alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ALBERT STEPHENS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2861

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 13, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela Dempsey, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, and John Edward Eagen, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order of June 27, 

2016, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to appellant filing a proper 

petition for belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.141(c).

WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FERNANDO MIGUEL NUNEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00262-D-1; 5:11-cv-00193-D)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fernando Miguel Nunez, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fernando Miguel Nunez seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion, and its subsequent order denying reconsideration. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Nunez 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sealy Corporation (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lawrence J. Rogers, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, and Jeffrey C.
Ackerman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



October 7,
2008

/s/LAWRENCE J. ROGERSLawrence J. Rogers President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/JEFFREY C. ACKERMANJeffrey C. Ackerman Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
* 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 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51205

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONALD JAY CLIFTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-02-CR-48-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Jay Clifton pleaded guilty to counts one and two of

an information charging him with conspiracy to commit fraud and

securities fraud. Clifton has appealed, raising issues related

to the district court’s upward departure from the guideline

imprisonment range. In his plea agreement, Clifton waived the

right to raise these issues on appeal and the record reflects

that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v.

Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567–68 (5th Cir. 1992). We caution

counsel that the assertion of issues on appeal that are plainly
No. 02-51205

-2-

barred by a plea agreement and the failure to explain in briefing

why the defendant’s issues are not waived invites the imposition

of a sanction. See United States v. Martinez, 263 F.3d 436, 438

(5th Cir. 2001). The appeal is

DISMISSED.
#### Bonnie Lanigan, Appellant, v United School Bus, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 883]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lisa, J.), dated March 10, 2000, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion made at the close of her case to dismiss the complaint for failure to prove a prima facie case, dismisses the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The evidence adduced by the plaintiff at trial was sufficient to prove a prima facie case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on her alleged failure to do so. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The North Gifford Pinchot National Forest Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, April 14, 2009, at the Salkum Timberland Library, 2480 U.S. Highway 12, Salkum, Washington. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to: Elect a chairperson and vice-chair, propose an indirect project percentage, receive an overview of Title II accomplishments, and make recommendations on approximately 15 proposals for Title II funding of projects under the Secure                               ( print page 11347)                            Rural Schools and County Self-Determination Act of 2000.                     

All North Gifford Pinchot National Forest Resource Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The “open forum” provides opportunity for the public to bring issues, concerns, and discussion topics to the Advisory Committee. The “open forum” is scheduled to occur at 9:10 a.m. Interested speakers will need to register prior to the open forum period. The committee welcomes the public's written comments on committee business at any time. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting to Roger Peterson, Public Affairs Specialist, at (360) 891-5007, or write Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 10600 NE. 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682. 

Dated: March 6, 2009. 

Janine Clayton, 

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. E9-5588 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 6 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

vs.

JOE EARL RODGERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-5152

(D.C. No. 96-CV-1068)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

Defendant-Appellant Joe Earl Rodgers, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals

from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and seeks a certificate of

appealability (COA). We deny Mr. Rodgers’ application for COA and dismiss

this appeal.
- 2 -

Mr. Rodgers was convicted after a jury trial of conspiring to distribute five

kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

841(b)(1)(A)(ii), and use or carrying of firearms during drug trafficking, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We affirmed his conviction and sentence in

United States v. Rodgers, No. 92-5029, 1993 WL 181445 (10th Cir. May 26,

1993) (unpublished). 

In his § 2255 motion, Mr. Rodgers argued that (1) trial counsel provided

ineffective assistance by (a) failing to object to jury instructions which did not

require the jury to find “interdependency” as an essential element of the

conspiracy charge and (b) failing to object to the use of drug addicts’ statements

at sentencing; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he

used or carried a firearm within the meaning of Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S.

