alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Public Comments to Advisory Committee

The Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee is using regulations.gov as its electronic docket. The public 

is encouraged to submit comments to assist the Committee as it develops its recommendations for the 

US Access Board. 

See Advisory Committee Charter for more information on the purpose of the committee.
Tamarah L. CARGILE, Appellant, v. Juliette Parthenary LANGNER, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-908

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 19, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gregory TOWNLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4185

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leland W. Brantley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ LELAND W. BRANTLEY, JR.Leland W. Brantley, Jr. Chief Financial
Officer August 13, 2008
Tony J. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3991

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 8, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Geesey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Ciklin and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
B.J.S. v. STATE

CR-15-1305

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied February 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Andres RODRIGUEZ-AGUILAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4200

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Brian T. MERRILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Leonard RYBINSKI, DOC #293091, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3197

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE BISYS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          39,291
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,135
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,001
<PP&E>                                          88,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 349,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           533
<OTHER-SE>                                     228,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   349,488
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,924
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   418
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,664)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,199)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,199)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
        

</TABLE>
Thomas J. BALDWIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-3457

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2018

Mark V. Murray, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Jay, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Edward ELMORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4118

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Florida, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. McCelland Brody CATT, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0948

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

EXHIBIT 32

           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 of New World Brands, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned,
Marvin Ribotsky, Chairman of the Board and Vice President of the Company, and
Allen Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, each certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of our knowledge:

(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 New World
     Brands, Inc.

Date: August 28, 2003               By /s/ Marvin Ribotsky
      ---------------               ------------------------------
                                           Marvin Ribotsky
                                           Chairman of the Board and Vice President
                                           (principal financial officer)

Date: August 28, 2003               By /s/ Allen Salzman
      ---------------               ------------------------------
                                           Allen Salzman
                                           Chief 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 Annual Report of
Salon Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Gingras, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Richard
Gingras


June
      26, 2009
            Richard
      Gingras


Chief
Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ARNOLD ANDERSON, : 

 : Case No. 2:17-CV-1057 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : Magistrate Judge Deavers 

JEFF LAWLESS, et al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

ORDER 

This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s December 21, 2017 

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6), which recommended that Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment use of force claims continue against Defendants 

Spoljarik, Hatfield, and Akers in their individual capacities, and that the Court dismiss all of 

Plaintiff’s other claims for failure to assert any claim on which relief may be granted. 

The Report and Recommendation specifically advised the parties that the failure to object 

results in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation 

de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court 

adopting the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 6 at 16). The parties have failed to file 

any objections, and the deadline for objections (January 4, 2018) has lapsed. 

 The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation based on the independent 

consideration of the analysis therein. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation and Eighth 

Amendment use of force claims against Defendants Spoljarik, Hatfield, and Akers in their 

individual capacity are allowed to continue, and the remaining claims are hereby DISMISSED. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00380-DRC-SKB Doc #: 8 Filed: 02/21/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 107
2 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Algenon L. Marbley 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: February 21, 2018

Case: 1:18-cv-00380-DRC-SKB Doc #: 8 Filed: 02/21/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 108
Wyoming Sulfate Contribution to Theodore Roosevelt Worst

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total THRO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 19 WY 0.0243684 3.68E-05 0.0017789 0.0005053 0.0034842 0.0301737 Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Worst) to Sulfate at Theodore Roosevelt = 0.03 divided by 1.6, or 2% Best

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total THRO1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 18 WY 0.0111167 2.78E-05 0.0009944 2.22E-05 0.0018556 0.0140167 Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Best) to Sulfate at Theodore Roosevelt = 0.01 divided by 0.9, or 1%
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

PATRICIA BRITTAIN AKA PATRICIA MAINES, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF BARBARA ANN MAINES, Respondent

v.

HOPE ENTERPRISES FOUNDATION INCORPORATED, AND/OR HOPE ENTERPRISE INC. AND/OR WILLIAM BIRT, HEATHER PETERS, AND/OR SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 498 MAL 2014
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

PATRICIA BRITTAIN AKA PATRICIA MAINES, ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF BARBARA ANN MAINES, Respondent

v.

