alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Christopher HAGGAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-3267

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed November 5, 2018

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and Robert Adams, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

*133Christopher Haggan petitions for an emergency writ of habeas corpus, challenging his pretrial detention without bond. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

Haggan was initially granted and posted bond after his arrest. However, he failed to appear at a trial management conference and the court issued a capias. Almost one month later, Haggan turned himself in and moved to set bond in a facially sufficient motion, alleging, among other things, that his failure to appear was unintentional. The next day, the trial court denied Haggan's motion without a hearing and without making any findings.

In his petition, Haggan argues that the trial court was required to hold a hearing to determine whether his failure to appear was willful, as well as whether any reasonable conditions of release would ensure his future appearances. The State agrees that the trial court should have granted a hearing on Haggan's motion.

After a defendant fails to appear, if he seeks bond and claims that his failure was unintentional, the court must hold a hearing. The court must then determine whether the failure was willful, and whether any reasonable conditions of pretrial release exist. *See, e.g.*, *Prokopishen v. State*, 82 So.3d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing *State v. Blair*, 39 So.3d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2010) ). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(c) addresses Haggan's precise situation, providing that a defendant who at first fails to appear and then "voluntarily appears or surrenders" will not be eligible for a recognizance bond if the failure to appear was "willfully and knowingly" done. In this case, the factual question of Haggan's intent remains unresolved, and the trial court will need to hear that issue to decide it. *See**Blair*, 39 So.3d at 1194-95 ; *Harvey v. State*, 238 So.3d 353, 354-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (concerning defendant who was released on bond and failed to appear the day after Hurricane Irma); *Prokopishen*, 82 So.3d at 1047. Therefore, we grant the petition and remand for the trial court to conduct a hearing and determine whether Haggan's failure to appear was willful.

PETITION GRANTED.

TORPY, BERGER, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 30, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00094

- CV

Athens Gate Limited , Appellant

v.

Carolyn Baldwin, Individually and a/n/f Her Minor Child, J. D. B., Jr. , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRI CT C OURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on February 9, 2021

.

Athens Gate Limited has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion

,

the Court agrees that the motion sh ould be granted . Therefore, the Court grants the motion and

dismiss es the appeal

. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, both in this

Court and in the court below.
Richard CREEL v. DOLPHIN SERVICES, L.L.C., Masse Contracting, Inc., Suncoast Fabrication Services, Inc., ABC Insurance Company, EFG Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Compamy

NO. 2018-C-1570

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.
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 Digital Network Alliance International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Terence Yap, President, CEO, and a director 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 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/Terence Yap



Terence Yap Wing Khai, President, CEO and

 a director

September 1, 2006
EXHIBIT 32

             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 Cygni Investments, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and principal
financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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.

Date:  November 17, 2003

/s/ Carl Suter
Carl Suter, President and Treasurer
(Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
# C_2020304EN.01000303.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

---

Appeal brought on 19 February 2020 by Currency One S.A. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-501/18, Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl

(Case C-101/20 P)

(2020/C 304/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Currency One S.A. (represented by: P. Szmidt, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o.

By order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) delivered on 28 May 2020, the appeal was not allowed to proceed.

---
# C_2020414EN.01002103.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/21

---

Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2020 in Case T-106/19, Abarca v EUIPO — Abanca Corporación Bancaria (ABARCA SEGUROS)

(Case C-313/20 P)

(2020/C 414/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA (represented by: J. M. Pimenta, advogado, Á. Pinho, advogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA

By order of 13 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and ordered Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA to bear its own costs.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Support for Research Excellence (SuRE) Award and Support for Research Excellence—First Independent Research (SuRE-First) Award (R16).                    

