alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LEON K. PERKINS

, §

§ No. 648 , 2014

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below : Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware in and

v. § for New Castle County

§

STATE OF DELAWARE

, §

§

Plaintiff B elow, § Cr. ID No. 0212008942

Appellee. §

Submitted: December 3, 2014

Decided: January 13 , 2015

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 13th day of January 2015

, upon consideration of the notice to

show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In 200 5 , the appellant, Leon K. Perkins

, was convicted of

Murder in the First Degree and related weapon offenses and was sentenced

to mandatory life imprisonment pl us sixteen years. On direct appeal, this

Court affirmed Perkins ’ convictions and sentence. 1 In 2008, t he Court

1 Perkins v. State

, 920 A.2d 391 (Del. 2007).2

affirmed the denial of Perkins’ motion for postconviction relief under

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 2

(2) Perkins has appealed the Superior Court’s November 5, 2014

order denying his motion for appointment of counsel

. By notice dated

November 24, 2014, the Clerk directed that Perkins show cause under

Supreme Court Rule 29(b) why the appeal should not be dismissed for this

Court’s lack of juri sdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal in a criminal

matter. 3

(3) In his December 3, 2014 response to the notice to show cause,

Perkins states that he is entitled to the appointment of counsel to pursue

further postconviction remedies

. Perkins argu es that, under the Delaware

Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to determine all appeals from the

Superior Court in criminal cases, including his appeal from the Superior

Court’s November 5, 2014 order denying his motion for appointment of

counsel

.

( 4 ) Perkins is mistaken. U nder the Delaware Constitution only a

final judgment may be reviewed by th e Court in a criminal case. 4 In this

2 State v. Perkins, 2008 WL 2406231 (Del. Super. June 11, 2008), aff'd, 2008 WL

5191831 (Del. Dec. 11, 2008).

3 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) (governing involuntary dismissal upon notice of the Court)

.

4 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b) ; State v. Cooley , 430 A.2d 789, 791 (Del. 1981).3

case, t he Superior Court’s November 5, 2014 order den ying Perkins’ motion

for appointment of counsel is an interlocuto ry order

. 5 The denial of Perkins’

motion is not appealable as a collateral order before the entry of a final order

on a motion for postconviction relief. 6

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule

29(b), that th e appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

5 Accord Lopez v. State , 2014 WL 3586494 (Del. July 21, 2014); Harris v. State , 2013

WL 4858990 (Del. Sept. 10, 2013); Brown v. State , 2012 WL 4466314 (Del. Sept. 26,

2012) (dismissing appeals from Superior Court orders denying appointment of counsel as

impermissible criminal interlocutory appeals)

.

6 See St. Louis v. State , 2012 WL 130877 (Del. Jan. 17, 2012) (citing Robinson v. State

, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998)).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Miguel LAINEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40153 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 24, 2017

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

Jose Miguel Lainez-Hernandez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Miguel Lainez-Hernan-dez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Lainez-Hernandez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs 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*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.
EX PARTE Adam LASH

(In re: Adam Lash v. Jennifer Lash)

2160479

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
GLOBE BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.
                            EXHIBIT 99 - SAFE HARBOR

     The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor
from civil litigation in many instances for forward-looking statements. In order
to take advantage of the Act, such  statements must be accompanied by meaningful
cautionary  statements that identify  important  factors that could cause actual
results to differ materially from those that might be projected. This exhibit to
the  Registrant's  Form 10-Q is being filed in order to allow the  Registrant to
take  advantage of the new  provisions  of this Act by providing  the  following
cautionary statements:

Risk Factors Affecting Globe

     Globe's  business  operations  and  strategy  are  subject  to a number  of
uncertainties  and risks which could  adversely  affect its  performance  in the
future. Among these are the following factors:

     Globe's  principal  growth  strategy  depends on the  acquisition  of other
companies  in  the  rent-to-rent  and  corporate  housing  businesses.  Although
previous  acquisitions  have been successful to date,  there can be no assurance
that any additional  acquisitions  will be consummated or that, if  acquisitions
are  consummated,  they will be successful.  Acquisitions  require a significant
commitment of corporate  resources,  management  attention and capital which, in
certain cases, could exceed that available to Globe.  Additionally,  Globe could
experience unexpected costs and operational difficulties in integrating acquired
businesses.

