alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David DOUGLAS, Appellant.

No. ED 106226

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: May 7, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Fredrick J. Ludwig, 9666 Olive Blvd., Ste 202, St. Louis, Missouri 63132.

For Respondent: JOSHUA D. HAWLEY, Robert J. (JEFF) Bartholomew, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

David Douglas ("Appellant") appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of one count of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree, in violation of Section 565.083, and one count of resisting a lawful stop, in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2013. Appellant, a persistent offender, was sentenced to one year for the assault and seven years for resisting arrest to run concurrently for a total of seven years.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
**EXHIBIT 31-1**

Certification pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Dominique Einhorn, President & CEO of Karma Media, Inc., certify that:

1.

This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant;

2.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Karma Media, Inc.;

3.

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 quarterly report;

4.

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;

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer 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 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report ("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;

6.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the 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

7.

The registrant's other certifying officer 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 our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:

May16, 2005

By:

/s/ Dominique Einhorn

Dominique Einhorn, President & CEO
Exhibit 32.1

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RoomStore, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Curtis C. Kimbrell and Lewis M. Brubaker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectfully, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

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 28, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Curtis C. Kimbrell    
|                   |  |     |  | Curtis C. Kimbrell        
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer   
|                   |  |    
|                   |  | By: |  | /s/ Lewis M. Brubaker, Jr.
|                   |  |     |  | Lewis M. Brubaker, Jr.    
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
ACCEPTED 06-14-00079-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 1/28/2015 4:34:55 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

VOESTALPINE STAHL GM BH, Appellant

v.

ARCELORMITTAL, Appellee

______________________

2016

- 1407

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . 95/001,214, 95/001,350, 95/001,353.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M AXWELL J AMES P ETERSEN , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant.

D AVID J AMES C USHING , Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Was hington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by

R ICHARD C LAY T URNER ; M ARK J AMES D E B OY , Edell Shapiro and F innan, Gaithersburg, MD.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, L OURIE

, and C LEVENGER

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 11, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                 79743
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          25364
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                           189885
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      309721
<PP&E>                                                352887
<DEPRECIATION>                                        325051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        344757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 174536
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                             4472042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                           400000
<OTHER-SE>                                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          344757
<SALES>                                               118215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      118215
<CGS>                                                  92218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          92218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      1101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (36163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (36163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (36163)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.01)


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1352 TP 11-00304 PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL ARGENTIERI, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

SUSAN CONNELL, SUPERINTENDENT, ONEIDA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.

MICHAEL ARGENTIERI, PETITIONER PRO SE.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Anthony F. Shaheen, J.], entered May 20, 2010) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier II hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.
It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot ( see Matter of Free v Coombe , 234 AD2d 996).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Jaron SIMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106269

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: March 5, 2019

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Susan A. DeGeorge, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Mary H. Moore, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

Jaron Sims ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. Finding no clear error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
# Supreme Court of Texas

**═══════════════════════** 

### Misc. Docket No. 21-9109 **═══════════════════════** __________________________________________________



### Denial of Request to Retransfer Case from the Sixth Court of Appeals
___________________________________________________ The Supreme Court denies the request to retransfer the following case from the Sixth Court of A ppeals District, Texarkana, Texas: Case No. 06-20-00102-CV

In the Interest of S.B., a Child ORDERED in Chambers, With the Seal thereof affixed at the City of Austin, this 9 th day of September, 2021.

_______________________________________ BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
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 NuVim,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  quarterly  period  ended  September  30,  2008 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"),
I, Richard P. Kundrat, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

  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: November 13, 2008

/s/Richard P. Kundrat

Richard P. Kundrat, Chief Executive Officer

                                       36
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9036-8]

*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or                     *http://www2.epa.gov/​nepa/​*.                

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Filed 12/18/2017 Through 12/22/2017

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice

                    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-nepa-public/​action/​eis/​search*.                

EIS No. 20170244, Draft, USFS, OR, Trout Creek, Comment Period Ends: 02/12/2018, Contact: Joan Schmidgall (541) 367-3809.

EIS No. 20170245, Draft, USFS, WI, Townsend Project, Comment Period Ends: 02/12/2018, Contact: Marilee Houtler (715) 276-6333.

EIS No. 20170246, Draft, BR, CA, Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration & Fish Passage, Comment Period Ends: 02/15/2018, Contact: Ben Nelson (916) 414-2424.

EIS No. 20170247, Final, FHWA, NC, Complete 540—Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension, Review Period Ends: 02/01/2018, Contact: Jennifer Harris (919) 707-2704.

EIS No. 20170248, Draft, DC, AK, Mertarvik Infrastructure Development Nelson Island, Alaska Comment Period Ends: 02/13/2018, Contact: Don Antrobus, (907) 271-3500.

      ( print page 61758)    
Dated: December 22, 2017.

Kelly Knight,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2017-28116 Filed 12-28-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
_EJ_ 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

261) IV-C-7 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:04 AM Sheet 261 of 276 
P.2 

J**"** , 

USB/ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

FIL E OOE> Y 

SEP 30 1991 

Honorable Dennis E. Eckart 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Eckart: 

"6'luSi-*" WA 

This is in response to your letter of September 4, 1991, 

regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 

interpretation of the definition of "repowering." 

