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

| Date:       March      2, 2009 |   | Natural      Gas Services Group, Inc.                                                                                       |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                | By:    | /s/ Stephen      C. Taylor                                                                                             |   |
|                                |   | Stephen      C. Taylor                                                                                                      |   |
|                                |   | Chairman      of the Board of Director, President and Chief Executive Officer      (Principal  Executive Officer) |   |
Joseph J. DEMTY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1102, 3D17-1101

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and these consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida are hereby dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ZambaCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Norman D. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thisCertification as of the 12th day of November 2003.

 
|   | /s/ Norman D. Smith                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Norman D. Smith                        |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
John Michael KOZIK, Appellant, v. Craig HANSON, as representative of Alice Marie Kozik, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2441

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Shalonda Nikkia VALE v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00914-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 31, 2018 Closed: April 26, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Granted.
WESTON PROFESSIONAL TITLE GROUP, INC., and Jose C. Marrero, Appellants, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1825

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Law Offices of Victor K. Rones, P.A., and Victor K. Rones, for appellants.

Burr & Forman LLP, and Nicholas S. Agnello (Ft. Lauderdale), and Jonathan M. Sykes (Orlando), for appellee.

Before LAGOA, EMAS, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CHINA ENERGY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael SAMMONS, Defendant-Appellant, and Elena Sammons; et al., Defendants.

No. 14-16770

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

China Energy Corporation, Pro Se

Michael Sammons, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Sammons appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his mo*933tion to intervene on behalf of his wife in plaintiff China Energy Corporation’s diversity action alleging an improper exercise of dissenters’ rights. We dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal because the order challenged is not final or appealable. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1291; *Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action,*480 U.S. 370, 375, 378-79, 107 S.Ct. 1177, 94 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (a challenge to a court’s order limiting the scope of a party’s participation in the litigation is a collateral order that generally can be appealed only after a final judgment on the merits); *see also Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter,*558 U.S. 100, 113, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) (“[T]he class of collaterally appealable orders must remain narrow and selective in its membership.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Sammons’s motions to submit the case on the briefs, filed on November 4 and 5, 2014, are denied as moot.

On March 25, 2016, this court informed appellee that a corporation must be represented by counsel and ordered new counsel to file a notice of appearance with the court. The order warned appellee that failure to comply would result in the striking of the previously filed answering brief and submission of the appeal on the opening brief. To date, appellee has not complied with the court’s order. Accordingly, the Clerk shall strike the answering brief at Docket Entry No. 10.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*933ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Joshua ARMSTRONG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 29, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the order being appealed and is, therefore, untimely.

MORRIS, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
D.B. SR., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D18-845

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 2018

Gary L. Pickett, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Kreusler-Walsh, Vargas & Serafin, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Thomasina Moore and Laura J. Lee, Sanford, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Taylor and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. German Zavala QUEZADA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11639 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

*358James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

German Zavala Quezada, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent German Zavala Quezada 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Que-zada has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*6th 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.
Richard WHITSITT, Appellant, v. William A. LEONARD, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4306

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
E.A.R., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1631

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Glendon George Gordon, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
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, 2006 (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, 2007



By:

/s/  Greg L. LeeGreg L. LeeChairman and Chief Executive Officer
Carmen P. DAVIS v. Tony BARNES

2160148

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE A.C.T.

(In re: J.L.O. v. A.C.T.)

2160733

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Direct Dial: 703.760.5204 kpomfret@williamsmullen.com 

## WILLIAMS MULLEN

September 22, 2015
BY ELECTRONIC PORTAL UAS Integration Office West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Re: Docket FAA 2015-2205, Petition forAmendmentto Exemption No. 12856 Dear Sir or Madam: EagleView Technologies, Inc. ("EagleView") received FAA Exemption No. 12856 on September 15, 2015 (the "Exemption") authorizing it under Section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 to operate several unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS") for aerial data collection. By this letterwe request to amend the Exemption to add the senseFiy eXom; the Parrot Bebop; and the 3DR Iris+ to the list of UAS EagleView is permitted to operate underthe Exemption. EagleView will comply with all ofthe conditions and limitations imposed in the Exemption except that Condition/Limitation Number 1will need to be revised to include the (i) senseFiy eXom; (ii) Parrot Bebop; and (iii) 3DR Iris+. The list of"operating documents" will also need to be revised to include the operating documentsforthe three additional platforms. Copies of these operating documents will be provided upon request. Otherthan these revisions, there will be no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public safetythat were the basis forthe initial grant ofexemption. Since our request will not set a precedent, and our proposed use will improve safetyforworkers and reduce time and associated costs foravariety of industries that are importantto our nation's economy, we askthatthis request be considered on an expedited basis. Thank you for your consideration ofthis request. Please contact me at 703.760.5204 or at kpomfret@williamsmullen.com ifyou have any questions.

