alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A00A1457.

#### FLYNN v. THE STATE.

(537 SE2d 752)

Decided July 21, 2000.

*Emmett J. Arnold IV,*for appellant.

Johnson, Chief Judge.

Glenn Flynn was convicted of cocaine trafficking. He appeals, arguing that there is insufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the cocaine found hidden in his luggage. The argument is without merit.

At trial, the state presented evidence that Flynn, a citizen of Great Britain, arrived at the Atlanta airport on a flight from Jamaica. Flynn picked up his bag from a baggage carousel and headed toward the airport exit. A customs inspector approached Flynn, who told the inspector that he was visiting a cousin. When Flynn could not give the name, address or telephone number of the cousin, the inspector decided to search Flynn’s bag. In the bag, the inspector found two pairs of shoes which had hollowed-out soles containing packages of white powder. The powder weighed more than 1,000 grams and had a purity of 67 percent cocaine.

Flynn testified that he knew the shoes were in his bag but denied knowing that they contained cocaine. He claimed that the shoes belonged to an acquaintance in Jamaica and that he had agreed to deliver the shoes to the acquaintance’s brother in Florida.

Flynn’s testimony that he did not know the cocaine was in his bag does not mandate a finding of insufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the cocaine. Rather, whether or not to believe such testimony was a question for the jury.1 Based on all the evidence, the jury was authorized to resolve that question against Flynn and to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of trafficking in cocaine.2

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur.*

*284*Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Erman J. Tanjuatco, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

1

 See *Straite v. State,*238 Ga. App. 420, 421 (1) (518 SE2d 914) (1999).

2

 See *Fulton v. State,*192 Ga. App. 693, 695 (2) (385 SE2d 777) (1989) (sufficient evidence where defendant denied knowledge of cocaine found in his bag); *Hamilton v. State,*185 Ga. App. 749 (1) (365 SE2d 542) (1988) (sufficient evidence where defendant denied knowing that substance he put in his car trunk was cocaine).
UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION OF CDC, INC., etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. WCWH, LLC, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2155

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 06, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated October 6, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 12, 2014.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 12, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A14A1990. ELJUAN D. LOVE v. ALEXZANDRIA D. LOVE, BY HER CONSERVATOR,

NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL PARENT, DEMETRIUS T. LOVE et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Isaiah Joel DUPREE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0641

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 01, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO
18 U.S.C SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Moving Bytes Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Smith, Chief Financial
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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
               aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of all the
Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ 
Mark Smith
Mark Smith 
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2003
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------
Justis MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joanne Diez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and LUCK, JJ.

**ON CONFESSION OF ERROR**

PER CURIAM.

After a revocation of probation hearing, the trial court found that the state did not *992prove that defendant Justis Martin violated his probation by making no efforts to complete his high school equivalency diploma (GED). The written order of revocation of probation, however, included this as one of the grounds for revoking Martin's probation. We agree with the state's confession of error and remand for correction of the order of revocation of probation. *See**Jones v. State*, 686 So.2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("The trial court's written order revoking appellant's probation does not conform to the court's oral pronouncements. At the revocation hearing the court orally dismissed the allegations of paragraphs two, four, and five of the affidavit of probation violation. The written revocation order, however, finds appellant guilty of the probation violations alleged in those paragraphs. We remand this case so that the order may be corrected to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements."). Martin need not be present for this purpose. *Id.* ("Appellant need not be present for this purpose."). We affirm the order of revocation of probation in all other respects.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.
**MEMORANDUM**

Date: February

1 5 , 2012 Subject: Stakeholder call about MOVES Transition for Regional Conformity Anal yses From: Meg Patulski, State Measures and Transportation Planning Center , OTAQ To: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0393 On December 22 , 2010, a conference call was held to discuss stakeholder concerns in New York regarding the transition to using MOVES for regional conformity analy ses . E PA’s Office of Transportation and Air Qualit y hosted the call based on a request from EPA Region 2 an d the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). NYSDEC w as concerned regarding the start - up challenges for the transition to M OVES for regional conformity

anal ys es and any

necessary

revisions to state implementation plan (SIP) mo tor vehicle emissions budgets. The state had not yet begun using MOVES to understand the future implications for transportation conformity determinations in New York nonattainment and maintenance areas , for several reasons (e.g., staff ing constraints ) . EPA provided an overview of available options for revising existing SIPs with MOVES, p ursuant to EPA’s MOVES policy guidance.
# FILED
October 30, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 1997 SESSION
EDWARD F. NESBITT, ) ) Appellant, ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-96 1 1-CR-0049 1 ) vs. ) Davidson County ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Honorable Ann Lacy Johns, Judge ) Appellee. ) (Post Conviction) )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: WILLIAM A. LANE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney at Law Attorney General & Repor ter 3236 Dilton Mankin Road Murfreesboro, TN 37127 DARYL J. BRAND Assistant Attorney Gener al Criminal Justice Div

ision 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493 VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III District Attorney General ROGER MOORE Assistant

