alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0165

_________________ CITY OF BOZEMAN,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JACOB ANDREW HOWARD,

Defendant and Appellant, O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Rienne H. McElyea , Dis tri ct Judge . For the Court,

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

July 28 2021

07/28/2021
Case Number: DA 20-0165
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D22-1740 

LT Case No. 2020-300668-CFDB 

_____________________________ 

JAMES LONG, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. 

Leah R. Case, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. 

Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee. 

September 12, 2023 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., HARRIS, and KILBANE, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         906,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,181,000
<PP&E>                                      78,958,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,807,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,869,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,910,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,285,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,869,000
<SALES>                                      6,288,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,479,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,320,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,672,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,591,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,591,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,591,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.57)
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-5220.

#### Gonzalez *v.*Hedgpeth, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari 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 Quarterly Report of China Wind Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jianhua Wu, chief
      executive officer of the Company, and Adam Wasserman, chief financial officer
      of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





Date:
                May 15, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Jianhua
                WuJianhua
                WuChief
                Executive OfficerBy:
            /s/ Adam
                WassermanAdam
                WassermanChief
                Financial Officer





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 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.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-49,610-14

IN RE GAYLAND DECLOYCE WILLIAMS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 241-1607-14-A IN THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant

to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, Relator contends that he filed an application for a writ

of habeas corpus in the 114th District Court of Smith County and his application has not been timely

forwarded to this Court.

Respondent, the District Clerk of Smith County, is ordered to file a response, which may be

made by submitting the record on such habeas corpus application, submitting proof of the date of

receipt by the State showing 180 days has not yet elapsed, see TEX. R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(5), or stating

that Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Smith County. This application
2

for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: March 6, 2019

Do not publish
No. 12-5031.

#### Sodipo *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### State v. Martinez

112,587

07/22/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
No. 11-11096.

#### Hairston *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,046-01

EX P ARTE EDWARD MEADOR, A ppl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1643105-A IN THE 177TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of robber y - bodily injury and sentenc ed to two y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant did not file a direc t appea l. A pplicant filed this a

pplication for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. After a revie w of the rec ord, we find that Applicant ’s cl ai m s of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel, due proce ss violations, and no evidence are without merit. There fore , we de ny relief

. Applicant’s rema ining claim all eg ing he was denied pre- sentenc e jail cre dit is dismiss ed pursuant to Ex parte Florenc e , 319 S.W .3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).Filed: Mar ch 16, 2022

Do not publish
#### State v. Kern

112,263

03/28/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00609-CV

Herlinda ARNOLD,

Appellant

v.

WORLDWIDE CLINICAL TRIALS a/k/a WCT CORPORATION,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 381779

Honorable Jason Pulliam, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. It is 

ORDERED that appellant, Herlinda Arnold, recover her costs of this appeal from appellee, 

Worldwide Clinical Trials Early Phase Services, LLC.

SIGNED August 13, 2014.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1200 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Rural Health Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 23, 2020 

Ms. FINKENAUER (for herself, Mr. LATTA, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Mr. COLE, Mrs. 

AXNE, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. KIND, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, Ms. TORRES SMALL of New Mexico, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mr. COX

of California, Mr. BALDERSON, Mr. BOST, Ms. CRAIG, Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. TAYLOR, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Mr. 

YOUNG, Mr. KELLER, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, 

and Mr. HARDER of California) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Rural Health 

Day. 

Whereas about 60,000,000 hard-working individuals in the 

United States live in rural communities; 

Whereas rural individuals in the United States are increasingly facing barriers to accessing the health care services 

they need; 

Whereas rural health facilities in the United States have 

faced systemic challenges, including low reimbursements, 

physician workforce shortages, and difficulty accessing 

certain technologies like telehealth; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1200 IH 

Whereas these challenges have contributed to 132 rural hospital closures since 2010; 

Whereas these challenges have made it more difficult for all 

rural health care facilities to keep their doors open and 

serve patients; 

Whereas National Rural Health Day was established to emphasize the importance of rural areas of the United 

States and recognize the efforts and contributions to address the unique challenges in rural health care; 

Whereas the National Organization of State Offices of Rural 

Health has recognized National Rural Health Day the 

third Thursday of each November since 2010; and 

Whereas National Rural Health Day will be celebrated this 

year on November 19, 2020: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Rural Health Day; 