     Many of Globe's competitors have greater financial and other resources than
Globe. These resources could give them an advantage in price and service areas.

     Several of Globe's  rental  customers  compete with Globe in its  corporate
housing  business.  As Globe  expands  in the  corporate  housing  area,  it may
continue to lose rental business from those competitors.

     Globe is  dependent  on its computer  systems in its daily  operations.  In
addition,  Globe is developing a common  computer  system for its Corporate Stay
International business.  Significant cost or time overruns on the Corporate Stay
International  system  development or  unidentified  deficiencies in other Globe
systems could have a material adverse affect on Globe's operations.

     While the Company is unaware of material  adverse  consequences  related to
either its own or to vendor or supplier Year 2000 non-compliance, it is possible
that  issues  could  arise  which  would  have  a  negative  impact  on  Globe's
operations.

     The  Company   believes  that  the  industry  it  serves  is  significantly
influenced  by  economic  conditions  generally  and by levels of job  creation,
relocations of employees and general  business  activity.  A prolonged  economic
downturn could have a material adverse affect on Globe's operations.


                                     Page 18
Amendment  to Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.11.7 
 TRAILER BRIDGE, INC. 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment to the Trailer Bridge, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (“Plan”) has been adopted by the Board of Directors of Trailer Bridge, Inc. in
order to conform the Plan to the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 The Plan is hereby
amended, effective January 1, 2009, as follows: 
 1. The definition of the term “Fair Market Value” is amended in its entirety
to provide as follows: 
 “Fair Market Value” means, with respect to a Share, for purposes of determining the minimum exercise price
of an Option on the Grant Date or otherwise, (i) if the Shares are readily tradable on an established securities market, the arithmetic mean of the closing prices of a Share on such market on the ten business days immediately prior to the Grant
Date or other measurement date or (ii) if the Shares are not readily tradable on an established securities market, the value determined by the Committee as of the Grant Date or other measurement date through the reasonable application of a
reasonable valuation method and otherwise in accordance with Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(b)(5)(iv)(B).” 
 2. Section 4.3 of the
Plan is amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof. 
 “In no event shall the Committee adjust the terms of the
Option in a manner that could cause the Option to be treated as a grant of a new Option for purposes of Section 409A of the Code and Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(b)(5)(v).” 
 3. New Section 5.3 is added to the Plan to provide as follows: 
 “ 5.3 Option Term. In no event shall the term of an Option as established by the Committee at the time of grant be extended or the Option otherwise be exercisable beyond the expiration date of the Option
set forth in the Award Agreement.” 
 4. Section 7.1 of the Plan is amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end
thereof. 
 “The Committee may amend any Option Agreement to the extent the Committee determines that such amendment is necessary or
appropriate in order to bring the Option Agreement into compliance with Section 409A of the Code.”
Larry D. HARLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2924

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Nayaret SANTOS and Wagner Santos, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1632

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

Scanziani Law, and Paul John Scanziani, for appellants.

Pearson Bitman LLP, and Kristen M. Crescenti (Maitland), for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Marc J. DEUTSCH, Kenneth Deutsch & Robert Riesenberg, as Trustee of the Kenneth Deutsche Irrevocable Trust, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Pamela BLUSTEIN, Individually and as Trustee, & Steven Blustein, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3470

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40794

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS DIAZ-SANTANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-1908-1

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luiz Diaz-Santana appeals from a guilty-plea conviction

for reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2). Diaz-Santana challenges the constitutionality 

§ 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Diaz-Santana contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New
No. 05-40794

-2-

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Diaz-Santana properly

concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review. 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03283]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION OF THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Institute of Museum and Library Services