HOPE ENTERPRISES FOUNDATION INCORPORATED, AND/OR HOPE ENTERPRISE INC. AND/OR WILLIAM BIRT, HEATHER PETERS, AND/OR SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 499 MAL 2014
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER[498 MAL 2014 and 499 MAL 2014] - 2

PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

. Further, Petitioners’ Application for Leave to File Reply in Further Support of Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
action when he believes a state actor is deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical need). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

, J. 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

cc: Jerry Hooks 

Attorney General/Carson City 

"The clerk of this court is directed to file petitioner's various 

submissions, which were provisionally received in this court on April 27, 

and 29, 2011; May 4, 2011; and October 11, 2011, respectively. In light of 

this order, we deny as moot any unaddressed relief requested in these 

documents. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
A.C.P.-H., Appellant, v. I.R.-M., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1039

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Edwin J. JENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correctional Officer John MULLIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.*

16-3619-pr

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 5, 2017

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Bella S. Satra, (David M. Cost, on the brief), Barclay Damon, LLP, Albany, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Charles C. Spagnoli, The Law Firm of Frank W. Miller, East Syracuse, NY.

PRESENT: Jon 0. Newman, José A. Cabranes, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges,

*

 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as indicated above.

SUMMARY ORDER

’ Plaintiff-appellant Edwin J. Jenson brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correction officer John Mullin, Jr., alleging a denial of his constitutional right to due process in the prison disciplinary proceedings against him. In a September 27, 2016 Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court granted summary judgment to Mullin on the grounds that there was no violation of due process and, in the alternative, that Mullin was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to any such violation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Shortly after being conditionally released from the Chenango County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”), Jenson tested positive for Suboxone and appeared at a hearing in Chenango County Court. Sever*62al witnesses—including the Chenango County Drug Coordinator Jim Everard and Jenson’s probation officer Jonathan Dunckel—reported to Mullin’s fellow correction officers, including one Sergeant Hackett, that in that hearing Jenson admitted to having obtained and used drugs while incarcerated at CCCF, According to these witnesses, Jenson had also provided a plausible explanation for how he obtained Suboxone at CCCF (including naming the inmate, incarcerated on his cell block, who had supplied the drugs). Upon Jenson’s return to CCCF, Mullin presided over a disciplinary hearing against Jenson pertaining to the conduct he had allegedly admitted. Prior to the hearing, Mullin personally spoke to Sergeant Hackett as well as Dunckel and Everard, but none of these individuals themselves provided evidence during the hearing. Among other things, Jenson argued at the hearing that he had said merely that he “could have” obtained and used Suboxone while incarcerated at CCCF in an attempt to avoid having his conditional release revoked. Mullin found Jenson guilty and he was sentenced principally to 120 days of administrative segregation.

On appeal, Jenson argues that he was denied due process because there was no “‘reliable evidence’” of his guilt in the record. Jenson Br. 16 (quoting *Luna v. Pico,*356 F.3d 481, 488 (2d Cir. 2004)). Substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Memorandum Decision and Order, and the fact that Mullin acknowledged at the hearing making an admission in the County Court that corroborated the hearsay statements, we conclude that there was no violation of Jen-son’s due process rights and Mullin was entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, the September 27, 2016 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 42



Consent of Mark Petersen



I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection
with, mineral reserve and resource estimates for the New Afton Project, Mesquite Mine, Peak Gold Mines, Cerro San Pedro Mine, Rainy
River Project, Blackwater Project and El Morro Project, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial
year ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.



Dated this 27th day of March, 2015





|       | /Mark Petersen/                                                                                                                      | 
|------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Name:  | Mark A. Petersen                                                                                                                     | 
|Title: | Vice President, Exploration of New Gold Inc.

AIPG Certified Professional Geologist – CPG No 10563

SME Registered Member No 2519520
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20567

Summary Calendar

RODNEY KYLE BURTON,

PetitionerAppellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

RespondentAppellee.

