alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
c’ 

., .* 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eon. will crow 

County Attormr 

88a86iua, TdAr 

tiolur 

Tour roipart ror 

Whothor 008ts 

hotel hiera 

, C. 0. P., raeds in put a8 follorrt 

or - l ppti ia to 8~rp006 aoa 

pxwodln( lathe oaao in tha 

oonrirtioa Wei8 bed until tha 

allato oourt ir roorirod by the 

0 appaal WI takm." 

Artioia 1014, c. c. P., prOVi608l 

*w;hea a l riain.81 artlea l r proewUa(; ir takaa 

b rpprl from oao wurt to aaothu, or dunoru 

t h 0 l w i0 a MT 0th.r ray tmer0rr8u rrcu. 0~0 

r o ut tc M o f ther it r h a u bo l o 0o mp m1 0a br a l o a - 

plate bill of ali aorta that h?o l ooruo& thoreln, 
- Eon. WI11 crow, itomuy 89, less, Pa&e a 

r*rtItI~ 9oa8Qd 

WE 

4 br the proper otilou 

0r tb l 0mtror oh tha nma I* r0n0r40d.n 

brtlols WC, HOa 6, 0. Q. ?., 9rwibos; 

iOh & . $ 8 ~P QOdOd the (LOr Or r iS dr nt 

ub m 4oraudaat l ua o t p a y. -Inle8n a y 

lot able to 007 fbr a truP8rrIpt ot the tostl- 

,- 

old l oOft reporter 90 Iwto 8 urrrtlro rtatoBut et tarts ud drllror lt to sorb dmtoadut. 

In all oasu rbaro the court Ia roquIrolI to wd . 

b o s q Qo ia u t l ttornof to ropnront ~tho (lotsnCut la a rrldaal utloa, 8*oP roportor 8baU 

k npulrod to turnlmhtlrs l ttornry ior maI& &- 

ieabnt, lt 80a10t.a and uiwn OB QTpod. I8 

p08OOOt0a, dth 8 tramaript of hI8 mt.8. r0r 

l 0.h 0014 nnlw ha shill bo paid br the St&o 

of Tous, mpon tko l utitlrato et the trial JuQe, 

sm.-h al lt t the mte pror1i.d br law in l ITII, 

I)ts.* u 

Io9aIl thr 

Art1010 195-797, C. C. PI, iaolpsIro, prmldos lo 

manor ot l 10rutIon ot ~mdgmmt Ia risdomou~Or 

8WOS. 

Ia riow ot tho toro9oI 

Nlf l drIn6 that it 18 ths a 

8tatote8, fou uo rrspect09 on 0r thfr Domrtuat that 

the 8o8ts et rounty UQUJ$ o,uaot bo rollooted until &elgmit 

U tho l ppellatr oourt Is ronhod by the rourt rroa *hIoh 

ths l ppmel wa8 9akoa urd t&t the 

br *rtIolo 760, 9eo. 4, C. C, P,, Et 

upor* oath, u prowl&d 

8 a 0 l pplIwtIoa la ml*- 

bemanor oasoa, and JOP are further adrind that tb county 

l iuk M B & EM d ur d lOiSp dOi Or M dM ti0 t8 WY boat8 Or bm 

or l xooptfons aab trunrorlptr ktorothr 88~ ue drlirord 

to tlu 6uoaauts,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7001

LATEEF AZEEM LUTALO, formerly known as

Christopher Bernard Carter,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEAN WALKER; RICKY ANDERSON; KEITH WHITENER;

SERGEANT WATKINS; ALICE LEONARD; MILLEY

MCKINNEY; RHEA RICKETTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-96-73-4-MU)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lateef Azeem Lutalo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on Apr. 29, 1996; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on June 21, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives

this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore 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
1

ALD
- 297 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 3365

___________ KAMAL KARNA ROY , For Sey and Volunteers Officer of Non Profit Conglomerate & Associations (17

- 1 Millions) In Number an Volunteer Fid ucial Officer See Page1A For Details, Appellant

v. SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HON J. ROBERT, Chief Judge; PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GOVERNMENT

____________________________________ On Appeal fr om the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 12

- cv - 04152 ) District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L AR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 September 27, 2012 Before: 

### SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 4, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM

.2

On July 24, 2012, Kamal Karna Roy of Saranac Lake , New York, filed a pro se civil righ ts complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming the Supreme Court of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States, the President of the United States, the United States Government, and
several private companies and universities as defendants. The District Court granted Roy leave to proceed in forma pauperis but immediately dismissed his complaint without leave to amend, citing its incomprehensibility in addition to its failure to conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Roy timely filed this appeal. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, given the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend. See Borelli v. City of
Rea ding , 532 F.2d 950, 951

- 52 (3d Cir. 1976). We agree with the District Court that the complaint is incomprehensible and that it fails to comply with Rule 8. See In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig. , 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996). While a court must ordinaril y grant leave to amend a deficient complaint, we believe that the District Court was not required to do so under the circumstances presented here. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002)

.
Xiomara AZUAJE, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and Wyndham Lakes at Meadow Woods Master Homeowners Association, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-1613

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 15, 2019

Adam H. Sudbury and Melissa Alfonso, of Apellie Legal, Orlando, for Appellant.

Karusha Y. Sharpe, and M. Hope Keating of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, and Michele L. Stocker, of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

No Appearance for other Appellee, Wyndham Lakes at Meadow Woods Master Homeowners Association.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32**

 

ORIENT-EXPRESS HOTELS LTD.

