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

No. 1D18-1734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 21, 2019

David Stratton, pro se, Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Lewis, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Chason JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1100

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In  connection  with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Xtreme Companies, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  period  ended  March 31, 2004 (the
"Report"),  Kevin  Ryan,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the Company, and Barrett
Evans,  Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(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:  May  24,  2004



/s/  Kevin  Ryan
---------------------------
Kevin  Ryan

Chief  Executive  Officer



Dated:  May  24,  2004




/s/  Barrett  Evans
----------------------------
Barett  Evans
Interim  Chief  Financial  Officer




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United  States  Code)  and  is  not  being  filed  as part of the Report or as a
separate  disclosure  document.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Donald H. Hunter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Harbor Global Company Ltd.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this 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 report; 

 

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

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 report is being prepared; 

 

b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure 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 

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 27, 2005
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 United Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald Wilen,
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 result of operations of the Company.


Dated:
      February 14, 2011
                By:
                /s/ Ronald
      WilenRonald
      WilenChief
      Executive Officer
Teddie Charles THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2019

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 2, 2019

Teddie Charles Thomas, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

EMAS, J.

Teddie Charles Thomas appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief. In his motion, Thomas alleges: In 2007, he was sentenced to seven years in prison followed by five years of probation. He was released from prison in 2015 and began serving the probationary portion of his sentence. He was arrested in April 2018 for violating his probation and, as a result, was sentenced on April 17, 2018 to 366 days in state prison, but was awarded only 17 days, an apparent reflection of credit for time spent in the county jail awaiting his violation of probation hearing. Thomas asserts that he did not waive the credit for the seven years previously served in prison, and that the trial court was required to credit that time against the sentence imposed following the violation of probation.

The trial court docket does not reflect that the State filed any response to Thomas' motion. The trial court summarily denied Thomas' motion on July 27, 2018. This appeal followed.

As a general rule, a defendant "sentenced to a probationary split sentence who violates probation and is resentenced to prison is entitled to credit for all time actually served in prison prior to his release on probation unless such credit is waived." *Gonzalez v. State*, 194 So.3d 380, 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting *559*Dortly v. State*, 107 So. 3d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ). *See also**Sainvilus v. State*, 689 So.2d 1261, 1261-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding: "A prisoner who is sentenced to prison for violating probation... is entitled to credit for time actually served in prison, prior to commencement of the probationary term").

On appeal, the State properly and commendably concedes that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without any record attachments (such as a transcript of the probation violation hearing or plea colloquy) conclusively refuting Thomas' claim that he did not waive his entitlement to credit for the prison time previously served on his split sentence. *See, e.g.*, *Brothers v. State*, 959 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Thomas' claim on the merits or to enter a new order with record attachments conclusively refuting Thomas' claim that he did not waive his entitlement to credit for prison time previously served. Because Thomas' allegations, if true, would appear to entitle him to immediate release from prison, we direct the trial court to expedite this cause on remand.
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 

 

2 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-10080

Summary Calendar

__________________

TOMMY LEE DORA,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - - 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-1664-T

- - - - - - - - - - - 

August 20, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Tommy Lee Dora, Texas prisoner # 224582, appeals following the

dismissal of his case under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 of the AEDPA.2

Because Dora's federal habeas petition was filed prior to the

enactment of the AEDPA, the district court erred by applying the

AEDPA to Dora's suit. See Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2068

(1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 739 (1998)(an intervening
decision; the AEDPA does not apply to noncapital cases that were

pending on the date of its enactment).

The judgment of the district court dismissing the habeas

corpus petition under the AEDPA is VACATED and the action is

REMANDED for further consideration under pre-AEDPA standards.
# C_2021278EN.01001201.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘ALTI’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-4/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 205 - Persons liable for payment of VAT to the public exchequer - Joint and several liability of the recipient of a taxable supply which has exercised its right to deduct VAT knowing that the person liable for payment of that tax would not pay it - Obligation of such a recipient to pay the VAT not paid by the person liable for payment and the default interest due on account of that person’s failure to pay the VAT)

(2021/C 278/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘ALTI’ OOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Operative part of the judgment

