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

Case No. 2D17-2422

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7496

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JUAN GONZALEZ GOMEZ, a/k/a Isidre Enrique German-Campos, a/k/a Bossman, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00010-2; 1:03-cv-00092) Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: December 4, 2006 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Gonzalez Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Juan Gonzales Gomez seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gomez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Gomez’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Gomez’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016392EN.01003602.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Preferisco Foods v EUIPO — Piccardo & Savore’ (PREFERISCO)

(Case T-371/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark PREFERISCO - Earlier EU word mark I PREFERITI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 392/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Preferisco Foods Ltd (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Sidat Humphreys and J.-F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Piccardo & Savore’ Srl (Chiusavecchia, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2015 (Case R 2598/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Piccardo & Savore’ and Preferisco Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Preferisco Foods Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Preferisco Foods Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,046]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 30, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing—East Division, Byesville, Ohio.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of March, 2009.

 Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-7132 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Daryl J. Ehrmantraut, the Chief Executive Officer of Quantum
Solar Power Corp. (the Company), hereby 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:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                 



| | By:    | /s/
      Daryl J. Ehrmantraut       
| | ------ | -------------------------------------
| |        |                                      
| | Name:  | DARYL J. EHRMANTRAUT                 
| |        |                                      
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and President
| |        |                                      
| | Date:  | September 12, 2011                   





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Timothy BACON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3522

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 28, 2018]

Timothy Bacon, South Bay, pro se.

No response required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm the denial of appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence without comment. Any argument regarding appellant's motion for return of property should be raised in case number 4D17-2590.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Taylor and Forst, JJ., concur.
H.A.G., II, Appellant, v. E.D., Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1516

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**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 thethird quarterly report of Magnetek, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thefiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew G. Galef, certify,pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 
|   |   | /s/ ANDREW G. GALEF                                            |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                                           |
|   |   | Andrew G. Galef                                                |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board,  President and  Chief Executive Officer |

Dated May 14, 2003

 

----
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 Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a meeting on April 24, 2009, in Quincy, CA. The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for Cycle 8 funding and select projects to be recommended to the Plumas National Forest Supervisor for calendar year 2009 funding consideration. The funding is available under Title II provisions of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

# Date & Address: 

The meeting will take place from 9:30-3 at the Mineral Building Plumas/Sierra County Fairgrounds, 208 Fairgrounds Road, Quincy, CA.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        (Or for special needs): Lee Anne Schramel Taylor, Forest Coordinator, USDA, Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500/159 Lawrence Street, Quincy, CA, 95971; (530) 283-7850; or by e-mail                         *eataylor@fs.fed.us*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Agenda items for the April 24 meeting include: (1) Forest Service Update; (2) Committee Review of Applications; and, (3) Recommendations for Cycle 8 funding distribution. The meetings are open to the public and individuals may address the Committee after being recognized by the Chair. Other RAC information may be obtained at                     *http://www.fs.fed.us./​srs*.                

Dated: April 6, 2009.

Mark Beaulieu,

Public Services Staff Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-8400 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Magnetek, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, ThomasG. Boren, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David P.Reiland, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|                           | /s/  Thomas  G. Boren             |   |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                           | Thomas G. Boren                        |
|                           | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|                           |                                   |
| /s/ David P.  Reiland          |                                   |   |
| David P. Reiland               |                                   |
| Executive  Vice-President and  |                                   |
| Chief Financial  Officer       |                                   |
|                           |                                   |
|                           |                                   |
| Dated: November 11,  2005 |                                   |
|                                |                                        |        |  |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Housing Programs Limited (the "Partnership"),for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John McGrath, as theequivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Israel ESPERICUETA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-20682

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 25, 2004.

James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Israel Espericueta, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge.1

In this appeal we review the district court’s denial of Defendant — Appellant, Is*504rael Espericueta’s, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion and his motion for a completed ruling.

Esperieueta was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, conspiracy to launder money, and aiding and abetting money laundering. He now argues that his sentence should be reduced by the retroactive application of two recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines: (1) a November 1, 1998 clarifying amendment to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 and its commentary, labeled as amendment 585 in Appendix C of the Guidelines, and (2) a November 1, 2002 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, labeled as Amendment 640 in Appendix C of the Guidelines.

Neither Amendment 585, nor Amendment 640 are listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(e) as amendments to be applied retroactively, thus Esperieueta is not entitled to collateral relief. *See*U.S.S.G. lB1.10(c); *United States v. Davidson,*283 F.3d 681, 684 (5th Cir.2002); *United States v. Drath,*89 F.3d 216, 217 (5th Cir.1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Esperieueta a reduction of his sentence. *See United States v. Shaw,*30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir.1994).

Further, we affirm the district court’s denial of Espericueta’s motion for completed ruling as we assume the district court conducted the proper review absent evidence to the contrary. *Koetting v. Thompson,*995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir.1993).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision.

1

. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be *504published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17236-17237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8520]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11701 and <greek-i>11702]


Pennsylvania Disaster <greek-i>PA-00022

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Pennsylvania.

DATES: 04/07/2009.
    Incident: Millcreek Township Fire.
    Incident Period: 03/28/2009.
    Effective Date: 04/07/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/08/2009.
    Economic Injury (Eidl) Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/07/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

[[Page 17237]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties: Erie.
Contiguous Counties:
    New York: Chautauqua.
    Ohio: Ashtabula.
    Pennsylvania: Crawford, Warren.
    The Interest Rates are:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere....................     4.375
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere.................     2.187
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere....................     6.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11701 5 
and for economic injury is 11702 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are 
Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: April 7, 2009.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-8520 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Gregory THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2148

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

Gregory Thomas, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and LINDSEY, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

*763Gregory Thomas appeals the final order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Thomas was convicted of first degree murder, one count of robbery by snatching, and one count of grand theft auto. Counts two and three are third degree felonies; the sentence shows that he received a ten-year sentence for those counts. He correctly notes that the maximum statutory penalty for a third degree felony is five years. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2007). Thomas filed a motion to correct these two sentences to reflect five years each. The trial court denied the petition for legal insufficiency. The State filed no response, and there is no sentencing transcript in the record.

In the absence of any explanatory record, the petition is sufficient to require a clarification of the written sentence. It is not clear from the written sentence on counts two and three how that ten year sentence applies to each third degree felony count. The written sentence does not explicitly state whether ten years for counts two and three are ten years per charge, or five years per charge (consecutive), or whether those sentences were enhanced in any way to result in a ten year total sentence.

On remand, the trial court must either enter a new order attaching documents that conclusively refute Thomas's claim or must otherwise grant the appropriate relief in resentencing Defendant to five years for each third degree felony conviction, noting whether those terms are to be served concurrently or consecutively.

Reversed and remanded.