alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00521

- CR

Michael Manahan, Jr.

v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 130th District Court of Matagorda County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 12

- 163

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by

this Court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 19, 201 4
**Exhibit 32.1**

Statement of Chief Executive Officer 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code asadopted 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, John Aglialoro, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officerof Cybex International, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that: 

The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: May 4, 2007 

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CYBEXINTERNATIONAL, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND WILL BE FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Exhibit 10.2
 ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 Optionee:
    
    
    
    Option Number:Optionee ID:
    
    
    
    Plan: GSIP
 
 
 
  Number of OptionVesting Date
    
    Shares Vesting
    
    
    Expiration Date
  Optionee specifically acknowledges that Exhibit A to this Agreement contains an agreement by
Optionee not to solicit employees of the Company or its Affiliates on behalf of any other employer,
a data privacy consent by Optionee and certain other acknowledgements by Optionee. In addition,
Optionee acknowledges that Exhibit B includes country-specific terms which apply to the Option.
  ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
    
    Date
 EXHIBIT A
TO THE ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
   1. Grant of Option




---



##### 



2. Duration and Exercisability




---



##### 



3. Effect of Termination of Employment
   
 




---



##### 



4. Manner of Exercise
 5. Adjustments
 6. Responsibility for Taxes
  7. Workforce Protection




---



##### 



8. Confidential Information
   9. Data Privacy Consent
  10. Nature of Grant




---



##### 



11. Miscellaneous
214P16

#### State v. Robert Thomas Pole

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court, New Hanover County

2. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for the Appointment of Counsel

1. Denied

2. Dismissed as moot
No. 12-5731.

#### Neville *v.*Taylor et al.

App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6437

ROBERT EARL DILLARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SCOTT LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate Judge. (2:18-cv-03103-JFA)

Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Dillard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Dillard has filed a notice of appeal in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition pending in the district court. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 

U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the district court has not entered a final order or an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 646 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 646

   Designating Thursday, November 18, 2010, as ``Feed America Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2010

Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Crapo, 
    Mr. Casey, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Leahy) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                           September 28, 2010

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Designating Thursday, November 18, 2010, as ``Feed America Day''.

Whereas Thanksgiving Day celebrates the spirit of selfless giving and an 
        appreciation for family and friends;
Whereas the spirit of Thanksgiving Day is a virtue upon which the United States 
        was founded;
Whereas, according to the Department of Agriculture, roughly 35,000,000 people 
        in the United States, including 12,000,000 children, continue to live in 
        households that do not have an adequate supply of food; and
Whereas selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of thanksgiving, both 
        affirming and restoring fundamental principles in our society: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates Thursday, November 18, 2010, as ``Feed 
        America Day''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to sacrifice 
        2 meals on Thursday, November 18, 2010, and to donate the money 
        that would have been spent on that food to the religious or 
        charitable organization of their choice for the purpose of 
        feeding the hungry.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             222
<SECURITIES>                                    17,783
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                       600
<INVENTORY>                                     25,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,345
<PP&E>                                         247,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                 177,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,824
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,792
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,275
<SALES>                                         60,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,041
<CGS>                                           51,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,329
<INCOME-TAX>                                       815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,514
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Lloyd A. Hamilton, Jr., et al., Petitioners, *v.*Henry L. Diamond, as Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Rockland County,

February 29, 1972.

*Doig, Cornell & Mandel*for petitioners. *Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General,*for Henry L. Diamond and others, respondents. *Windheim, Bernard, Prindle & Maidman*for Eberhard M. Thiermann, respondent.

Morton B. Silberman, J.

This is an article 78 proceeding to review a determination made by respondents constituting the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, after a public hearing. Said respondents move for a change of venue upon the grounds that Rockland County is not a proper county (CPLR 510, subd. 1) and that the only county in which this proceeding may properly be brought is Albany County (CPLR 506, subd. [b], par. 2).

*493CPLR 506 (subd. [b], par. 2) provides that a special proceeding against “ the water resources board * * * shall be commenced in the supreme court, Albany county ”. There is, and never was, any agency known,as the “water resources board ”. However, prior to the enactment of chapter 140 of the Laws of 1970, there was an agency known as the “ Water Resources Commission ”. The reference in CPLR 506 to the “water resources board” was erroneous, and was obviously intended to refer to the Water" Resources Commission.

In making the determination sought to be reviewed herein, respondent Department of Environmental Conservation exercised a power formerly residing in the Water Resources Commission. The functions, powers, obligations and duties of the Water Resources Commission were transferred to the Department of Environmental Conservation by virtue of section 75 of the Environmental Conservation Law (L. 1970, ch. 140, § 2). Section 88 of the said Environmental Conservation Law provides that ‘ ‘ whenever the departments, commissions, boards or other agencies or commissioners and directors thereof, the functions, powers, obligations and duties of which are transferred by this chapter to the department [of Environmental Conservation], are referred to or designated in any law * * * such reference * * * shall be deemed to refer to the department of environmental conservation or the commissioner of environmental conservation as may be appropriate ”.

