alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A2076. DAVID WAYNE SPRATLIN, JR. v. THE STATE.

In 2013, David Wayne Spratlin, Jr., pled guilty to possession of

methamphetamine and obstruction of an officer, and the trial court gave him a partially

probated sentence. In 2014, the trial court revoked Spratlin’s probation after finding

that he had violated conditions of his probation by committing new felony and

misdemeanor offenses and using methamphetamine. In 2017, Spratlin filed a “Motion

for Modification/Reduction of Sentence,” which the trial court denied. Spratlin then

filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Because the underlying subject matter of this appeal is the revocation of

Spratlin’s probation, he was required to file an application for discretionary appeal in

order to obtain appellate review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5); Todd v. State, 236 Ga.

App. 757, 758 (513 SE2d 287) (1999); White v. State, 233 Ga. App. 873, 874 (505 SE2d

228) (1998). His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal,

which is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 10, 2017

08/10/2017
Case 22-12730-AJC Doc 23 Filed 06/20/22 Page 1 of 4
Case 22-12730-AJC Doc 23 Filed 06/20/22 Page 2 of 4
Case 22-12730-AJC Doc 23 Filed 06/20/22 Page 3 of 4
Case 22-12730-AJC Doc 23 Filed 06/20/22 Page 4 of 4
Michael Roman WYNDER, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 3D18-1428

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed August 8, 2018

Michael Roman Wynder, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before LAGOA, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

LAGOA, J.

Michael Wynder ("Wynder") filed a petition seeking a belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141. The petition, however, failed to set forth any facts that constitute the basis for entitlement to a belated appeal as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(F). Additionally, the petition was not sworn to as required by rule 9.141(c)(4)(F). Accordingly, we deny the petition as facially insufficient. *See**Gugelman v. State*, 940 So.2d 503, 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ; *Abbot v. State*, 929 So.2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The denial is without prejudice to Wynder filing a properly sworn petition that complies with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4).

Petition for belated appeal denied without prejudice.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - products_publications(61)
              - (-)multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149248(4)
              - news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(8)
              - arizona(6)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(26)
              - florida(7)
              - hawaii(11)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - (-)montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(4)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(3)
              - washington(3)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        July 5, 2017        Return of the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - (-)science_science(1)
              - products_publications(26)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(4)
              - news_other_news(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(2)
              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(5)
              - california(12)
              - colorado(3)
              - (-)florida(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(3)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(14)
              - north carolina(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(3)
              - washington(7)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

Project        August 30, 2019        Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Monitoring and Assessment Program Development
Gerrell SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1808

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 20, 2018

Gerrell Smith, Century, pro se.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the May 31, 2016 sentence rendered in Case No. 2008-CF-00822, in the Circuit Court in and for *294Flagler County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Sam STROTHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5045

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Donna M. Coughey, thePresident and Chief Executive Officer of Willow Financial Bancorp, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certify that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that as of the date of this statement, the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

The purpose of thisstatement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 ofthe United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002.

 

 
| Date: September 15, 2008 | /s/ DONNA M. COUGHEY                           |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Donna M. Coughey                               |
| * *                      | *President & Chief Executive Officer* |

 

 

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has beenprovided to Willow Financial Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by WillowFinancial Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
# C_2020325EN.01000301.xml

| 2.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9905 — Bridgepoint/EQT Credit Platform)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 325/03)

On 22 September 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9905. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9905. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(8)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(67)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(3)
              - california(1)
              - florida(6)
              - hawaii(3)
              - (-)idaho(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south dakota(1)
              - utah(2)
              - washington(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        July 5, 2017        Return of the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
#### Fred David WILSON, Administrator of the Estate of Michael Glenn Wilson, deceased, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 80-1491.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 1, 1980.

Decided Aug. 14, 1981.

W. Gene Sigmon, Newton, N.C. (Sigmon & Sigmon, Newton, N.C., on brief), for appellant.

Daniel W. Donahue, Winston-Salem, N.C. (Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, N.C., on brief), for appellee.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue on appeal in this diversity case is whether, under the law of North Carolina, an automobile manufacturer may be held liable for defects in the design and manufacture of a vehicle which neither caused nor contributed to the cause of a collision, but served to exacerbate injuries sustained thereafter. See *Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins,*304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). This is a question of law, *Dreisonstok v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G.,*489 F.2d 1066, 1069 (4th Cir. 1974), and has not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court of that State (or by the intermediate appellate courts). Thus, it falls to the federal courts to forecast what the North Carolina Supreme Court would hold if presented with this issue. *Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch,*387 U.S. 456, 87 S.Ct. 1776, 18 L.Ed.2d 886 (1967); *McClung v. Ford Motor Company,*472 F.2d 240 (4th Cir. 1973).