District Attorney General 222 Second Ave. North, Ste. 50 0 Nashville, TN 37201-1649
OPINION FILED: ____________________
AFFIRMED -

RULE 20 CURWOOD WITT JUDGE1 Prior to the 1995 amendments to the Pos t-Conviction Procedur

e Act, a petitioner had three year s to file his claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990) (repealed 1995). 2 OPINION The petitio ner, Ed ward F. Nesbitt, appeal s the Davidson County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-convic tion relief. The petitioner is serving a ten-year

sentence following his May 18, 1990 guilty plea to the crime of aggravated robbery. In this post- conv icti on action, filed December 8, 1995, h e challengeshis conviction is v arious constitutionalrespects. The lower court found his claims

barred by the one-year statute of limit ations and dismissed his peti tion without appointing counsel or cond ucting a hearing. The petitioner

acknowledges
more than three years passed bet ween the date of his convic tion and the filing of his petition, 1 but he alleges the 1995 Post- Conviction Procedure A ct provided him with a one-year

window t

o file a clai m. Having reviewed the record, we affirm the judgment of the lower court pursuant to Rule 20 of the rules of this court.

Our supreme court recently held that the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1995 did not revive pr eviously expir

ed post-conviction clai ms. Arnold Carter
v. State , --- S.W.2d ---, No. 03-S-01-96 12-CR -00117 (Tenn., Knoxvill e, Sept. 8, 1997). Moreover, the petit ioner before us has presented no claim which would entitle him to untimely relief. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(g) (Supp. 1996); Burford v. State , 8445 S.W.2d 204 (T enn. 1992). His claims are barred. The trial court di d not err in summarily dismissing his petiti on. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 206(b ) (Supp. 1996). As a result, we find no error of law requiring reversa l. Th e lower court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Court of Criminal Appeals Rules.3 _______________________________ CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

_______________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
Exhibit








From: Chet Kapoor
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Board service
To: George Bell
Cc: Diane Musi
Note - This message originated from outside Care.com - Please use caution before opening attachments, clicking on links or sharing information.
Confirmed.
On Feb 26, 2019, at 3:20 PM, George Bell wrote:
Chet,
 
As you know, Care.com and the board value and appreciate your cooperation and contributions to Care.com over the last three years, and we look forward to your continued service for another term.  
 
In connection with its decision to nominate you for re-election, the board would like your commitment that you and the Tenzing funds will comply with the voting obligations in Section 2 and the standstill obligations in Section 3 of the March 11, 2016 Agreement you and they signed when you originally joined the board for the period commencing February 26, 2019 and continuing until the earlier to occur of (i) February 26, 2020 and (ii) the date that is 10 days prior to the deadline for stockholders to nominate directors for election at Care.com’s 2020 Annual Meeting.  Finally, we would like your commitment that if at any time after such period you no longer intend to comply with Sections 2 or 3 of the March 11, 2016 Agreement, you will promptly offer to resign from the board.
 
Please confirm your and the Tenzing funds’ agreement with the above commitments by sending an email to that effect in response to this email.
 
Many thanks,
George
 
George Bell
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF BAGELL, JOSEPHS & COMPANY LLC



Bagell, Josephs & Company, LLC

200 Haddonfield Berlin Road, Gibbsboro, NJ 08026

Tel: 856.346.2628  Fax: 856.346.2882











Independent Accountants Consent







The Board of Directors

Moving Bytes Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-10826, 333-12078 and 333-12916) on Form S-8 of Moving Bytes Inc. of our report dated April 6, 2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Moving Bytes Inc. as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Moving Bytes Inc.

Our report dated April 6, 2005 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, which raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.  The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.



BAGELL, JOSEPHS & COMPANY, LLC

BAGELL, JOSEPHS & COMPANY, LLC

Gibbsboro, New Jersey

April 6, 2005
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.03


June 27, 1997

Mr. Norm Smith
8215 Navidad Drive
Austin, Texas   78735

Dear Norm:

Racotek is pleased to offer you the position of Sr. Vice President, Systems
Integration, reporting to Michael Fabiaschi, President & CEO.  The start date is
June 30, 1997.  As Sr. Vice President, Systems Integration, you will work
independently and with teams to identify and develop opportunities at target
companies in multiple vertical industries.

Your initial compensation, will be in the form of company paid benefits,
including three weeks vacation, and stock options in the amount of 500,000
shares issued at its current fair market value on July 21, 1997, with a vesting
start date of June 30, 1997.  Of these options, 62,500 will vest on your first
day of employment and the remaining shares are subject to vesting over a four
year period. You will vest 25% at the end of your first year and an additional
6.25% each quarter thereafter. Final approval of your stock option requires
Racotek Board of Directors approval. 

