alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rosa CARDONA, etc., Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-1581

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 27, 2018

The Law Offices of Patrick L. Goss; Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., and Elizabeth Russo and Paulo R. Lima, for appellant.

Victoria Méndez, City Attorney, and John A. Greco, Deputy City Attorney, and Christopher A. Green, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee City of Miami.

Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Richard Schevis, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee Miami-Dade County.

Before LAGOA, FERNANDEZ, and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Payne v. Broward County*, 461 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1984) ; *Dep't of Transp. v. Neilson*, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1982).
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02775]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's Committee on National Science and 
Engineering Policy hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a 
teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business 
as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Friday, February 11, 2022, from 2:30-3:30 p.m. EST.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's 
opening remarks; update on Science & Engineering Indicators 2022 
reports; discussion of the release and rollout of The State of U.S. 
Science & Engineering 2022; discussion of socioeconomic barriers to 
participation in STEM and the Committee's plans to explore this issue.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f1c1d131e160d3f110c1951181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b4849474a42596b45584d054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. Meeting information, 
including a link to watch this meeting on YouTube may be found at the 
National Science Board website www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-02775 Filed 2-4-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SECOND QUARTER FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,344
<SECURITIES>                                     4,003
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (238)
<INVENTORY>                                        253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,698
<PP&E>                                           4,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,544)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,336
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,420
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,025
<SALES>                                            561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,181
<CGS>                                              611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,987)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,987)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Michael SCHWABLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30011

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed March 8, 2017

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen P. Hobbs, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Teal Luthy Miller, DOJ-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Filipovic, Mohammad Ali Ham-oudi, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Washington, Seattle, WA, Alan Zarky, Attorney, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Tacoma), Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GRABER; IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The sole issue in this case is whether the district court erred in refusing to suppress the fruits of a search. The district court found that the search was incident to a lawful custodial arrest; David Schwabland was subsequently convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Schwabland argues only that he was not under custodial arrest when searched. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. Before the search, the officer told Schwabland that he was under arrest, handcuffed him, and read him his *Miranda*rights. The officer then searched Schwab-land, retrieved various objects from his wallet, and questioned him. Another officer placed Schwabland in the back of a police car, where he remained for approximately thirty minutes. During that time, the arresting officer talked to him again.

2. Schwabland argues that no custodial arrest occurred because (1) officers eventually drove him home instead of taking *610him to the police station, (2) the arresting officer’s general practice was- to release misdemeanants with a citation, and (3) the police department discouraged booking misdemeanants because of jail overcrowding. But there is “no mechanical checklist” for custodial arrest; rather, our review “turns on the particular facts and circumstances of each case,” *United States v. Parr,*843 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 1988). A reasonable person in Schwabland’s position “would have undoubtedly felt that he was under arrest.” *United States v. Mota,*982 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir. 1993). The search in this case was not merely a “search incident to citation.” *Knowles v. Iowa,*525 U.S. 113, 115, 119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998). *See also Berkemer v. McCarty,*468 U.S. 420, 434, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (“There can be no question that respondent was ‘in custody’ at least as of the moment he was formally placed under arrest and instructed to get into the police car.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Annual Report of American Security Resources Corporation. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Frank Neukomm, Chief Executive Officer and John A. Wilkinson, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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) 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.
 
 
 
 American
      Security Resources CorporationDate:
      March 4, 2010
                By:
                /s/ Frank
      NeukommFrank
      NeukommChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      March 4, 2010
                By:
                /s/ John A.
      WilkinsonJohn
      A WilkinsonChief
      Financial Officer
St AAVID’Smissionistoclosetheachievementgopbypreparingallstudentsforcollegereadinessandsuccessinaglobalsociety.DecadesofCollegeDreamsJimNelsonMarch14.2012ExecutiveDirectorBoardofDirectorsToddGutschowTheHonorableRayLaHoodChairmanU.S.DepartmentofTransportation1200NewJerseyAye,SEMelendyLovettWashington,DC20590ViceChairmanClarenceFieldsRe:AlaskaAiriines’appEcationforSAN-DCA,DocketNo.DOT-OST-2012-0029.SecretaryandTreasurerDearSecretaryLaHood:MaryCatherineSwansonFounderAVIDCenterfullysupportstheapplicationofAlaskaAirlinesforairservicebetweenSanDiegoandWashingtonPeieGarciaReaganNationalAirport(DCA).SanDiegoisthelargestregionwithoutannouncedservicetoOCA.DaveGordonAdditionally,duetotheprofoundcommunityofinterestbetweenSanDiegoandthenation’scapital,theGenetMaeroiiregiongeneratesthelargestpassengermarketdemandwithoutnonstopservicetotheconvenientandOr.Lionel‘SklpMenDclose-inairportservingournation’scapital.Or.MonteMosesJimNelsonSanDiego’ssheermarketsizetoWashingtoncoupledwiththefactthatSanDiego—DullesaverageairfaresAraceliavila......Dr.StephenWeberarethehighestofwestcoastcitiesshouldqualityitforapairofthelimitedslotsavailable.ThehighairfareisexacerbatedwhenfactoringintaxifaresfromDullestoWashington’scitycenterthataverageabout$60eachNationalHeadquartersway.ThismeanstravelersbetweenWashington’scitycenterandSanDiegoviaDullescanpayonaverageAVIDCentercloseto$400one-way.9246LightwaveAvenueSuite200Asanon-profitthattravelstotheDCareafrequentlywewouldbeverymuchinfavorofseeinganon-stopSanDiego,CA92123Phone:858.380.4800addedtoreducecosts.Fax:858.268.2265TherearealsocounUessotherSanDiego-basedandWashington-basedbusinessesthatareengagedinhealthCentralDivisionscience,telecommunications,andnationaldefensethatneedquickandconvenientaccesstoReaganNational11044ResearchBlvd.Airport.AVIDCenterhasanimmediateneedforaddftionalnonstopairservicetoournation’scapital.AlaskaAustin,fl78759AirlinesservicewouldaddaneedednonstopoptiontoaprimarygatewaytoWashington,DC.AVIDCenterPhone:512.669.5900joinswiththeSanDiegoCountyRegionalAirportAuthority,theSanDiegoRegionalEconomicDevelopmentFax:512.255.7366Corporation,theWorldTradeCenterSanDiego,andtheSanDiegoRegionalChamberofCommerceinEasternDivisionsupportofAlaskaAirlines’applicationforSanDiego—WashingtonReaganNationalslots.3CorporateBoulevardSuite118WethanktheDepartmentofTransportationfortheopportunitytoCommentontheabovereferenceddocketandwehopetohearofafavorablereviewofAlaskaAfrtines’SanDiego—DCAproposalsoon.Fax:404963.9296SinCerely,WesternDivision4’5389GreenwoodPlacalivd.1Greenwoedvillage,CD80111phone:303.436.2200ColleenArena,CTEFax:303.741.0135AssistantDirectorCorporateTravel&Administrationwww.avid.org
Exhibit 32.1  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 April 5, 2004 (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.


