alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Patrick W. WHAREN, Sr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1304

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 1, 2018

Patrick W. Wharen, Sr., Monticello, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General Tallahassee, and, Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the October 23, 2017 order denying Petitioner's pro se motion for post-conviction relief, filed in Case No. 2008-CF-23974-A, in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Brevard County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
#### Corey E. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Loretta K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent-Appellee, and United States of America, Respondent.

No. 17-6215

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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, J. Donald Boggus, Jr., Chief Executive 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/ J. DONALD BOGGUS, JR.J. Donald Boggus, Jr. Chief Executive
Officer August 13, 2008
Bobby E. RAMSEY and Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Thomas LUCENTE, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3261

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed. Denied.
Salvatore M. DECANIO, Jr., a/k/a Salvatore F. Decanio, Appellant, v. Carol A. DECANIO, Appellee.

No. 4D17-348

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nexity Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated March 16, 2006



By:

/s/ Greg L. LeeGreg L. LeeChairman and Chief Executive Officer
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Dec ember

3, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 1 3 5 6 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 1 8 0

- C R

- O R L

- 2 2

- D A B

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

E R S K I N E J E R M A I N E F L O R E N C E ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( D e c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 8 )

B e f o r e A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S a n d F A Y , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :
C l a r e n c e W

. C o u n t s , J r

. , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r E r s k i n e J e r m a i n e F l o r e n c e ,h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d f i l e d a
b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d

4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s c o u n s e l ’ s

a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t

e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s

m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d F l o r e n c e ’ s s e n t e n c e i s A F F I R M E D

.

2
Deontra R. FRENCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-2230

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 2018

Melissa J. Ford, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

Deontra French beat a man to death at the Florida State Hospital. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years. This is his appeal.

French's appointed counsel originally filed an initial brief raising just one issue: that the trial court failed to enter a written order on competency. The same brief acknowledged that the trial court *orally* ruled French competent to proceed, and the brief did not challenge the correctness of that ruling. The brief did not seek a reversal; it asked only that we require the trial court to put its unchallenged oral ruling into writing.

Because the initial brief sought no relief that would have benefitted French, this court entered an order directing counsel to file an amended initial brief that complied with the obligations outlined in *In re Anders Briefs* , 581 So.2d 149, 151 (Fla. 1991). Counsel did so, asserting in the new brief that after a comprehensive review of the record, counsel was unable to make a good faith argument for reversal. We then conducted our own full review, *see* *State v. Causey* , 503 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 1987) ("[P]ursuant to *Anders* , in order to assure indigents fair and meaningful appellate review, the appellate court must examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record."), which led to the discovery of an error regarding costs imposed at sentencing, *see* *Nix v. State* , 84 So.3d 424, 425-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reversing fines imposed pursuant to sections 775.083 and 938.04 because the fines were not specifically pronounced at the sentencing hearing).

Having identified a sentencing error, we entered an order striking the *Anders* brief *536and directing counsel to file a rule 3.800 motion to correct the sentence in the lower court. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(g)(2)(B). Counsel did so, and the trial court modified the sentence by removing the costs at issue.

The case is now back before us. After completing our review, which turned up no other arguable bases for reversal, we affirm.

AFFIRMED .

Kelsey, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Juan Miguel SERRANO, Appellant, v. Isabel Rives RIVES, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2131

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1




                            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 Apria  Healthcare  Group Inc. (the
"company" or "Apria") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the SEC on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Lawrence M. Higby,  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  results of  operations  of the
       Company.


/s/ LAWRENCE M. HIGBY
---------------------------
Lawrence M. Higby
Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2003



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Apria and will be retained by Apria and furnished to the  Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
WALKER INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,880
<SECURITIES>                                    13,133
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,037
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,628
<PP&E>                                          29,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,773
<SALES>                                         69,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,939
<CGS>                                           36,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30,041)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.14)


</TABLE>
Lawrence CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3742

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TELMED, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                             167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    49
<PP&E>                                              70
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              958
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                          (7)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,026
<SALES>                                            903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   940
<CGS>                                              429
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   678
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (167)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (168)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.27)
        

</TABLE>
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-286025

NO. 2018-BA-0921

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner shall continue to comply with the terms of the monitoring agreement he signed with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program ("JLAP") on July 31, 2017.

2. The period of this conditional admission shall coincide with the period of petitioner's JLAP agreement. However, petitioner's conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

3. Petitioner shall authorize the Executive Director of JLAP to report any violations of the JLAP agreement to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC").

4. Upon the expiration of the term of petitioner's JLAP agreement, the Executive Director of JLAP shall forward to the ODC (a) a final report of petitioner's progress and participation in JLAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner's continued participation in JLAP.

5. Following receipt of the report from JLAP, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

6. Petitioner shall cooperate with JLAP and the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by JLAP and the ODC.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

**CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.**

JOHNSON, C.J., would reject conditional admission.

CLARK, J., would deny conditional admission.

GENOVESE, J., would reject conditional admission.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0 471 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL KEPLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 22 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 16 2023

08/16/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0471
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

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

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Richard A. Ross, as principal financial officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the
Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the U.S. 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, 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.



|                       |  |     |  |                              
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: August 11, 2004 |  |     |  |                              
|                       |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard A. Ross          
|                       |  |     |  | Richard A. Ross              
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                       |  |     |  | (principal financial officer)
Joseph Donald REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3664

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1095 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 517
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1095

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 13, 2022

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           September 28, 2022

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, California, as the ``PFC 
              James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PFC JAMES ANDERSON, JR., POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, California, shall 
be known and designated as the ``PFC James Anderson, Jr., Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``PFC James 
Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 517

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1095

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 101 South Willowbrook Avenue in Compton, California, as the ``PFC 
              James Anderson, Jr., Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 28, 2022

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 32 (a)         Section 906 CEO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter Ended July 5, 2003 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) 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 Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


                                       /s/ David B. Pomeroy, II
                                       David B. Pomeroy, II
                                       Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


<PAGE>
Consent of David Runnels
 
 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 reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada” effective date January 16, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, 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 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “David Runnels”Name:
David Runnels, Eng.Title:
Project Manager – Mining and Metallurgy