--------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-3892

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

December 3, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rodney Kyle Burton, Texas prisoner # 834048, appeals the denial of his F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60(b)

motion seeking to have the judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition vacated. In his instant

petition, Burton challenged the validity of his 1991 guilty-plea theft-by-check conviction, which was-2-

used to enhance his 1998 sexual-assault conviction. The district court determined that Burton’s 1991

guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and denied his habeas petition. Burton argues, as he did in

his Rule 60(b) motion before the district court, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition because a state habeas petition challenging his 1998 conviction on different

grounds was pending in state court when he filed his instant federal habeas petition.

Burton’s Rule 60(b) motion raised no challenges to his convictions; nor did it challenge the

dist rict court’s assessment of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims. Rather, as apparent from Burt o n’s

pleadings, his Rule 60(b) motion sought to vacate the judgment denying habeas relief in an attempt

to manipulate the jurisdictio n of the district court with respect to his later filed 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition raising a different challenge to his 1998 conviction. Though the district court denied Burton

a certificate of appealability (C0A) and Burton seeks a COA from this court, a COA is not required

for Burton’s appeal. See Dunn v. Cockrell , __ F.3d __, 2002 WL 1888802 * 1 (5th Cir. Aug. 15,

2002).

Burton’s argument on appeal and presented in his Rule 60(b) motion, that the district court

lacked jurisdiction over his federal habeas petition because his state habeas petition was still pending

in state court, is without merit. S ee Narvaiz v. Johnson

, 134 F.3d 688, 693 n.1 (5th Cir. 1998);

Brewer v. Johnson , 139 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 1998).

The district court’s denial of Burton’s Rule 60(b) motion is AFFIRMED. To the extent a

COA is required to appeal the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, COA IS DENIED.
Fabio Jaramillo HENOA, Raulmar Tejada Rubens, and Christina H. Cerrone, Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-4446

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Nos. 04 -14 -00709- CR

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

VS. § FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZALEZ § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

From the 399 th District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CR -9697

Hon. Ray J. Olivarri, Judge Presiding

In accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), the undersigned submits the following:

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed on Monday, the 6 th of April, 201 5 . The undersigned

requests additional time to prepare and file Appellant’s opening brief. Counsel has recently

received the trial court ’ s findings of fact and conclusions of law, tendered to counsel on March

31, 2015. Counsel has been working on Appellant’s brief but needs time to incorporate the

court ’ s ruling and amend his arguments. Counsel has also been preparing two writs of habeas

corpus, one in Bexar County and one in Dallas County, which have forced counsel to divert his

attention from this appeal. Counsel requests an extension of twenty-one (21) days, to and

in cluding Monday, April 27, 201 5

. This is Appellant’s third request for an extension.

Appellant has spoken with the Bexar County District Attorney ’ s Office regarding

this motion and, per Chief Appellate Prosecutor RicoValdez, they are not opposed to

granting this request for an extension of time.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests that this

Court grant the requested extension. ACCEPTED

04-14-00709-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

4/2/2015 10:38:51 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERKRespectfully submitted,

Robert A. Jimenez

De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendariz, LLC.

800 Dolorosa Street, Suite 100

San Antonio, Texas 78207

210/ 354

- 1844

210/212

- 2116

- fax

By: /s/ Robert A. Jimenez

SBN: 24059125CERT IFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 24 th day of April , 201 5 a copy of the foregoing “Motion

for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Opening Brief ” has been electronically filed with this

Court, and will be served to the Bexar County District Attorney’s Off ice on April 2, 2015

.

/s/ ROBERT A. JIMENEZ
Richard RIEGLER and Kelly Riegler, Appellants, v. AMERICAN MORTGAGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS FUND I TRUST, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2346

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

Brian Korte of Korte & Wortman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Melisa Manganelli of the Law Offices of Mandel, Manganelli & Leider, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Gross and Levine, JJ., concur.