alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE EX REL. Kevin BALSER v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1789

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he 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 his application 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 second or 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 a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 NEWS RELEASE
 
 VALLEY BANCORP TO ATTEND SANDLER ONEILL
WEST COAST FINANCIAL SERVICES CONFERENCE
 Las Vegas, Nevada, March 3,2006- VLLY
  http://sandleroneill.com/ http://www.valleybancorp.com/
   About Valley Bancorp




---



##### 



www.valleybancorp.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2570

CHARLES HOWARD STRAHLER, JR.; PATRICIA ANN

STRAHLER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

JOSEPH M. TOWNSLEY, SR.; STEPHEN F. MESZAROS;

PAUL HENDERSON, Esquire; CHRISTOPHER HO

VANDYKE LIMITED; MICHAEL E. FELDMAN, Esquire;

PROSKAUER, ROSE, GOETZ & MENDELSOHN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

1797-AMD)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Howard Strahler, Jr., Patricia Ann Strahler, Appellants Pro

Se. Elliot Neil Lewis, Baltimore, Maryland; John F. Blevins, Bel

Air, Maryland; John A. Wolf, OBER, KALER, GRIMES & SHRIVER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing their

civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellants' motion for summary reversal and affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. Strahler v. Townsley, No. CA-96-1797-AMD (D.

Md. Sept. 30, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 102184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29748]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 17, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 2, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 857 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-570, K2025-568.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-29748 Filed 12-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
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 March 31, 2004 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

May 20, 2005
SPRINT CORPORATION, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Isabel C. MARTIN, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1087

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

               SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY MICHAEL T. MONTGOMERY

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
Michael T. Montgomery, hereby certifies that:

      3.    This report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the 1934 Act, and

      4.    The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the registrant's financial condition and results
            of operations of the registrant.

      Date: November 12, 2003


      By /s/ Michael T. Montgomery
         ---------------------------------
         Michael T. Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6465

RODOLFO AVELEANO SALINAS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. LEROY CARTLIDGE, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:07-cv-04149-HFF)

Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 14, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodolfo Aveleano Salinas, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rodolfo Aveleano Salinas seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Salinas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
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 Agronix, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
30, 2004, (the "Report"), I, Brian Hauff, President and Chief Financial Officer, 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 requirement 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
Company's financial position and results of operations.

/s/Brian Hauff 



 Brian Hauff, President and Chief Financial Officer



Date: November 12, 2004
Christopher LONGS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-3654

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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 Delta Mutual, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin G. Chilek,
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
to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                                       /s/ Martin G. Chilek
                                       ---------------------
                                       Martin G. Chilek
                                       Chief Financial Officer

 August 11, 2006
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

March 4, 2013

s0225

Order 

March 4, 2013

146194 & (9)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146194

COA: 312146

Wayne CC: 11-010318-FC

MELVIN HENRY TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 28, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED.

VIVIANO, J., not participating.
Joseph Arthur WIENDL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Stephanie WIENDL, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2380

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 19, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The former husband's petition for writ of prohibition is denied. The former wife's motion for appellate attorney's fees is remanded to the trial court. If the former wife establishes her entitlement pursuant to section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2007), and Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), the trial court is authorized to award her all or a portion of the reasonable appellate attorney's fees. See Rados v. Rados, 791 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA2001).

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2008 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                   |  |                              
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: May 8, 2008 |  | /s/ Steven H. Holtzman       
|                   |  | Steven H. Holtzman           
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                   |  | (Principal executive officer)

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



EXHIBIT 32.2
 
  1.
    
    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  October 31, 2005
    /s/ Lee W. HendricksonLee W. HendricksonChief Financial Officer   E-6
Dominic Nathaniel DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2500

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 31, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Brad R. Schlesinger, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

**CONFESSION OF ERROR**

Per Curiam.

Dominic Davis appeals his conviction and sentence for felony battery with a weapon. Davis argues the written jury instructions were defective for failing to include "and" between the two numbered elements constituting felony battery. We affirm that issue without comment. However, Davis also appeals the amended portion of his sentence imposing a public defender fee in excess of $100, which the State correctly concedes was improper. We agree, and reverse and remand on that point.

The trial court sentenced Davis to twenty years in prison and imposed a $400 public defender fee.1 Davis moved to correct the public defender fee amount under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), and asked the trial court to strike the $400 fee and impose the $100 fee required under section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2018), or hold a hearing to determine the proper fee amount. The trial court granted Davis's motion, struck the $400 fee, and imposed a $300 fee. On appeal, Davis asks this court to require the trial court to strike the public defender fee, and either impose the $100 fee or hold a hearing. We agree.

"[T]he imposition of a public defender fee that exceeds the statutory minimum can only occur 'upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher fees or costs incurred.' " *Alexis v. State* , 211 So.3d 81, 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting § 938.29(1)(a) ). From this evidence, the trial court is required to make factual findings that such higher fees or costs were actually incurred. *See**id.* at 82-83. Additionally, when a trial court exercises its discretion to impose a public defender fee exceeding the statutory minimum, the fee "must be orally pronounced at sentencing because such costs may not be imposed without affording the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard." *Id.* at 83 (quoting *Mills v. State* , 177 So.3d 984, 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ).

Accordingly, we reverse the amended public defender fee in the amount of $300 because the trial court failed to make any factual findings as to the fee amount. Moreover, the trial court failed to provide Davis with notice or an opportunity to contest the amount. We remand to correct those errors. *See**id.*

*903*Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.*

Gerber, C.J., Levine and Klingensmith, JJ., concur

1

Davis does not dispute the $50 public defender application fee. § 938.29(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018).
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementon Form S-8 (Nos. 333-107046, 333-129606 and 333-136519) of DTS, Inc. of our report****dated March 16, 2007 relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in thisForm 10-K.

 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Los Angeles, California

March 16, 2007

 

----
David BELLEGARDE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1357

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION

Re: Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. Trust 2003-NC4 (the "Trust"),
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-NC4, issued pursuant
to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2003
(the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among Morgan Stanley Capital
I Inc., as depositor, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee
(the "Trustee"), The Provident Bank, as servicer (the "Servicer"), and
NC Capital Corporation, as responsible party

 I, Craig Phillips, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K (the "Annual Report"),
and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution reports (collectively
with this Annual Report, the "Reports") filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this Annual Report, of the Trust;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in the 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 Agreement for inclusion in the Reports is included in these
Reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
in this Annual Report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in
accordance with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and
except as disclosed in the Reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under the Pooling and Servicing 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 Agreement, that is included in the Reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
the Trustee and the Servicer.

Date:	3/25/04

/s/:  Craig Phillips
Craig Phillips
President
IN the INTEREST OF M.M.W., a child.

T.M., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-1723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
David William KENT, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-00432-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: September 25, 2018 Closed: November 29, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Certiorari filed by Appellant.

Certiorari - Denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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

      Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United State Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of CNB Financial Services, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify that:

      (1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
            September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the
            requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934;
            and

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

                                                /s/  Rebecca S. Stotler
                                                -----------------------
                                                Rebecca S. Stotler
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                November 13, 2003
Paul MCNAMEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D15-4237

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 11, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Smart Online, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, C. J.
Meese, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





(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





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





/s/ Dror ZoreffDror
      ZoreffInterim
      Chief Executive Officer, President and Principal Executive
      OfficerNovember
      15, 2010





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.