137 (1995). In addition to these arguments, he asserts in this appeal that 18

U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) was violated by the government’s practice of offering leniency

or immunity to “drug addict” witnesses in exchange for their testimony. This

assertion is answered by our decision in United States v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297

(10th Cir. 1999) (en banc). As to Mr. Rodgers’ other arguments, we have

thoroughly reviewed the record, and affirm for substantially the reasons stated by

the district court in its order dated July 13, 1998. Because Mr. Rodgers has failed

to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C.
- 3 -

§ 2253(c)(2), we deny his application for COA and dismiss his appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Asia Global Holdings Corp., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the "Form
10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Asia Global Holdings Corp. and will be retained by Asia Global Holdings Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





Date:
      December 3, 2009/s/
      Mr. Ping-Shun LaiMr.
      Ping-Shun Lai, Chief Executive Officer and
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
Memorandum 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation : .. · .. : .. : 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Subject: 

From: 

To: 

Notice of Communication in Docket: 

DOT -OST -OST -2000-7182 

Special Rules for Ronald Reaga 

Airport (within-perimeter exe 

Secretary Ray LaHood 

Chief, Dockets 

shington National 

s) 

In accordance with D partment rules (14 CFR Part 

communication. 

), I am reporting the following 

On December 21, 2012, during a telephone conversation with Mayor Mick Cornett 

of Oklahoma City, the Mayor raised the subject ofthe Department's proceeding to 

allocate two slot exemptions for operations between Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport (DCA) and.airports within the 1,250-mile DCA perimeter. The 

Mayor expressed his support for US Airways application to provide service 

between DCA and Oklahoma City. 

I informed the Mayor that, while I appreciated his interest in this case, I could not 

comment on its merits because the proceeding was under active consideration by 

the Department. 

Please place this memorandum in the appropriate Docket. 

cc: Mayor Mick Cornett
David HITE, DOC #S17948, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3009

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEIDRE D. THOMAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1957

[August 31, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312011CF000524.

Deidre D. Thomas, Florida City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
CHARLESTON.

#### Craft *v.*Mann.

Submitted January 25, 1899

Decided April 22, 1899.

1. Weit of *Error*— Evidence—Record—Dismissal.

A writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court for alleged errors involving- the evidence alone, and which is not certified or in any manner made part of the record, will he dismissed, as improvidently awarded, (p. 479).

2. Biils of *Exception*— Order *Book*— Record.

Where a judgment is rendered in a case, and the court allows twenty days, under the statute, to make up and obtain from the judge-in vacation bills of exception, such bills of exception, when signed by the judge, must be certified to the clerk of the court, who must enter them upon the order book of such court before they become a part of the record of the case. *GriJJith v. Corrothers,*42 W. Va. 59. .(p. 479).

Error to Circuit Court, Greenbrier County.

Action by G. W. Craft against Matthew Mann. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

*Dismissed.*

John A. Preston, for plaintiff in error.

J. W. ArbuCKLe and John Osborne, for defendant in error.

*479Dent, President:

On tbe 2d day of August, 1897, Matthew Mann obtained a writ of error from one of the judges of this Court to a judgment of the circuit court of Greenbrier County in an action at law wherein G. W. Craft was plaintiff and said Matthew Mann was defendant. The petition shows only two grounds of error relied upon, to wit: (1) The verdict was contrary to the law and evidence. (2) The verdict was excessive. Both these were wholly dependent on the evidence. An examination of the record .shows that the evidence was never properly certified or made a part of the record. There is a bill of exceptions copied into the record, but there is no order of the court or clerk filing the same, or making it a part of the record. The final order of the court gave the defendant twenty days in which to prepare a bill of exceptions, but this he apparently failed to do. There is, therefore, nothing in the record to enable this Court to review the grounds of error assigned. *Griffifth*v. Corrothers, 42 W. Va. 59, (24 S. E. 569). Hence the writ of error must be dismissed, as improvidentlv awarded.