The district court, after a careful review of related State cases and of the several and divergent federal court determinations of the issue, ruled that the North Carolina Supreme Court would not hold a manufacturer liable for injuries arising from defects which neither caused nor contributed to the accident.

We find no reversible error in this conclusion and, for reasons sufficiently stated in its Memorandum and Order of April 9,1980, the judgment of the district court is

*AFFIRMED.**1*

1

. In the case of *Seese, et al v. Volkswagenwerk AG, etc.,*648 F.2d 833 (3d Cir. 1981), the court, in a divided opinion, predicted that North Carolina would adopt the second crash theory. The dissent argued that even if the second crash theory were applicable, judgment for the plaintiff was subject to error. The rejection by North Carolina, however, in *Smith v. Fiber Control Corporation,*300 N.C. 669, 268 S.E.2d 504 (1980), of the principle of strict liability in *961tort fortifies our belief that if called upon the Supreme Court of North Carolina would also reject the second crash theory.
STATE EX REL. Mickey TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2018-KH-0021

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record *458a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

WEIMER, J., recused.
Exhibit 31                  Rule 13a-14(d) Certification

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Thomas G. Lehmann, a First Vice President of Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K  containing  distribution  or servicing  reports filed in respect of periods
included  in the year  covered  by this  annual  report,  of  WASHINGTON  MUTUAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2001-MS14;

     2. Based on my knowledge,  the  information  in these  reports,  taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  distribution  or  servicing  information
required to be provided  to the  trustee by the  servicer  under the pooling and
servicing, or similar,  agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicer
under the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,  agreement  and based  upon my
knowledge and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,  and
except as disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its  obligations
under that agreement; and

     5. The  reports  disclose  all  significant  deficiencies  relating  to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an  independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting  a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar  procedure,  as set forth in the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:


Everhome Mortgage Company,  Downey Savings and Loan Assoc,  Citimortgage,  Inc.,
Greenpoint Mortgage Company,  Fifth Third Bank, Suntrust Mortgage,  US Bank Home
Mortgage


Dated: March 29, 2005
                                     /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Thomas G. Lehmann,
                                     First Vice President
Second Amendment to Mark Irion Employment Agreement




 Page 1 of 2 
  

 Exhibit 10.5 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into and effective as of the 8th of July 2005 (the “Effective Date”), by and among Neff Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Neff Rental LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a direct, wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, Neff Finance Corp., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Neff Rental LLC, Neff Rental, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Neff Rental LLC, and Mark H. Irion, an
individual (the “Executive” and collectively with the Company, Neff Rental LLC, Neff Finance Corp. and Neff Rental, Inc., the “Parties”). 
 Recitals 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company entered into an Employment Agreement,
effective as of March 1, 2000 (the “Original Agreement”), where the Company and the Executive agreed to employ the Executive as Chief Financial Officer of the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company entered into the First Amendment to the Original Agreement, effective as of January 31, 2005 (the
“First Amendment”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to add Neff Rental LLC, Neff Finance Corp. and Neff
Rental, Inc. as parties to the Original Agreement and the First Amendment. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements set forth in this Amendment, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 
 Terms and Conditions 
 As of the Effective Date, the Original Agreement and the First
Amendment are hereby amended to add Neff Rental LLC, Neff Finance Corp. and Neff Rental, Inc. as “Parties” (as the term is defined in each of the Original Agreement and First Amendment). 
 [signature page follows] 
  









 Page 2 of 2 
  

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, Neff Rental LLC, Neff Finance Corp. and Neff Rental, Inc. have caused this Agreement to
be executed by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	NEFF CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	NEFF RENTAL LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	NEFF FINANCE CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	NEFF RENTAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/

	Mark Irion


 Second Amendment to Mark Irion Employment Agreement
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 the Quarterly Report of Concentra Operating Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel J. Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Daniel J. Thomas

Daniel J. Thomas

Chief Executive Officer

May 13, 2003
**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, John Ballard, certify that:

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 quarterly
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 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 (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 functions):

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: March 16, 2004 | /s/ John Ballard

 Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------