Per your discussion with Michael Fabiaschi, within the next 6 months there will
be a joint evaluation to determine the possibility of entering into a continuing
employment arrangement going forward which may include: compensation, relocation
and stock.
 
Enclosed is an employee agreement that we ask you to sign and bring with you on
your first day.  Please understand that this letter does not constitute a
contract of employment for any specific period of time but will create an
"employment at will" relationship.  We wish to impress upon you that we do not
wish you to bring with you any confidential or proprietary material of any
former employer or to violate any other obligation to your former employers.  

In addition, the Immigration Conform and Control Act requires that all employees
complete an I-9 form and provide documentation to show employment eligibility in
the United States.  A copy of the I-9 form is enclosed.

We are extremely pleased to make this offer to you and look forward to working
with you.

Sincerely,
Kay E. Lee

Kay E. Lee
Director, Human Resources

cc:  Michael Fabiaschi

I accept the offer for the position of Sr. Vice President, Systems Integration.

Norm Smith                                        June 30, 1997
------------------------------                    -------------
Norm Smith                                        Date




                                       17
Roger GARRIS, Appellant, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3274

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 11, 2018

Roger Garris, pro se.

Stephen M. Janes of Padgett Law Group, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6164 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting certain aliens 

temporary protected status. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. OGLES (for himself and Mr. TIFFANY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from 

granting certain aliens temporary protected status. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Temporary Pro5 tected Status for Terrorists Act’’ or the ‘‘No TPS for Ter6 rorists Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. CERTAIN ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR TEMPORARY 

8 PROTECTED STATUS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland Secu10 rity may not grant a covered alien temporary protected 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6164 IH

1 status in the United States pursuant to section 244 of 

2 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a). 

3 (b) COVERED ALIEN.—In this section, the term ‘‘cov4 ered alien’’ means an alien who is a holder of a passport 

5 or other travel document issued by the Palestinian Author6 ity. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
STATE of Louisiana v. Arlando K. HENSON

NO. 2017-KO-1677

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
Mack Charles SHULER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3112

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

As it appears that the proceedings in the circuit court relative to the petitioner's motion for postconviction relief are progressing, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Cf, Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm'n. 807 So.2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). This denial is without prejudice to the petitioner to file a new petition for writ of mandamus if the postconviction court has not entered a final order on the motion within 90 days of the date of this order, provided that the petitioner is unrepresented by counsel in the postconviction proceeding.

CASANUEVA, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Jacob M. VEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3927

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

RAY, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
STATE of Louisiana v. David Jerome MANNING

NO. 2017-KO-1575

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
Karen Traxler CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2616

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6200 

To consider, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, that 

officers, officials, representatives, spokespersons, and members of Hamas, 

Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and ISIS, and individuals 

who endorse or espouse terrorist activities conducted by such organizations are engaged in terrorist activity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. PFLUGER (for himself, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. GUEST, and Mr. ROY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To consider, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, that officers, officials, representatives, spokespersons, and members of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, 

Palestine Islamic Jihad, and ISIS, and individuals who 

endorse or espouse terrorist activities conducted by such 

organizations are engaged in terrorist activity. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Terrorist Inadmis5 sibility Codification Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6200 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH, AL-QAEDA, 

2 PALESTINE ISLAMIC JIHAD, AND ISIS OFFI3 CIALS AND MEMBERS AMONG ALIENS EN4 GAGED IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY. 

5 Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)) is amended, in the 

7 undesignated matter following subparagraph (IX), by 

8 striking ‘‘or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Orga9 nization’’ and inserting ‘‘spokesperson, or member of the 

10 Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al11 Qaeda, ISIS, Palestine Islamic Jihad, or any successor or 

12 affiliate group, or who endorses or espouses terrorist ac13 tivities conducted by any of the aforementioned groups,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.1


                    STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTIION 1350

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September  30,  2008  (the  "Form  10-Q")  of  Grayson  Bankshares,   Inc.  (the
"Company"),  we, Jacky K. Anderson,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Blake M.  Edwards,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

          (a) the Form 10-Q  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
          13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

          (b) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



         By:      /s/ Jacky K. Anderson              Date:  November 14, 2008
                  Jacky K. Anderson
                  Chief Executive Officer



         By:      /s/Blake M. Edwards                Date:  May 15, 2008
                  Blake M. Edwards
                  Chief Financial Officer
Henry L. LYNN III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 1D17-649 1D17-657 1D17-659

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Alfonza Hardy GREENHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections; A. David Robinson, Chief of Corrections Operations of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections; Earl Barksdale, Warden of Red Onion State Prison, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6696

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 31, 2017

*281Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Mary Grace Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.*
      *See Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co.,*649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *Greenhill v. Clarke,*No. 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB, 2017 WL 1929669 (W.D. Va. May 10, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*

By this disposition, we express no opinion as to the ultimate merits of Greenhill’s claims.