greek Association for the Protection of the Environment and Cultural Heritage, the Wild Life Protection Association, the Leftist Ecological Library, Medasset, SOS Mediterranean, the Association for the Study and Protection of the Mediterranean Seal, the Ecological Recycling Association and WWF-Greece. Many of the educational programmes and initiatives launched by these organisations are funded by the Community. Under the above ministerial decision these associations are now directly answerable to the Ministry of Education, which is not the case in other Member States of the Union. Does the Commission consider that the above decision complies with the letter and spirit of the environment and environmental education programmes funded by it and in which NGOs are fully entitled to participate?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

(19 December 2003)

Environmental education is very important and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) often play a significant part in this field. In the ‘Community action programme promoting nongovernmental organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection’ one of the priority areas eligible for funding is environmental education.

It does not, however, fall within the competence of the Commission to comment on the policies and practices of individual Member States in this field.

---
#### Wm. Noll Hardware Company, Appellant, vs. Seidl, Respondent.

For the appellant: *R. R. Williams*of Marshfield.

For the respondent: *Wayne E. Deming*of Marshfield.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             907
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1875
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3116
<PP&E>                                            1188
<DEPRECIATION>                                     536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4723
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              613
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                        4048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4723
<SALES>                                           5178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5178
<CGS>                                             1807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (3)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    355
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                355
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       355
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .02


</TABLE>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

DONALD ALAN MOHON, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0268 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR1991-005801 

The Honorable Gregory Como, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Gerald R. Grant 

Counsel for Respondent 

Donald Alan Mohon, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 10-30-2018
STATE v. MOHON

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, and 

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court. 

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Donald Alan Mohon seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s first 

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We hold that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.