Section 402(12) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 defines 

repowering as the "replacement of an existing coal-fired boiler" 

with one of several specified clean coal technologies. The 

definition also includes, as qualifying technologies, other 

technologies which are derivatives of "one or more of the 

[specified] technologies, and any other technology capable of 

controlling multiple combustion emissions simultaneously with 

improved boiler or generation efficiency and with significantly 

greater waste reduction relative to the performance of technology 

in widespread commercial use." As you have correctly pointed 

out, this definition, as written, could be interpreted as 

limiting technologies which would be considered repowering 

projects to those that only involve the replacement of the 

boiler. 

As you may know, as part of the rulemaking process, EPA is 

currently taking comments on its proposal to amend regulations 

implementing new source requirements governing modifications at 

electric utility generating units. The proposed rule 

incorporates the statutory definition of repowering without 

change. Your comment is being given careful consideration, and 

EPA will be addressing this issue in the final rulemaking. 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust 

that this information will be helpful to you. 

Sincerely, 

<• _/ *-^*-" - i 

;- William G. Rosenberg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: July 1, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1116 

Pacific International Skydiving Center 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014WP130012 

Respondent 

ORDER FINALIZING LITIGATION SCHEDULE 

On May 17, 2016, the undersigned-judge held a prehearing conference in the above captioned 

case. During the course of the conference, the parties developed a joint litigation schedule with a 

timeline dependent upon the hearing date. 

On May 19, 2016, the undersigned judge issued a Prehearing Conference Report, ordering 

the parties to adhere to the joint litigation schedule. 

On July 1, 2016, the undersigned judge issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the hearing in this 

case to begin on December 13, 2016. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(6) and 13.217(d), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Prehearing motions 

A. All motions shall be filed and served on or before September 29, 2016. 

B. Responses to prehearing motions shall be filed within 30 days of the date of service 

of the motion. 

C If argument is requested by a party, a telephonic conference for argument on 

prehearing motions will be held on November 10, 2016. 

2. Complete witness and evidence lists shall be exchanged by the parties and submitted to 

the undersigned judge no later than November 14, 2016. 

3. Any subpoena requests must be ·submitted to the undersigned judge no later than 

November 14, 2016. 

4. Each party shall provide the undersigned judge a CD containing digital copies of 

premarked versions of all proposed exhibits no later than November 14, 2016. 

5. The parties may, during the course of the hearing, request the opportlll).ity to submit 
posthearing briefs pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13 .231 ( c ). 

~-. -- DOUGLAS M. RA WALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2w10001 

ONE COPY 

Robert L. Feldman, Respondent's Counsel 

8900 SW 107th Avenue, Suite 203 

Miami, FL 33 ~ 76 

TEL: 305-598-4841 

FAX: 305-598-4842 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

W estem-Pacific Region 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation AdministratJon, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. ·
----

----

I Informace

Komise

----

SPOLEČNÝ KATALOG ODRŮD DRUHŮ ZEMĚDĚLSKÝCH ROSTLIN

3. dodatek k 23. úplnému vydání

(2004/C 111 A/01)

OBSAH

Legenda

Seznam druhů zemědělských rostlin

LEGENDA

I

1.BETA VULGARIS L.

2.BETA VULGARIS L.

II

9.BROMUS CATHARTICUS VAHL

12.DACTYLIS GLOMERATA L.

13.FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA SCHREBER

14.FESTUCA OVINA L.

15.FESTUCA PRATENSIS HUDSON

16.FESTUCA RUBRA L.

17.LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.

18.LOLIUM PERENNE L.

21.PHLEUM BERTOLONII DC.

22.PHLEUM PRATENSE L.

26.POA PRATENSIS L.

32.LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS L.

33.LUPINUS LUTEUS L.

35.MEDICAGO SATIVA L.

38.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

42.TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE L.

43.TRIFOLIUM REPENS L.

46.VICIA FABA L. (PARTIM)

48.VICIA SATIVA L.

51.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. ACEPHALA (DC.) ALEF. VAR. MEDULLOSA THELL. + VAR. VIRIDIS L.

53.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L. VAR. OLEIFORMIS PERS.

III

57.BRASSICA NAPUS L. (PARTIM)

63.HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.

64.LINUM USITATISSIMUM L.

67.GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL

IV

68.AVENA SATIVA L.

69.HORDEUM VULGARE L.

70.ORYZA SATIVA L.

72.SECALE CEREALE L.

73.SORGHUM BICOLOR (L.) MOENCH

76.× TRITICOSECALE WITTM.

77.TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. EMEND. FIORI ET PAOL.

78.TRITICUM DURUM DESF.

79.TRITICUM SPELTA L.

80.ZEA MAYS L.

V

81.SOLANUM TUBEROSUM L.

----

(1)Úř. věst. C 46 A, 22.2.2005, s. 1. Katalog naposledy pozměněný 2. dodatkem (Úř. věst. C 104 A, 29.4.2005, s. 1).

(2)Úř. věst. L 193, 20.7.2002, s. 1. Směrnice naposledy pozměněná nařízením Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1829/2003 (Úř. věst. L 268, 18.10.2003, s. 1).

----