alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gerald ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3118

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 14, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

|                                      |                                             |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
| April      15, 2009                       |                                             |   |
|                                      |                                             |   |   |
| ADVANCED      MEDICAL ISOTOPE CORPORATION |                                             |   |   |   |
|                                      |                                             |   |   |   |   |
| By:                                       | /s/ James      C. Katzaroff                 |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | Name:      James C. Katzaroff                    |   |   |   |   |
|                                      | Title:      Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |   |   |   |   |

|   |                                |   |   |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| By:    | /s/ L.      Bruce Jolliff      |   |   |   |   |
|   | Name:      L. Bruce Jolliff         |   |   |   |   |
|   | Title:      Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |

----
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| July 30, 2018 |                    |
|---------------|-------------------------|
|          |                    |   |
|          | /s/ Lai Yat Man         |   |
| Name:         | Lai Yat Man             |   |
| Title:        | Chief Executive Officer |   |
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,
certifies that to the best of her knowledge (1) this Annual Report of CNL Macquarie Global Growth Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.



|                     |  |  |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                     |  |  |  | /s/ Steven D. Shackelford    
|Date: March 18, 2010 |  |  |  | STEVEN D. SHACKELFORD        
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                     |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)



80
Exhibit 31.1

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 March 31, 2007 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:May 15, 2007





/s/ Robert Klein

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

Robert Klein

President and Chief Executive Officer
D.D., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 8, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Karen MCPHERSON

CR-15-1394

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 7, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Steven MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-5830

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1604

In re: FRANCISCO SALINAS

- CASTILLO ,

Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 3:10

- cr
- 00188

- REP )

Submitted : October 24, 2017 Decided: November 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Francisco Salinas

- Castillo , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Francisco Salinas

- Castillo petitions for a writ of mandamus , alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion to compel. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We have determined that the distric t court denied
Salinas

- Castillo’s motion on April 12, 2017

. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus as moot . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are a dequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
|   | (1) | such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Terra Tech Corp. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 21, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Michael James                                                                     |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Michael James                                                                         |   |
|               |   | Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) |   |
Lorninous A. ISOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4993

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: December 10, 2015 105984

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KEVAN G. THERRIEN, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 21, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Albany (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant. Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Abigail R. Hind of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered April 18, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree. Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging him with burglary in the second degree. The plea agreement provided that he would be sentenced to no more than eight years in prison with five years of postrelease supervision and required an appeal waiver. He pleaded guilty to that charge and was sentenced, as an admitted second felony offender, to a prison term of six years with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.-2- 105984

Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. During the plea colloquy, defendant confirmed that he was satisfied with his attorney, acknowledged that his waiver of appeal was separate and distinct from the panoply of rights he automatically forfeited by his plea of guilty, acknowledged that he was prepared to sign a written waiver of appeal and signed the written waiver of appeal in open court before his attorney. Defendant was 59 years old at the time of his plea and had a 40-year history with the criminal justice system, including seven felony and multiple misdemeanor convictions. On this record, we find that defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was knowing and intelligent and precludes his challenge to his sentence (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]). In any event, as County Court took into consideration defendant's serious health problems, among other factors, and exhibited a measure of leniency in imposing a sentence below that permitted by the agreement, and given defendant's extensive criminal history and the seriousness of his conduct in this home invasion, we would find, if this issue were properly before us, no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Ganoe, 122 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1163 [2015]). Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
**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**

 

I, Ronald S. Kaplan, Chief Executive Officer of Action ProductsInternational, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 

 

•    the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the nine month period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SAMARIA GIGGER,

Appellant,

v.

SON-COR VILLA APARTMENTS,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2242

[May 30, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Kim T. Mollica, Judge; L.T. Case No. CONO23005569. 

Samaria Gigger, Oakland Park, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Steven W. GANOTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 2, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
First Amendment to 2005 Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.11 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 TARGA RESOURCES INVESTMENTS INC. 
 2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Targa Resources Investments Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted the Targa Resources Investments Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) or the committee appointed by the
Board to administer the Plan may amend the Plan; 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend Section 4(a) of the Plan to allow an
additional 1,115,500 shares of Restricted Stock to be awarded under the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows
effective as of May 1, 2007: 
 1. The reference to “6,178,382” in Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be deleted, and a
reference to “7,293,882” shall be substituted therefor. 
 2. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
attributable to them in the Plan. 
 3. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this First Amendment to Targa Resources Investments Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan to be
effective as of May 1, 2007. 
  