     May 17, 2004                    /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>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 599 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.599

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                   ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DOSAN AHN CHANG HO POST OFFICE REDESIGNATION.
    (a) Redesignation.--Section 1 of Public Law 108-239 is amended by 
striking ``3751 West 6th Street in Los Angeles, California'' and 
inserting ``3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, 
California''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in section 1 of Public Law 108-239 as amended by subsection (a) shall 
be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Richard CAHOON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2861

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Monthgomery Salvador MAYORGA-CASTILLO, also known as Salvador Lubian Castillo-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40029 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 2, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Monthgomery Salvador Mayorga-Castil-lo, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Monthgomery Salvador May-orga-Castillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mayorga-Castillo has been informed of the motion and has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and determine that “counsel has diligently investigated the possible grounds for appeal.” *Anders,*386 U.S. at 742, 87 S.Ct. 1396. We agree with counsel’s assessment that Mayorga-Castillo can raise no nonfrivolous issue on appeal challenging either his guilty plea or his sentence. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Opinion issued October 15 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00658
- CR

——————————— BENEDICT EMESOWUM , Appellant

V. STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

O n Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No . 10

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1849562 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appella nt , Benedict Emesowum , attempts to appeal from an order denying
his motion to recuse the trial court judge. We dismiss the appeal.

1 Appellant is pro se. The State of Texas is represented by Alan Curry, Harris County District Attorney’s Office. The Judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No. 10 is the Honorab le Sherman Ross.2

Emesowum filed a motion in the trial court to recuse the trial court judg e, the Honorable Sherman Ross . The motion was referred to the regional presiding judge, the Honorable Olan Underwood, who de nied the motion. The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P. A NN
. art. 44.02 (West 2006); Bayless v. State , 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment. St

ate v. Sellers , 790 S.W. 2d 316, 321 n. 4 (Tex. Crim

. App. 1990). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal absent express statutory authority. Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d, 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1991). Nothing in the language of Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, which sets for the procedures for recusal of judges in civil and criminal cases, or any Rule of Criminal Procedure , provides a right to an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to recuse

— regardless of the grounds asserted for recusal. See De Leon v. Aguilar , 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (stating procedures for recusal of judges set out in Rule 18a of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply in criminal cases). To the cont rary, Rule 18a(j)(1) expressly states: “An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on the final judgment.” T EX R. C IV
. P ROC . 18a(j)(1).
B ecause there is no final judgment in this case, this is an interlocutory appeal o ver which we have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for3

want of jurisdiction

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3 (a). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp and Brown

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b)
James Michael FELTS, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3337

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**ZIRKLE,
      LONG, TRIGUEIRO & WARD** , L.L.C.


CERTIFIED
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Eugene,
      Oregon 97401














**CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
 
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
        for
        the year ended December 31, 2005 of our report on the consolidated financial
        statements of Pacific Continental Corporation, included in the Annual Report
        to
        Shareholders of Pacific Continental Corporation for the years ended December
        31,
        2004 and 2003.
 
 **ZIRKLE,
        LONG, TRIGUEIRO & WARD, L.L.C.**
 
 
 
 
 Eugene,
        Oregon
 March
        2,
        2006
Keith PINKE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. QUAIL FOREST CLUSTER HOMES IMPROVEMENT ASSOC. et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0424

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Ulysses Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0248

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CIComplete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Otley L. Smith III, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: February 10, 2006 | /s/ Otley L. Smith III                |   |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | Otley L. Smith III                    |
|                         | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Kenneth F. Kaplan (Admitted as Kenneth Franklin Kaplan), a Disbarred Attorney.

[771 NYS2d 638]

Application for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York denied. No opinion. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-86-32-P, CA-95-321-3-P)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clifford Carson

Marshall, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Parker, Nos. CR-86-32-P; CA-95-321-3-P (W.D.N.C. Nov. 6,

1995). 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
Jacoby THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1423

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.