alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSHUA GLOSTON,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D23-391

LT Case No. 16-2015-CF-00618-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 31, 2023

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Duval County,

Kevin A. Blazs, Judge.

Joshua Gloston, Bonifay, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Heather Flanagan 

Ross, Assistant Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.
2

Appellant, Joshua Gloston, appeals the order summarily denying his 

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We affirm the order as to 

all claims, except Appellant’s Claim 6. That claim asserts that defense 

counsel failed to investigate the existence of a potential alibi witness who 

Appellant claimed he disclosed to counsel. Appellant claims that this witness 

would have placed him with that witness on a bus, rather than at the hotel 

where and at the time the crime was committed. The documents attached 

to the order of summary denial certainly are relevant to Claim 6 and suggest 

that the testimony of the alibi witness may not refute Appellant’s presence at 

the crime scene, given that Appellant’s DNA was found there. However, the 

attached documents do not conclusively refute Claim 6. See Smith v. State, 

150 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand as to Claim 6 for the court to 

either attach documents conclusively refuting Claim 6 or to conduct an 

evidentiary hearing with regard to that claim. We affirm the balance of the 

order in its entirety. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED, with instructions.

HARRIS and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

                Corporate Responsibility for Financial Reports.

I, Mary W. Patterson, Chief Executive Officer, certify that to my knowledge this
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Trans-Century Resources, Inc. as of and for
the three months ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Trans-Century Resources,
Inc.

Date:  August 13, 2003

By:  /s/ Mary W. Patterson
     ---------------------
        Mary W. Patterson
        Chief Executive Officer



I, Stephen L. Cobb, Chief Financial Officer, certify that to my knowledge this
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Trans-Century Resources, Inc. as of and for
the three months ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Trans-Century Resources,
Inc.

Date:  August 13, 2003

By:  /s/ Stephen L. Cobb
     -------------------
        Stephen L. Cobb
        Chief Financial Officer
Case 21-10820-LMI Doc 2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 2
Case 21-10820-LMI Doc 2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6043

In Re: MICHAEL MCEVILY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ to Certify Question of Law.

Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael McEvily, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael McEvily filed a petition seeking review of Va. Code

Ann. § 18.2-104 (2002) under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361

(2000), and an injunction against future enforcement of the

statute. McEvily asserts that the statute is ambiguous and

therefore unconstitutional. We decline to exercise jurisdiction

over McEvily’s petition.

The All Writs Act vests all statutorily created federal

courts, including this court, with authority to issue “all writs

necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.”

See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000). Injunctive relief under the All Writs

Act, however, is available “only in the most critical and exigent

circumstances . . . if the legal rights at issue are indisputably

clear.” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (Rehnquist,

C.J., in chambers) (internal citations and quotation marks

omitted). We conclude that McEvily’s petition does not satisfy

this standard. Moreover, McEvily asserts that he has challenged

the constitutionality of the statute in question in a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) that is

pending in the district court. Initial review of the statute in

question and development of the record are appropriately conducted

by the district court. If McEvily fails to obtain the relief he

seeks in the district court, he may assert his claim on appeal to

this court.
3

Accordingly, although we grant McEvily’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, we dismiss his petition. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal issues are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of GeoPharma, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Dore-Falcone, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Carol Dore-Falcone                           
|Carol Dore-Falcone                               
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                 
|August 14, 2008
Branden T. SANDERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4798

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Norman KLEIN and Arvilla Klein, Appellants, v. AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2759

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1189

___________

Raymond L. Semler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Donna Finch, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 21, 2009

Filed: September 28, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond L. Semler appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his lawsuit raising

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims. Upon de novo review, see Allen v. Purkett,

5 F.3d 1151, 1153 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that

dismissal was proper because Semler’s claims were barred by res judicata. The

judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond

L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Charles J. CLARK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4930

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Jacarr J. GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4962

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2241

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Marcus DeShawn Harmon-Wright lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ Submitted: November 23, 2021 Filed: November 30, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Marcus Harmon-Wright appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for

1 The Honorable C. J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the district court erred by applying an upward departure, and that the sentence is unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines; and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
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
Total Entertainment, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard B. Davis., Chief Financial 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:
(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
result of operations of the Company.
                                              /s/ RICHARD B. DAVIS
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Richard B. Davis

August 15, 2005
Daniel L. SANDEFUR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1135

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied as moot.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James E. McKay, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Battle Mountain Gold Exploration Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
year ended July 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Battle Mountain Gold Exploration Corp.

Date:  November 15, 2004

                                        By: /s/ James E. McKay
                                        ---------------------
                                        James E. McKay
                                        Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT #2


 


This Amendment #2 (this
“Amendment”) is entered into as of August 8, 2017 by and between Iconic Holdings, LLC (the “Holder”),
and HealthLynked Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) in order to amend that certain Convertible Promissory
Notes issued by the Company to the Holder in the original principal amounts of $550,000 dated July 7, 2016 (“Note 1”)
and $50,000 dated July 11, 2016 (“Note 2”, and together with Note 1, the “Notes”) and the
first amendment dated February 10, 2017. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition shall have the meanings given
to them in the Notes.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW THEREFORE,
for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.       Maturity
Date. The Company and the Holder agree to extend the Maturity Date of Note 1 t July 11, 2018. In addition, the Maturity
Date of Note 2 shall be extended to July 7, 2018. (the “Amended Maturity Dates”).


 


2.       Consideration
for this Amendment. In consideration for entering into this Amendment, the Company agrees to issue to the Holder 1,000,000
5 year cashless warrants, exercisable at $.30 (the “Maturity Date Consideration”).