Thus, pursuant to the foregoing statute, the reference in CPLR 506 to the water resources board (Water Resources Commission) must be deemed a reference to the Department of Environmental Conservation. It follows that the only county in which this proceeding may be brought is Albany County.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.
|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                               
|View History:                                                
|                                                             
|Ohio Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Ohio Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 334,874 | 331,122 | 325,887
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 339,060 | 295,556 | 305,883 | 290,483 | 302,023 | 293,985 | 286,487 | 293,976 | 282,834 | 232,632
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 269,287 | 268,034 | 264,405 | 274,020 | 303,366 | 276,004 | 275,358 | 277,767 | 309,181 | 298,171
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 282,004 | 310,019 | 311,998 | 318,825 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### Jones v. State

105,606

08/29/13

Denied.

Unpublished
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                       
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 237,583 | 230,376 | 231,817
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 230,008 | 197,676 | 206,034 | 195,702 | 195,349 | 185,004 | 188,533 | 190,524 | 190,126 | 173,323
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 200,016 | 199,594 | 200,169 | 215,406 | 237,013 | 212,050 | 212,253 | 219,028 | 231,734 | 249,026
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 215,664 | 240,907 | 253,189 | 261,491 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-16208

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00091-WTM-GRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

GERALD BERNARD DATTS, 

a.k.a. Anthony D. Jones,

a.k.a. Terry Brisbane,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 16, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-16208 Date Filed: 10/16/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Gerald Datts appeals his conviction and sentence for being a felon in 

possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Datts had filed a 

pro se notice of appeal, which we dismissed for want of prosecution. He then 

filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, arguing that his right to appeal was denied 

because his retained attorney, Nicholas Pagano, was ineffective in failing to notify 

Datts of the deficiencies in his appeal that caused the appeal to be dismissed. The 

district court granted Datts’s § 2255 motion on the failure-to-appeal claim, but 

denied his other § 2255 claims as premature. Based on the granting of the failureto-appeal claim, and pursuant to United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198, 1201 

(11th Cir. 2000), the district court then vacated Datts’s sentence, re-imposed the 

identical sentence, and directed Datts’s newly appointed counsel to file a notice of 

appeal. In this appeal, Datts, through counsel, argues that his sentence violated his 

Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because Pagano’s trial 

preparation was unreasonably deficient. He asserts that Pagano was ineffective 

because he did not (1) subpoena alibi witnesses; (2) read the jury charges; or (3) 

stipulate to Datts’s prior criminal charges. After thorough review, we affirm.

We generally will not review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on 

direct appeal when the claim has not been heard by the district court, nor a factual 

record developed. United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 

2010). The preferred vehicle for deciding a claim of ineffective assistance is 

Case: 12-16208 Date Filed: 10/16/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, even if the record contains some indications 

that counsel’s performance was deficient. Id. 

Here, the factual record is insufficient to determine whether Pagano was 

ineffective in preparing for trial. See id. It is unclear what efforts Pagano made to 

secure witnesses, and what he knew regarding the jury instructions. Pagano’s 

affidavit to the court only concerned his reasons for not filing an appeal on Datts’s 

behalf, and did not discuss his trial strategy. Because the record was not fully 

developed in the district court, Datts’s claim is more appropriate in a 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 motion. See id. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-16208 Date Filed: 10/16/2013 Page: 3 of 3
#### State v. Lynch

108,385

08/29/13

Denied. .

Unpublished
# C_2018413EN.01001104.xml

| 14.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/11

---

INNOVATION AND NETWORKS EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2017

(2018/C 413/43)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/mission-objectives/key-documents#Account

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM PART I OF THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,603
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,100
<INVENTORY>                                     94,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               186,522
<PP&E>                                       1,820,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                 795,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,265,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          149,114
<BONDS>                                        529,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,515
<OTHER-SE>                                     356,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,265,718
<SALES>                                        176,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,217
<CGS>                                          162,183
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,882)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,809)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,073)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,073)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
199P16

#### State v. Joseph M. Romano

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-940)

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Defs Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 05/24/2016

2. Allowed

3. Allowed

4. Allowed
EXHIBIT 32.1 – CEO
Certification








CMG HOLDINGS,
INC.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of CMG Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alan Morell, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as
added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.         The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.         The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.








By: /s/ Alan
Morell


Alan
Morell


Chief
Executive Officer





September
9, 2008





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 ("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 CMG Holdings, Inc., and will be retained by CMG Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Woods v. State

105,948

08/23/13

Denied.

Unpublished