4 (2) celebrates rural health care providers and 

5 the millions of individuals in the United States they 

6 serve; and 

7 (3) expresses commitment to advancing policy 

8 to improve health care accessibility and affordability 

9 in rural areas of the United States. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,477,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,195,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   190,000
<INVENTORY>                                    494,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,393,000
<PP&E>                                       1,724,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 892,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,940,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,766,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,172,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,940,300
<SALES>                                      4,208,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,208,000
<CGS>                                        2,455,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,455,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,864,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (111,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (111,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (111,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 45011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8390]

Designation of Bulut Yayla, AKA: Samet Ince as a Specially 
Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 
13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Bulut Yayla, 
committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism 
that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, 
foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in Section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: July 8, 2013.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-17902 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
S95A0218.

#### LAMB v. THE STATE.

(455 SE2d 833)

Decided April 10, 1995

Reconsideration denied May 5, 1995.

*Lovett Bennett, Jr.,*for appellant. *384*Richard A. Malone, District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marla-Deen Brooks, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

*383Hunstein, Justice.

Appellant, Theowanda Lamb, was convicted of murder in the shooting death of David Underwood.1 He appeals and we affirm.

1. Evidence adduced at trial showed that appellant and his companions drove from Vidalia, Georgia to a nightclub in Swainsboro, Georgia. As Underwood left the club’s parking lot in his automobile, appellant leaned into the passenger window of the vehicle and fired his handgun at Underwood striking him in the head, chest and extremities. Underwood died from his injuries. Appellant denied shooting directly at the victim, insisting instead that he was aiming above the automobile. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found appellant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), with the result that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. *Palmore v. State,*264 Ga. 108 (441 SE2d 405) (1994).

2. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error are without merit.2

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The homicide occurred on July 31, 1993. Appellant was indicted on September 27, 1993 in Emanuel County. He was found guilty on January 13, 1994 and sentenced to life in prison the same day. His motion for new trial was filed on February 11, 1994 and denied on August 25, 1994. Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals on September 22, 1994 and the case was transferred to this Court on October 12, 1994. The appeal was docketed on October 27, 1994 and submitted for decision on briefs on January 18, 1995.

2

 Appellant also contends that the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody for the handgun and bullets used in the shooting; that the trial court erred in failing to rebuke the district attorney or grant a mistrial for improper comments during closing argument; and that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a summary of an investigator’s interview with appellant.
No. 12-5845.

#### Ford *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: May 4, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT: April 30, 2015, Meeting with ARB Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on April 30, 2015 to 

discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders

Chris Gallenstein

Craig Segall

Larry Hunsacker

Anny Huang

EPA 

Amy Zimpfer

Ben Machol

Anita Lee

Ray Saracino

Attachments

111(d) Docket Memo Attachment 043015 Agenda

111(d) Docket Memo Attachment 043015_EPA vs ARB-CEC 4-23-15

111(d) Docket Memo Attachment 043015_Rule 111 (d) Compare ARB vs EPA (Updated)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000086358
<NAME> SALEM CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          22,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                       257
<INVENTORY>                                     15,394
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,340
<PP&E>                                          25,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,003
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,490
<SALES>                                        151,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,314
<CGS>                                          126,259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,321
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,043
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (126)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.56
        

</TABLE>
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KY LAY LUONG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74503

Agency No. A022-102-119

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted November 1, 2010

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ky Lay Luong petitions for review of his removal order and the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his applications for relief from removal. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review.

The parties are familiar with the facts of the case so we do not repeat them

here. Luong cannot be removed on the basis of his 1986 conviction, the sole basis

FILED

DEC 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

alleged in his amended Notice to Appear. Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, 599 F.3d

1055, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not

apply to convictions . . . that occurred prior to November 18, 1988.”). In addition,

§ 1252(d) does not foreclose his claim. Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d

935, 938 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Retroactivity challenges to immigration

laws implicate legitimate due process considerations that need not be exhausted in

administrative proceedings because the BIA cannot give relief on such claims.”).

Because Luong is not removable as charged, we do not consider Luong’s

claim regarding his applications for relief. We leave to the government whether to

institute new removal proceedings based on Luong’s other convictions. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.
No. 12-5727.

#### Bishop-Oyedepo *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.