 


3.       Extension
of the Maturity Date. The Company may request that the Amended Maturity Date be extended for an additional twelve months,
provided that the Company obtain written consent from the Holder and issue to the Holder an additional 1,000,000 5 year cashless
warrants, exercisable at $.30 (the “Extension Fee”). For the avoidance of doubt, no extension of the Maturity
Date shall be effective unless and until Holder has received the Extension Fee applicable to such extension of the Maturity Date.


 


4.       Continuing
Enforceability; Conflict Between Documents. Except as otherwise modified by this Amendment, the Note and each of the other
Transaction Documents shall remain in full force and effect, enforceable in accordance with all of its original terms and provisions.
This Amendment shall not be effective or binding unless and until it is fully executed and delivered by Holder and Company. If
there is any conflict between the terms of this Amendment, on the one hand, and the Note or any other Transaction Document, on
the other hand, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail.


 


5.       Notices.
Unless otherwise specifically provided for herein, all notices, demands or requests required or permitted under this Amendment
to be given to Company or Holder shall be given as set forth in the “Notices” section of the Notes.


 


[Signature Page to Follow.]


 




     

     


    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


	COMPANY:	 
	 	 	 
	HEALTHLYNKED CORP.	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	                                                         	 
	 	 	 
	Name: 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Title: 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	HOLDER:	 	 
	 	 	 
	ICONIC HOLDINGS, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Name: 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Title: 	 	 


 


[Signature Page
to Amendment #2]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105



## MEMO RANDUM

DATE: September 17 , 2015

TO: EPA Region 9 Rulemaking File for the BAAQMD NSR SIP Submittal

FROM: Gerardo C. Rios, EPA Region 9 , Air Division, Permits Office

SUBJECT: September 17, 20 15 Phone Call regarding the EPA Proposed Limited Approval

and Limited Disapproval of Regulation 2, Ru les 1 & 2

ATTENDEES

• Gerardo Rios

, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Jim Karas, BAAQMD

SUMMARY

We discussed the cancellation of the PSD delegation agreement upon approval of the PSD/NSR

rules. We also discussed that as a result of the PSD program being approved into the SIP, PSD

permits issued by EPA or by the District through a delegation agreement would be

modified/issued by the District through the SIP approved program authority.

ATTACHMENTS

• N one
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 148 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Corrections]
[Page 42467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: Z7-13299]



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / 
CORRECTIONS

[[Page 42467]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service


Norborne Baseload Plant: Notice of Availability of Final 
Environmental Impact Statement

Correction

    In notice document E7-13299 beginning on page 38559 in the issue of 
Friday, July 13, 2007, make the following correction:
    On page 38559, In the second column, under the heading DATE, in the 
second line ``August 9, 2007'' should read `` August 13, 2007''.

[FR Doc. Z7-13299 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

The Board of Directors 

Genesis Microchip Inc. 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-51001, 333-70469, 333-81413, 333-94235, 333-96291,333-42862, 333-52868, 333-65700 and 333-76286) of Genesis Microchip Inc. or its predecessor, Genesis Microchip Incorporated, of our report dated April 26, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Genesis Microchip Inc. as at March 31,2002 and March 31, 2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows and financial statement schedule for the years ended March 31, 2002, March 31, 2001 and March 31, 2000, and our report datedApril 26, 2002 relating to the financial statement schedule for the periods set out above, which report appears in the March 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Genesis Microchip Inc. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

Chartered Accountants 

Toronto, Canada

May 29, 2003
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Fort Lauderdale Division

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re: Case No. 21-15007-PDR 

Chapter 11 

STAMATIKE GLARENTZOS, 

Debtor. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

CONTINUE FEBRUARY 7, 2023 HEARING

THIS MATTER came before the Court on Debtor’s Expedited Motion to 

Continue Hearings Currently Set for February 7, 2023, at 10:00AM (DE 198). In light 

of Debtor’s representation that they are unable to attend due to medical 

complications, and based upon the record, the Court ORDERS as follows:

Peter D. Russin, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 6, 2023.

Case 21-15007-PDR Doc 202 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 2
1. The Motion (DE 198) is GRANTED, and the hearings set for February 7, 2023 are 

continued to March 8, 2023 at 10:00AM. 

2. The hearing will be conducted at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 299 

East Broward Blvd., Courtroom 301, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. 

3. Although the Court will conduct the hearing in person, the Court’s webpage

(https://www.flsb.uscourts.gov/judges/judge-peter-d-russin) has specific 

guidelines regarding requirements and procedures for appearing remotely.

# # #

Copies to all parties by clerk of court.

Case 21-15007-PDR Doc 202 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              69
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9580
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9840
<OTHER-SE>                                      (6403)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9580
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2968
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        00
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2968)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 95247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28265]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's Committee on Awards and Facilities 
(A&F) hereby gives notice of the scheduling of meetings for the 
transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National 
Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: The A&F meeting session will be held on Tuesday, 
December 3, 2024. The open session will be from 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. The 
closed session will be from 3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.

PLACE: The meetings will be held at NSF headquarters, 2145 Eisenhower 
Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314, and by videoconference.

STATUS: One session is open, and one session is closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    A&F open session agenda: Opening Remarks Regarding the Agenda; 
Discussion and Vote on Provisional Resolution related to Antarctic 
Science and Engineering Support Contract Update; Information Item: 
Indigenous Community Engagement.
    A&F closed session agenda: Opening Remarks; Information Item: 
Annual Report of the Chief Officer for Research Facilities; Information 
Item: Briefing on U.S. Extremely Large Telescope Program Report from 
the External Panel.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Michelle McCrackin, [email protected], (703) 292-7000. Members of 
the public can observe the public portion of this meeting through a 
YouTube livestream, which may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Legal Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-28265 Filed 11-27-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```