alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Petitioner,

v.

HAMDIJA TURKANOVIC,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3416

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition.

Jason F. Joseph of Gladstone Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for Petitioner.

James C. Cumbie of Cumbie Law Firm P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Bank of America, N.A. (BOA),seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent 

the trial court from compelling the deposition of its corporate representative in 

furtherance of Respondent’s motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees as a sanction 

against BOA for filing this allegedly frivolous foreclosure case. We agree with BOA 
2

that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose the sanction sought by Respondent 

because BOA voluntarily dismissed this case within the safe harbor period in section

57.105(4), Florida Statutes, and before Respondent filed his motion for sanctions. See

Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So. 3d 23, 42 (Fla. 2013); Pomeranz & Landsman 

Corp. v. Miami Marlins Baseball Club, L.P., 143 So. 3d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2014). Respondent cannot avoid this jurisdictional bar by filing the motion under 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 and basing the request for sanctions on “the 

inherent power of the Court” rather than section 57.105(1). See Hall v. Lopez, 41 Fla. 

L. Weekly D1763, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA July 28, 2016) (noting that “a trial court has a 

limited inherent authority to assess attorney’s fees against an attorney or party for bad 

faith conduct, but ‘if a specific statute or rule applies, the trial court should rely on the 

applicable rule or statute rather than on inherent authority.’” (quoting Moakley v. 

Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 224-27 (Fla. 2002)). 

Accordingly, BOA’s petition for writ of prohibition is GRANTED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2015133EN.01000102.xml

| 24.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.7574 — O1 Group/CA Immo/Immofinanz)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 133/02)

(Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004)

On 20 March 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between CA Immobilien Anlagen AG and Immofinanz AG. On 17 April 2015, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.

---
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 DDi Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mikel H. Williams, President and 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:

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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ MIKEL H. WILLIAMSMikel H. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 7, 2007
Order entered December 2 3 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00284

- CV

T OYOTA MOTOR SALES, U .S.A., INC., AND TOYOTA MOTOR CO RPORATION, Appellant s

V.

BENJAMIN THOMAS REAVIS AND KRISTI CAROL RE AVIS, INDIVIDUALLY A ND

AS NEXT FRIENDS OF E .R. AND O.R., MINOR CHILDREN

, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 15296



### O RDER

Before the Court is the De cember 19, 2019 second unopposed motion for an extension of

time to file appellants’ brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 27, 2020

.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2015290EN.01000701.xml

| 4.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7714 — Apollo/NKBM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 290/02)

On 31 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7714. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7714. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1479

RICHARD ASARE,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 21, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Karikari, KARIKARI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New 

York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant 

Director, Song E. Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Asare, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) 

denying Asare’s motion to reconsider its decision upholding the 

Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion for a continuance. We 

have reviewed the administrative record and Asare’s claims, and 

find them to be without merit. We accordingly find no abuse of 

discretion in the denial of reconsideration, see Narine v. 

Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009), and deny the petition 

for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Asare

(B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of I-many, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of I-many, Inc., certifies, 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), as
applicable, 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.



|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JOHN A. RADE                                                                  
|Chief Executive Officer and President (principal
executive officer)               
|                                                                                  
|August 9, 2006                                                                    
|                                                                                  
|/s/ KEVIN M. HARRIS                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal
financial and accounting officer)
|                                                                                  
|August 9, 2006
# C_2016003EN.01000101.xml

| 7.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7867 — KKCG/Foxconn/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 3/01)

On 22 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7867. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7867. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2844 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2844

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish all of 
             its studies and findings related to COVID-19.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2021

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish all of 
             its studies and findings related to COVID-19.

    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 ``Transparency in COVID-19 Research 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF STUDIES AND FINDINGS.

    Not later than 14 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall publish all studies 
related to COVID-19 conducted by such Secretary and findings related to 
such studies, in a manner that maintains the privacy of any study 
participants.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7085
MICHAEL ANTHONY SMITH, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD MOATS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1912-MJG) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Smith, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Moats , No. CA-98-1912-MJG (D. Md. June 29, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.1


 


DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES


REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


SunHydrogen, Inc. (the “Company”)
has one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which is the Company’s
common stock, $0.001 par value per share.


 


Description of Common Stock


 


The authorized capital
stock of the Company consists of 5,000,000,000 shares of common stock at a par value of $0.001 per share, and 5,000,000 shares of blank
check preferred stock, par value $0.001.  


