alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the INTEREST OF: J.C., Plaintiff,

Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. J.C. (Father), Appellant.

WD 82469

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: July 23, 2019

Mitchell J. Widener, for Respondent

Laurie V. Snell, Kansas City, for Appellant

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

The Circuit Court of Jackson County terminated the parental rights of J.C. ("Father") to J.C. ("Child") based on abandonment, failure to rectify the conditions that caused the family court to assume jurisdiction over Child, and Father's unfitness to be a party to the parent-child relationship. The trial court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of Child. Father appeals from that judgment. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit
31.2




CERTIFICATION




I, Barry
Hall, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2009, of SeaOspa Inc.;




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a)          Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision,to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;




(b)          Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c)          Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a)          All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b)          Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




Dated:  April
16, 2010




/s/ Barry HallBarry
      HallChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
  Officer)
**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**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of United eSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Walter Reid Green, Jr.,
      as Chief Financial 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, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                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.





/s/
      Walter Reid Green, Jr.


Walter
      Reid Green, Jr.


Chief
      Financial Officer


Date:  August
      14, 2007








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

in Case C-469/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna Filomeno Mario Miraglia (1)

(Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Principle ne bis in idem - Scope - Decision of a Member State's judicial authorities to discontinue prosecution by reason solely of the initiation of similar proceedings in another Member State)

(2005/C 132/19)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-469/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 35 EU from the Tribunale di Bologna (Italy), made by decision of 22 September 2003, received at the Court on 10 November 2003, in the in the criminal proceedings brought against Filomeno Mario Miraglia — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The principle ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 at Schengen, does not fall to be applied to a decision of the judicial authorities of one Member State declaring a case to be closed, after the Public Prosecutor has decided not to pursue the prosecution on the sole ground that criminal proceedings have been started in another Member State against the same defendant and for the same acts, without any determination whatsoever as to the merits of the case.

----

(1)OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.

----
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 356 

Expressing support for the designation of May 4, 2023, as a ‘‘National 

Day of Reason’’ and recognizing the central importance of reason in 

the betterment of humanity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2023 

Mr. RASKIN (for himself, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. 

POCAN, Ms. NORTON, Ms. JAYAPAL, and Ms. BROWNLEY) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 

and Accountability 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 4, 2023, 

as a ‘‘National Day of Reason’’ and recognizing the 

central importance of reason in the betterment of humanity. 

Whereas the application of reason has been the essential precondition for humanity’s extraordinary scientific, medical, 

technological, and social progress since before the founding of our country; 

Whereas reason provides vital hope today for confronting the 

environmental crises of our day, including the 

civilizational emergency of climate change, and for cultivating the rule of law, democratic institutions, justice, 

and peace among nations; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 356 IH 

Whereas the United States founders insisted upon the primacy of reason and knowledge in public life, and drafted 

the Constitution to prevent official establishment of religion and to protect freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in civil society; 

Whereas James Madison, author of the First Amendment 

and fourth President of the United States, stated ‘‘the 

advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only 

guardian of true liberty’’, and ‘‘knowledge will forever 

govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own 

governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives’’; and 

Whereas May 4, 2023, would be an appropriate date to designate as a ‘‘National Day of Reason’’: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of a ‘‘National 

3 Day of Reason’’; and 

4 (2) encourages all citizens, residents, and visi5 tors to join in observing this day and focusing on the 

6 central importance of reason, critical thought, the 

7 scientific method, and free inquiry to resolving social 

8 problems and promoting the welfare of humankind. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Robert Klein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Avalon Energy Corporation Ltd. a Nevada Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 of Avalon Energy Corporation;



2.      Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a - 14 and 15d - 14) for the registrant and we have:



a.      designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b.      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within September 30, 2006 prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c.      presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.      All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:November 14, 2006





/s/ Robert Klein

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

Robert Klein

President and Chief Executive Officer
Dexter Lee BOGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-892

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

December 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________

________
No. 02

- 24

- 00145

- CR

__________

_________________

On Appeal from the 43rd District Court Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CR22

- 0831

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### L AR RY 

### R AY 

### C APKO 

### , Appellant

V



### .

T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMOR ANDUM OPINION
Appellant L a rry Ray Capk o attemp ts to app eal hi s conviction , but he waived

h is right of appeal when he entered into a p lea bargain with the S tate

.

“ In a plea barg ain case [
, ]

. . . a defendan t may appeal onl y

. . . (A) those mat ters

that were r aised by wri tten motion filed and ruled on before tr ia l, (B) a fter getting the

trial court ’ s permission to appeal, or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly

autho rized by statute

. ” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2 ( a )(2) ; see Tex. Code Crim. Pro c

. Ann. art.

44.02

. The trial cour t must file a certification of the d ef endant ’ s right of appeal
,

clari fying whe ther the case involved a plea bargain and whether the def endant waived
his right of appe al

. S ee T e x. R. App. P. 25.2(a)( 2 ), (d)

.