Special Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services Board

AGENCY: Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), National 
Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities (NFAH).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Museum and Library Services Board, which advises 
the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services in 
awarding national awards and medals, will meet by teleconference on 
March 3, 2022, to review nominations for the 2022 National Medal for 
Museum and Library Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 3, 2022, from 3 p.m. 
Eastern Time until adjourned.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will convene virtually.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Maas, Chief of Staff and 
Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Institute of Museum and Library 
Services, Suite 4000, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Washington, DC 
20024; (202) 653-4798; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c57515d5d4f7c5551504f125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a21272b2b390a23272639642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Museum and Library Services 
Board is meeting pursuant to the National Museum and Library Service 
Act, 20 U.S.C., 9105a, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) as 
amended, 5 U.S.C. App. to review nominations for the 2022 National 
Medal for Museum and Library Service.
    The meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections 
(c)(4), (c)(6) and (c)(9) of section 552b of Title 5, United States 
Code, as amended. The closed meeting will consider information that may 
disclose: Trade secrets and commercial or financial information 
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; and information 
the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly 
frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action.

    Dated: February 10, 2022.
Brianna Ingram,
Paralegal Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2022-03283 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7036-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### SERVED: September 26, 2013 ,., ..,

## .., {'-L1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF

THOMAS BRAY FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0621
NOTICE Ira Leibowitz, Attorney-Advisor is retiring on September 30, 2013. All future communications should be directedto the undersigned at: Richard C. Goodwin, U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, Attn: Room E11-310 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 (Richard.Goodwin(q)4Qt.goy) Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, StaffAssistant (202) 366-5121 (Patricia.Matthews@dot.gov)
••P

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List2

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel, AWP-7 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL:, 310-725-7110 FAX: 310-725-6816 Thomas H. Bray, Respondent 30382 U.S. Highway 60-89, #11 Wickenburg, AZ 85390 TEL: 901-226-0142 E-MAIL: multigrainscpt@msn.com The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0621 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
IN RE: Appeal of the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 17-PDB-099

NO. 2018-OB-0440

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Leave to appeal denied.
Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Form 10-KSB of Accufacts Pre-Employment
Screening Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Report"), Philip Luizzo. , Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) to my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
    13(a) or 15(d) of he 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/ Philip Luizzo
----------------------------
Philip Luizzo
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

March 30, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Accufacts Pre-Employment
Screening, Inc. and will be retained by Accufacts Pre-Employment Screening and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




                                     PAGE 24
<PAGE>
Ralph BRADFORD, Sr., and Benjamin Little v. Vaughn STEWART, Jay Jenkins, Millie Harris, David Reddick, and Seyram Selase

2160277

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00174-CR

COREY WHITTING,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26519

O R D E R O N R E H E A R I N G

On May 30, 2018, this Court issued an opinion dismissing the appeal of Corey 

Whitting because the trial court’s certificate of right to appeal indicates that this is a plea 

bargain case and Whitting does not have the right to appeal. On June 8, 2018, Whitting 

filed a motion for rehearing arguing that the certificate of right to appeal is defective 

because it is contrary to the record. The record indicates that Whitting waived his right 

to appeal in a plea bargain agreement in August of 2014 and was placed on deferred 
Whitting v. State Page 2

adjudication. The State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging numerous violations of 

community supervision. Whitting pleaded true to most of the allegations; however, there 

is nothing in the record to indicate that the plea of true was pursuant to a plea bargain 

agreement. The certificate of right to appeal filed on April 27, 2018 appears to be 

defective. Therefore, Whitting’s motion for rehearing is granted. We withdraw our May 

30, 2018 opinion, and the appeal is reinstated. The trial court is ordered to file a corrected 

certificate of right to appeal within 14 days from the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal reinstated

Order delivered and filed August 1, 2018

Do not publish 

[CR25]
Reginald PRESIDENT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1488

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied July 6, 2018

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

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* *Vennisee v. State*, 235 So.3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; *Rooks v. State*, 224 So.3d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). *See also* *Stern v. State*, 240 So.3d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; *Rogers v. State*, 223 So.3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; *Currie v. State*, 219 So.3d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Exhibit 32(a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

OF PINNACLE
DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2006

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006.

I, Michael
R. Sayre, certify that, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that
information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

This certification is executed as of May 12, 2006.



/s/ Michael R. SayreChief Executive Officer andInterim Chief Financial Officer
Jean RICHEMOND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2694

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Jean Richemond, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.