Article 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which the person held jointly and severally liable, for the purpose of that article, must pay, in addition to the value added tax (VAT) not paid by the person liable for payment of that tax, the default interest on that amount, due from the person liable for payment, where it is proved that, in exercising its right of deduction, it knew or should have known that the person liable for payment would not pay that VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---
Carlos CHANAX, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4915

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135971 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135971 

 COA: 271840 

St Clair CC: 05-002902-FH 

ANTHONY ROBERT HILDEBRANT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2008 

judgment 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. 

p0519 

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. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Mark ONDICH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3323

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 27, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
April 2, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FLEMING & ASSOCIATES , L.L.P. (N/K/A FLEM ING, NOLEN & JEZ, L. L.P.)

AND GEORGE FLEMING , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 15

- 00211

- CV V.

DON JACKSON, JEFFREY W. CHAMBERS, AND WAR E, CHAMBERS, LEE

& CHAMBERS, L.L.P. , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed by the court below on February 24, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. Appellants’ related appeal against another group of defendants, Charles Kirklin, Stephen Kirklin, Paul Kirklin, and the Kirklin Law Firm, P.C. (n/k/a K irklin Soh, L.L.P.), docketed under our appellate case number 14

- 15

- 00238

- CV, remains pending before the court. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant s , Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. (n/k/a Fleming, Nolen & J ez, L.L.P. ) and George Fleming, jointly and severally. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2022109EN.01000802.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 — Liviu Dragnea v European Commission

(Case C-351/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Investigation reports - Request for an investigation to be opened into the conduct of previous OLAF investigations - Request to access documents - Letter of refusal - Article 263 TFEU - Decision against which an action for annulment may be brought - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Action against a letter confirming OLAF’s investigation reports - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 6 and Article 7(2) - Obligation to inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application)

(2022/C 109/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Liviu Dragnea (represented by: C. Toby, O. Riffaud and B. Entringer, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2020, Dragnea v Commission, (T-738/18, not published, EU:T:2020:208), to the extent that, by that order, the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action brought by Mr Liviu Dragnea for annulment of the letter from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 1 October 2018, in so far as, by that letter, OLAF refused to grant him access to the documents requested in his letter of 22 August 2018; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2020, Dragnea v Commission, (T-738/18, not published, EU:T:2020:208), to the extent that, by that order, the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action brought by Mr Liviu Dragnea for annulment of the letter from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 1 October 2018, in so far as, by that letter, OLAF refused to grant him access to the documents requested in his letter of 22 August 2018;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on this head of the application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on this head of the application for annulment;

| 3. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Mr Liviu Dragnea and the European Commission to bear their own costs incurred in the context of the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Liviu Dragnea and the European Commission to bear their own costs incurred in the context of the present appeal;

| 5. | Reserves the costs as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Reserves the costs as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 21.9.2020.

---
Americain FELDER v. STATE

CR-16-0829

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(14)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(4)
              - (-)news_news-149250(1)
              - connect_locations(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(49)
              - other_basic-37(1)
              - other_basic-42(25)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(5)
              - california(16)
              - (-)colorado(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - idaho(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - puerto rico(4)
              - texas(2)
              - utah(2)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(2)

## By Year

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Featured Story        April 18, 2022        From the Seafloor to Outer Space, USGS is on the Case
Jamel M. MCKENZIE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0197

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_publications(25)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(13)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(12)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(7)
              - multimedia_video-149195(4)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - (-)news_news-149248(2)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(2)
              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - connecticut(2)
              - delaware(2)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(2)
              - guam(3)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(1)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(4)
              - (-)maine(2)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(2)
              - new jersey(3)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(4)
              - u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - utah(3)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(2)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

National News Release        May 13, 2014        Coral Reefs are Critical for Risk Reduction & Adaptation

National News Release        June 1, 2016        This hurricane season, scientists bring wave action into the picture
Darvin WILFORK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3900

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Jonterrance WINZER

No. 2018-KH-0203

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF UNION**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator shows no lower court error.

*892Relator 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.
Melton CROSBY III v. STATE

CR-15-0710

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 7, 2017 Reh. denied. July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.