*Dismissed.*
# Brazillian sugarcane production from the Food and Agriculture Organization

http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E Domain Code Domain AreaCode AreaName ElementCode ElementName ItemCode ItemName Year Value QC Crops 21 Brazil 5510 Production 156Sugar cane 2009 691,606,147 QC Crops 21 Brazil 5510 Production 156Sugar cane 2010 717,463,793 QC Crops 21 Brazil 5510 Production 156Sugar cane 2011 734,006,059 QC Crops 21 Brazil 5510 Production 156Sugar cane 2012 721,077,287 QC Crops 21 Brazil 5510 Production 156Sugar cane 2013 768,090,444 FAOSTAT Date: Tue Sep

680,000,000 690,000,000 700,000,000 710,000,000 720,000,000 730,000,000 740,000,000 750,000,000 760,000,000 770,000,000 780,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014



### Average annualincrease = 2.2%

## Brazillian petroleum consumption from EIA

Table: Total Petroleum Consumption (Thousand Barrels Per Day)



## 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Brazil 2459.303 2698.951 2776.564 2922.934 3003

2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

### Average annualincrease = 4.9%
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I,
James A. Krantz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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 the information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd.
 
 
 Date:
      October 29, 2008
              /s/  James
      A. KrantzBy:
      James A. KrantzExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
Johnnie B. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5532

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code)
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Asia
Global Holdings Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:
 
 The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Asia Global Holdings
Corp. and will be retained by Asia Global Holdings Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
 
 Date: December 3,
      2009/s/
      Mr. Ping-Shun LaiMr. Ping-Shun Lai, Chief Executive
      Officer and
                              Chief Financial
      Officer
Chang
G. Park, CPA, Ph. D.
 t 2667 CAMINO DEL RIO S.
PLAZA B t SAN DIEGO
t CALIFORNIA
92108-3707t
 t TELEPHONE (858)722-5953
t FAX (858)
761-0341  t FAX (858)
433-2979
 t E-MAIL changgpark@gmail.com t


July 13,
2009





To
Whom It May Concern:





The firm
of Chang G. Park, CPA consents to the inclusion of our report of July 10, 2009
on the audited financial statements of Solar Energy Towers, Inc. as of March 31,
2009, in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.





Very
truly yours,





/s/Chang G. ParkChang
      G. Park, CPA





Member
of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants


Registered
with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-2545

_____________________________

THOMAS V. CUNILIO,

Appellant,

v.

MARIA C. CUNILIO,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

George Wright, Judge.

September 20, 2022

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, C.J., and LEWIS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Thomas V. Cunilio, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.
**WITNESSETH**In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties,their personal representative and successors, agree as follows:**WHEREAS:**The parties entered into contract number 08-065 (the Contract) to provide health insurancecoverage for the North and Southwest Area medically indigent population; enrolled in the GovernmentHealth Insurance Plan (GHIP) for the period through November 1, 2006 until June 30, 2008.**WHEREAS**: The Contract was extended through the Amendment Number 08-065-E from July 1, 2008 untilJune 30, 2009.**WHEREAS**: The **ADMINISTRATION**is in the process of preparing, drafting and issuing a Request forProposal, to award contracts for the physical, dental and mental health coverage for the GHIP. Inconsideration of the period of time needed to prepare the RFP, the parties agree to extend theContract until October 31, 2009.**HENCEFORTH:**The appearing Parties agree to extend the Contract #08-065 and amend the Article VIII,Article XXIX and Appendix C, as follows:**Article I:**Add the following Language at the end of Article VIII, Section 22:For the period of the contract extension, effective from July 1, 2009 to October 31, 2009, Insurerassures that it will provide and adequate stop-loss insurance set at five thousand dollars($5,000.00).**Article II:**To amend provision 1 in **Article XXIX “Effective Date and Term”**to read as follows: 1. This contract shall be in effect from July 1, 2008 until October 31, 2009.  2. ......  3. .......**Article III:**To amend Appendix C; to incorporate premium rates for this contract period.
 

 
All other terms and conditions of the contract number 08-065; and its amendments 08-065A through08-065E remain unchanged. In witness whereof, the parties have duly executed this Amendment onthis ___day of                     , 2009 and affixes below their respective signature.