 


Holders of the Company’s common stock are entitled to one vote for each share on all matters submitted to a stockholder vote. Holders
of common stock do not have cumulative voting rights. Therefore (subject to the rights of the holders of any outstanding preferred
stock), holders of a majority of the shares of common stock voting for the election of directors can elect all of the directors to our
Board of Directors. Holders of the Company’s common stock representing a majority of the voting power of the Company’s
capital stock issued, outstanding and entitled to vote, represented in person or by proxy, are necessary to constitute a quorum at any
meeting of stockholders. A vote by the holders of a majority of the voting power of the stockholders is required to effectuate certain
fundamental corporate changes such as a merger or an amendment to the Company’s articles of incorporation.


 


Holders of the Company’s common stock are
entitled to share in all dividends that the Board of Directors, in its discretion, declares from legally available funds. In the
event of a liquidation, dissolution or winding up, each outstanding share entitles its holder to participate pro rata in all assets that
remain after payment of liabilities and after providing for each class of stock, if any, having preference over the common stock. The
Company’s common stock has no pre-emptive rights, no conversion rights, and there are no redemption provisions applicable to the
Company’s common stock.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Firearms Training Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronavan R. Mohling, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, 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) 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: June 28, 2006



/s/    RONAVAN R.
MOHLINGRonavan R. Mohling Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)
## OCIS Toronto **Jan. 2010 testing of Phenolic Based Binder /March 2010 Quantum Binder on T-1 Line**

**Forming Section January**  **March lbs/hr**  **Phenolic Quantum**  M5 / 202 Filterable Particulate 29.2 17.8 M5 / 202 Condensable Particulate 5.05 1.53 M5 / 202 Total Particulate 34.3 19.3 Pull Tons/hour 6.23 6.25 Phenol 3.03 < .22 Formaldehyde 4.51 0.14 Methanol 2.14 < .03 Acetic Acid < 0.116 < .21 Formic Acid <. 12 < .21 Acetaldehyde < .028 < .024 Acrolein < .02 < .015

**The Oven w as not tested due to the ~ 98% destruction efficiency**  **of the RTO.**


### Cooling Section January March **lbs/hr** Phenolic Quantum Phenol 0.019 < .020 Formaldehyde 0.104 No Sample Methanol < .0035 No Sample Acetic Acid 0.064 0.073 Formic Acid 0.028 0.08 Acetaldehyde < .34 No Sample Acrolein < .22 No Sample

## Jan. 2010 testing of Phenolic Based Binder /March 2010 Quantum Binder on T-1 Line
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6672

VINCENT EUGENE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00560-RLW) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: September 6, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2015256EN.01000601.xml

| 5.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7681 — Cinven Capital Management/Labco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 256/05)

On 27 July 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7681. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7681. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID JOHN RIVERA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 426 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### North vs. Wendell.

*Tax Deed.*

1. A tax deed under ch. 603, Laws of 1862, which does not recite the name of the purchaser at the tax sale, is invalid.

2. Can lands embraced in different tax certificates be included in one tax deed ?

ERROR to tbe Circuit Court for *Fond du Lac*County.

Tbe action below was by *Wendell*against *North*; and tbe latter seeks in tbis suit to reverse a judgment against bim. Tbe case is stated in tbe opinion.

*Qillet $■ Pier,*for plaintiff in error.

*P. P. Eaton,*for defendant in error.

Paine, J.

Tbis was an action 'for a breach of the covenants in a warranty deed, the plaintiff claiming to bave been ousted under a paramount title. Tbis title depended on the validity of a certain tax deed given by Brown coud ty to one Eastman; and the court instructed the jury tbat the evidence showed tbat.it was a good title, which was excepted to. We bave at the present term, decided, in the case of *Krueger v. Knab [ante,*p. 429], tbat when the form of a tax deed prescribed by the statute clearly contemplates tbat the name of the purchaser shall be stated, and tbat if there has been an assignment, it shall show tbat the person depositing the certificate is the assignee of such purchaser, a deed failing to do tbis is void. The tax deed here in question is liable to the same objection. the deed was issued under chap. 503, Laws of 1852; and the form there prescribed plainly contemplates tbat the name of the purchaser shall be stated. In the deed here in question, the names of the purchasers are not stated, but it is recited tbat it appeared “ tbat divers persons, of whom said Eastman is the assignee, *432did purchase,” etc. This cannot be considered as equivalent to a statement of the names, of the purchasers; and the deed must, within the strict rule applicable to this class of conveyances, be held invalid.

Whether it is permissible or not to include in one deed the lands embraced in different tax certificates, it is not necessary to determine.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.