			
	TARGA RESOURCES INVESTMENTS INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Rene R. Joyce
	Name: 	 	Rene R. Joyce
	Title: 	 	Chief Executive Officer
(--.r,.-nr,77[,,_„..,.'diiLINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANADA20-0465SIEBENRANCHCOMPANY,PlaintiffandAppellee,v.RANDALLG.ADAMS,a/Wa/RANDYADAMS,a/k/a/RAYADAMS;andLEEMcDONALD,DefendantsandAppellants.,.An122211BOVVt,,r1GreenwoodClerkofSupremaCourtStateofMontanaORDERAppellantsRandallG.AdamsandLeeMcDonaldhavefiledajointmotionforextensiontofileapetitionforrehearingoftheCourt'sAmendedOpinionfiledAugust3,2021.AppelleeSiebenRanchCompanyopposesthemotion.ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatAppellantsaregrantedanextensionoftimetoandincludingAugust20,2021,withinwhichtofiletheirpetitionforrehearing.Nofurtherextensionswillbegranted.DATEDthis\2411dayofAugust,2021.FortheCourt,ChiefJustice08/12/2021Case Number: DA 20-0465
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 6, 2019

No. 04-19-00603-CV

IN RE Cedric Bertnell EDWARDS, Sr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On September 5, 2019, relator, Cedric Bertnell Edwards Sr., filed an Emergency Petition 

for a Writ of Mandamus. The court is of the opinion the petition raises a serious question 

concerning the mandamus relief sought and requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8. We therefore request a response and order that respondent may file a response to the 

petition no later than September 9, 2019. Any response must conform to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 52.4. Relator may file a reply no later than noon September 11, 2019.

It is so ORDERED on September 6, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

 

1This court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 273.061 of the Texas Election Code, which authorizes this court to 

“issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of 

an election . . . regardless of whether the person responsible for performing the duty is a public officer.” TEX. ELEC.

CODE § 273.061.
11-i

CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 11-1
11-1

CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

The consumer subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or 

consumers who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation

standard. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses 

for the notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC 

and payback periods (PBPs) for those consumers that fall into any identifiable groups. DOE 

plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energy use that might 

affect the net present value of a standard to consumer subpopulations. To the extent possible, 

DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this variability 

in its calculation of consumer impacts.

DOE will determine the impact on consumer subgroups using the LCC Spreadsheet 

Model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in chapter 8

of this preliminary technical support document (TSD)) focuses on the households that use 

portable air conditioners (ACs). DOE can use the LCC Spreadsheet Model to analyze the LCC 

for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. (Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD explains in 

detail the inputs to the model used in determining LCC and PBPs.) In the case of portable ACs,

possible subgroups DOE may choose to consider are: (1) low-income households, and (2) senior 

citizens.

DOE will be especially sensitive to increases in the purchase price of the product due to 

amended standards, to avoid negative impacts on identifiable population groups that may not be 

able to afford significant increases in product price.
In the INTEREST OF: B.N.C., D.C., J.C., and K.D.C., Plaintiffs,

Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. D.P.C. (Father), Appellant,

A.D.C. (Mother), Defendant.

WD 81681 Consolidated with WD 81682 WD 81683 WD 81684

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: December 18, 2018

Mary E. Barnard, for Respondent

Stephen C. Pratte, for Appellant

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Father appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County terminating his parental rights to his four children. 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
      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 TXP Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Shores, Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





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




February
              8,
              2007*/s/ Michael
                  Shores*Michael
              ShoresChief
                  Executive*Officer (Principal Executive
                  Officer)*
Lakita S. GRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2919

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 17, 2017. Rehearing Denied December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Donald JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2970

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 22, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kevin Anthony LINDOR, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D16-2048

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
| 1. | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31,      2009, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for      the period ending December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Jinmimi Network, Inc. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                     | Jinmimi Network Inc. |
|--------------------------|----------------------|
|                     |                 |   |
| March      5, 2010  | By:                  | /s/ Jiangkun      Shi |
|                     |                 | Jiangkun      Shi |
|                     |                 | Chief      Financial Officer, Principal      Accounting Officer |
|                     |                 |   |