 

Section 1350 Certification

 

The undersigned hereby certify that this report of Orient-ExpressHotels Ltd. for the periods presented fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for theperiods presented in the report.

 

 

| /s/ P.M. White                                  |   | /s/ M. O’Grady                                                             |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Paul M. White

President and Chief Executive Officer |   | Martin O’Grady

Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

Dated: May 8, 2009

 

 

[A signed original of this written certification has been provided toOrient-Express Hotels Ltd. and will be retained by Orient-Express Hotels Ltd.and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.]

 

----
Patricia Diane Price PARRIS and Darrell G. Price, Appellants, v. Philip C. ROSEN, as Ancillary Personal Representative in the Estate of Fronice Selph Price, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1240

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Michael Dominique DONSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0999

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 10, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Lewis, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2 – CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, James V. McKeon, the Chief Financial Officer of Genesis HealthCare Corporation, hereby certify, with respect to this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 (Report), 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date:  December 14, 2006

|                |   |   |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ James V. McKeon |   |   |        |
| James V. McKeon     |   |   |   |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLAS EUGENE LANDSIEDEL,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

SHANE RANSOME, Community

Corrections Officer 2

, and RICHARD MORGAN, Secretary of Corrections,

Respondents

- Appellees. No. 18

- 35380

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 01421

- RAJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019 **

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Nicholas Eugene Landsiedel appeals pro se from

the district court’s order den ying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition c hallenging

his conviction for attempted rape of a child in the second degree and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argume nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 35380

communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Hurles v. Ryan , 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th

Cir. 2014) , we af

firm

.

Landsiedel contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

failing to communicate a plea offer extended by the State and to advise him

adequately about a nother plea offer

. The Washington Court of Appeals concluded

that, even if d efense counsel’s performance were deficient, Landsiedel failed to

demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of the deficient performance. See

Lafler v. Cooper

, 566 U.S. 156, 164 (2012) ( to establish prejudice, defendant must

show a reasonable pro bability that he “ would have accepted the plea and the

prosecution would not have withdrawn it . . ., that the court would have accepted

its terms, and that the conviction or sentence , or both, under the offer’s terms

would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact

were imposed”). The state court’s determination was not contrary to

, nor an

unreasonable application of

, Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

. See

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1).

To the extent Landsiedel briefed issues beyond the certificate of

appealability (“COA”), we treat his briefing as a request to expand the COA and

deny it. See 9th Cir. R. 22

- 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood , 195 F.3d 1098, 1104

- 05 (9th Cir.

1999).3 18

- 35380

AFFIRMED.
Anthony HOLLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2684

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. ss 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Glen R. Alston, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Carmina Technologies Inc.

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to date 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's control over financial reporting; and.

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.



Date: May 26, 2004

/s/ GLEN R. ALSTON

Glen R. Alston,

Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer and 
Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 4.2




---



##### 



SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE Company Eckington Additional Guarantor Trustee
 WHEREAS Indenture Notes
 WHEREAS Note Guarantee
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1. CAPITALIZED TERMS.
 2. AGREEMENT TO GUARANTEE.
 3. NO RECOURSE AGAINST OTHERS.
 4. GOVERNING LAW.
 5. COUNTERPARTS.
 6. EFFECT OF HEADINGS.
 7. THE TRUSTEE.
 1




---



##### 



remainder of page intentionally left blank
 2




---



##### 



XM SATELLITE RADIO INC.By:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer XM 1500 ECKINGTON LLCBy:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer XM INVESTMENT LLCBy:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer XM EQUIPMENT LEASING LLCBy:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer XM RADIO INC.By:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer 3




---



##### 



XM EMALL INC.By:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer XM CAPITAL RESOURCES INC.By:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer XM INNOVATIONS INC.By:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer EFFANEL MUSIC, INC.By:
    /s/ David. J. FrearDavid J. FrearTreasurer U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as TrusteeBy:
    /s/ Thomas E. TaborThomas E. TaborVice President 4
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Sandra Livney, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Supreme
Holdings, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

                  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

                  a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls;

         6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this annual 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: Febraury 9, 2003

By: /s/ Sandra Livney
   ---------------------------
   Sandra Livney
   Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report of EP Global Communicatins, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.





Dated: April 16, 2007





/s/ James McGinnis



James McGinnis

Chief Financial Officer

(and Principal Accounting Officer)
1

Filed 6/8/15 P. v. Randall CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUSTIN O’NEAL RANDALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

C076559

(Super. Ct. No. CM038288, 

CM038867)

On February 27, 2013, defendant Justin O’Neal Randall pried open the window of 

a residence, entered, and stole items from the home, including money. 

On March 5, 2013, defendant and two other males entered an inhabited residence. 

One of the men pointed a firearm at the inhabitant. They stole a laptop computer, 

PlayStation game console, and a television. 

Defendant pleaded no contest to first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 213, 

subd. (a)(1)(A))

1 and first degree burglary (§ 459), and admitted a strike allegation 

(§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 14 

 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

years eight months in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, ordered $3,445 and 

$680 in victim restitution, and awarded 428 days of presentence credit (373 actual and 55 

conduct). 

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. 

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed 

and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination 

of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more 

favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 RENNER , J.

We concur:

 HULL , Acting P. J.

 MAURO , J.