KDP/kmb

8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1100 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 T 703.760.5200 F703.748.0244 williamsmullen.com I A Professional Corporation
**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**








Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of China
      Software Technology Group Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)  The
      Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December
      31, 2006 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.





Dated:
      April 6, 2007





/s/
      Yuan
      Qing Li





Yuan
      Qing
      Li


President
      (principal executive officer)





/s/
      Ding
      Hong Shen





Ding
      Hong
      Shen


Chief
      Financial Officer (principal financial officer and principal accounting
      officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Eloy MONTANEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3497

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Emerson and Colette COLEMAN, Individually and on Behalf of the Minor Nakhia Coleman v. LOWERY CARNIVAL COMPANY, Crabtree Amusements, Inc., T.H.E. Insurance Company, and State Fair of Louisiana

No. 2018-CC-403

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 1st JUDICAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF CADDO**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., dissents and would grant and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., dissents and would grant the writ.

Respectfully, this court should issue an order to cut through the stubbornness, obstructiveness, and inflexibility. All parties would be well served to place the best interests of the child ahead of their own. The examination of the eleven-year-old female child with possible brain injury should be conducted by Dr. Gary Mears in the child's hometown of Shreveport using the available reciprocal mirror with no one in the room except the doctor and the child, and videotaped. The trial court has the power to make this happen, and the parties should agree to it. Who benefits if the child is stressed out before the examination begins?
John JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D15-2115

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and G. Raemy Charest-Turken, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to appellant raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in an appropriate Rule 3.850 motion. *See* *State v. Smith*, No. SC17-576, 241 So.3d 53, 2018 WL 1755386 (Fla. April 12, 2018). *See* *also* *Partin v. State*, 82 So.3d 31, 39 (Fla. 2011) ; *Rolling v. State*, 215 So.3d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
Garfield S. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 9, 2018]

Garfield S. Jones, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed. See* *Thomas v. Dugger,* 548 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1989) ;

*1003*IndyMac Fed. Bank FSB v. Hagan,* 104 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
James Wyatt MCGRIFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2041

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 2018

James Wyatt McGriff, pro se, Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Rivera v. Department of Health* , 177 So.3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Roberts, Wetherell, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6371

JOSEPH V. PURANDA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director V.D.O.C.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-03-389)

Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 20, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph V. Puranda, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joseph V. Puranda seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).* An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Puranda has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Daniel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-40817

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 14, 2017

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

Richard Daniel Garcia, Pro Se

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JONES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The panel entered a limited remand in this case in an opinion dated August 1, 2017. Upon receipt of the district court’s order dated August 7, 2017, the panel now files this supplement to our prior opinion. The' district court order states that the district court “did not consider new information in the Addendum to deny Garcia’s motion” for a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. The denial of the sentence reduction was based on Garcia’s past criminal history and his continued threat to public safety. Therefore, as the court did not consider the new evidence in the Addendum, there was no error. Therefore we AFFIRM the district court.

*

 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.
Denise L. MARTINEC, Appellant, v. EARLY BIRD INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D17-1234

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

James A. Bonfiglio of Law Offices of James A. Bonfiglio, P.A., Boynton Beach, for appellant.

Amy L. Fischer and F. Malcolm Cunningham, Jr. of the Cunningham Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Grace Ann MCCARTY v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00602-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 20, 2018 Closed: June 7, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1051

ROBIN AUGUSTO GARCIA-MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: July 20, 2020 Decided: October 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald L. Schlemmer, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Sheri R. Glaser, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robin Augusto Garcia-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly 

reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting 

evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any 

of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2018), and that substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s decision, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

(1992) (stating standard of review for denial of asylum); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 

113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review for denial of CAT protection).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

In re Garcia-Martinez, (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Skyler Cord LINDEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3641

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Z.W. v. STATE

CR-15-1274

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Zachary BROWNLEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4268

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Steven N. Gosney, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.