C apko ’ s judgment of con

viction reflects the t erms of his p le a b ar gain, a nd t he

trial court ’ s certification confirms that “ the defendan t has waived the right of appeal ”

and that this “ is a plea

- bargain case , and the defendant h as NO right of appeal. ” See

id. Th e certifi cation here w as sig ned not only by the trial court but also by Capko and
by his trial counsel. See T ex. R . Ap p. P. 25. 2(d ).

B ecause crimi nal appeal s “ must be dismissed if a certification that shows the

defendant has the right of ap peal ha s not be en ma de part of the r ecord
, ” see id.
, w e

infor med Capko that we c ould dismiss his appeal unle ss , within 10 days
, he showed
grounds for continuing it

. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. More than 20 days have passed

bu t we have not receive d a resp onse

. According

ly, w e dis miss Capko ’ s appeal

. See Tex. R. A p p. P. 25.2( d)
, 4 3.2(f)

.3 /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

B onnie Sudderth C hief J us tice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 4 7.2(b)

Delivered : May 30, 2024
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

October 31, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 07-12124

_____________

D.C. Docket No. 05-00247 CR-T-23-MAP

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

SCOTT SCHWEICKERT, 

a.k.a. MstrScott, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

____________

(October 31, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
In a three-count indictment, a federal grand jury charged Scott Schweickert

with conspiracy to possess a controlled substance, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, 

(GHB), with intent to distribute it to others without their knowledge and with

intent to commit a crime of violence, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and

841(b)(7)(A) and (B) (Count One), and did knowingly and intentionally distribute

for human consumption GHB to Victims #1 and #2, without their knowledge and

with the intent to commit a crime of violence, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1) and 841(b)(7)(A), (B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts Two and Three). A

jury found Schweickert guilty of conspiracy with Steven Lorenzo (Count One) and

distribution of GHB to Victim #2 (Count Three). Schweickert was acquitted on

Count Two pertaining to Victim #1. The district court sentenced him to serve

consecutive terms of twenty years’ imprisonment on each count of conviction, or

forty years. 

Schweickert now raises five evidentiary issues on appeal. He also raises a

sixth issue that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. 

After oral argument and careful consideration, we find that the district court

did not abuse its discretion or plainly err in its evidentiary rulings. The

evidentiary arguments raised on appeal are wholly without merit and rejected

2
without need for further discussion. 

1

In addition, we conclude that there was ample and sufficient evidence of

Scweickert’s conspiracy with Lorenzo and his participation in the drug

distribution of GHB to support the jury’s verdict of conviction of Scweickert on

Counts One and Three.

AFFIRMED.

 They are, that the court erred (1) in denying Schweickert’s motion to suppress certain 1

statements; (2) in admitting internet chats made by co-conspirator Lorenzo; (3) in admitting

photos of Lorenzo and Schweickert; (4) in admitting internet chats made between Lorenzo and

Schweickert; and (5) in not granting a new trial based on cumulative evidentiary errors.

3
MISSION FLIGHT CARD

Mission title: Agricultural Field Survey Flight

Mission #: Date: Time: Endurance:

Max Altitude : Mag Declination: Flight Plan:

Weather :

Location: Location information description such as site name of GPS Location

ATC & NOTAM

Preparation Phase

Personnel Assignment Description

Pilot General purpose of the mission and what is the expected outcome.

Observer

GCS

Operator

Flight Phase

Description Conting

This box is used to write in a description of the flight plan. This will detail out important high

level segments of the mission such as

This box is used to des

actions necessary for o

the flight. This could b

system or payload syst

mission operations.

Experimental outcomes (hand written after test is complete)
MISSION FLIGHT CARD

Expected Flight Path & Annotations
MISSION FLIGHT CARD

Actual Flight Path & Annotations
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05954**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 05954\05954_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 05954\05954_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 05954\05954_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 05954\05954_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 05954\Certification Statement Plant ID_05954.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
| I. | Upon      the expiration of the originalagreement: |
|----|----------------------------------------------------|

|   | 1. | Party      A need not conduct ship certificate change  procedures; |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Party      A does not refund the ship security deposit in the amount of twenty three      million yuan. (¥ 23,000,000.00); |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Party      B does not purchase the ship “Hengshengjun88”; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | Party      B need not make the ship transfer payment in the amount of seventy million      yuan even (¥ 70,000,000,00); |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | Party      A and Party B do not conduct ship transfer  procedures. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

| II. | After      the original agreement expires, Party B renews the lease until January      9th,      2016. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| III. | When      term expires in 2016, Party B has the priority to renew the lease under      the same conditions.  If Party B decides not to renew the lease,      within 7 business days after the expiration of the  term: |
|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 1. | Party      A and Party B conduct ship transferprocedures; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Party      A refunds the ship security deposit in the amount of twenty three million      yuan even (¥ 23,000,000.00); |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| IV. | Other      items in the original agreement do notchange. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------|

| V. | This      supplementary agreement has the same legal validity as the original      agreement. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
HPMSVTypeIDyearID HPMSBaseYearVMT baseYearOffNetVMT

10 2010 9765076.445 0

20 2010 1451090360 0

30 2010 285140232.2 0

40 2010 9765076.445 0

50 2010 60543473.96 0

60 2010 136711070.2 0