*Date:*                         March 27, 2025.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kimberly Hammer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of General Medical Sciences,  National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, MSC 6200, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 301-594-2849,                         *kimberly.hammer@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 20, 2024.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-31147 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - other_basic-42(2)

## By Location

## By Year

              - 2024(70)
              - 2023(30)
              - 2022(73)
              - 2021(22)
              - 2020(4)
              - 2019(11)
              - (-)2018(2)

General  Floods and Flood Plains

General  USGS Flood Information
# C_2022294EN.01002501.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty)

(Case T-441/20) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Compliance with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 - Reimposition of a definitive countervailing duty - Non-repayment in full of the initial definitive countervailing duty - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Legal certainty - Article 266 TFEU - Proportionality - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 103 of the Union Customs Code - Registration Regulation - Plea of illegality - Admissibility)

(2022/C 294/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/526 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited, following the judgment of the General Court in Case T-300/16 (OJ 2020 L 118, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jindal Saw Ltd and Jindal Saw Italia SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 8, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D23

- 1481

Lower Tribunal No. F17

- 1567B



### Bobby McGhee,

Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Javier Enriquez, Judge.

Bobby McGhee, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Katrina Ann DAYE, Appellant, v. Chris NOCCO, Sheriff of Pasco County, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5056

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2021079EN.01001701.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/17

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano — Italy) — XX v OO

(Case C-220/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State of national health emergency - Continuity of judicial activity - Postponement of hearings - Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the reference for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2021/C 79/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano — Italy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XX

Defendant: OO

Interveners: WW, XC, VS

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Giudice di pace di Lanciano (Justice of the Peace of Lanciano, Italy) by decision of 18 May 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
George BURGESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1511

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 12, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 14, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE Ronald E. WEEMS

CR-16-0928

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 13, 2017 Reh. denied September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**Certifications of**

**Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**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 Design Within Reach, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ray Brunner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: May 10, 2007 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless ofany general incorporation language in such filing. 

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Design Within Reach, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, John D. Hellmann, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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 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. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: May 10, 2007 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless ofany general incorporation language in such filing. 

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

 

26
FAA

Southern Regional Airports Division

Airports Division Staff Assignments

Address: 

FAA Southern Region

Airports Division, Suite 540

1701 Columbia Ave.

College Park, GA 30337

Office Phone: 404-305-6700

FAX: 404-305-6730

Conference room: 404-305-6705

Director: 

Steven Hicks, 

Steven.Hicks@faa.gov

Deputy Director:

Jasmine Evains,

Jasmine.Evains@faa.gov
Airports Division Staff Assignments Updated on: 01/09/2024 Page 2 of 3

Airports Division

Planning & Programming Branch (ASO-610)

Name Position Email address Phone number

Cathy Nelmes Branch Manager cathy.nelmes@faa.gov 404-305-6702

Tim Hester Regional Planner Timothy.r.hester@faa.gov 404-305-6724

Alexis John Environmental Program Manager alexis.h.john@faa.gov 404-305-6729

Matt Mims Financial Program Manager (AIP) matthew.l.mims@faa.gov 404-305-xxxx

Rob Rau Financial Program Manager (BIL) rob.rau@faa.gov 404-305-6722

Sylvia Toussaint MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL ANALYST sylvia.toussaint@faa.gov 404-305-6824

[Vacant] Environmental Program Manager [NA] 404-305-xxxx

[Vacant] Financial Program Manager [NA] 404-305-xxxx

Safety & Standards Branch (ASO-620)

Name Position Email address Phone number

Melissa Rivera-Davis Branch Manager Melissa.rivera-davis@faa.gov 404-305-6720

Patrick Rogers Lead Airport Certification Safety 

Inspector patrick.rogers@faa.gov 404-305-6716

John Fotiadis Airport Certification Safety Inspector john.fotiadis@faa.gov 404-305-6717

Caroline Bonynge Airport Certification Safety Inspector caroline.b.bonynge@faa.gov 404-305-6739

[Vacant] Airport Certification Safety Inspector [N A] 404-305-xxxx

[Vacant] Airport Certification Safety Inspector [N A] 404-305-xxxx

Lloyd Hersey Airport Certification Safety Inspector lloyd.hersey@faa.gov 404-305-6823
Airports Division Staff Assignments Updated on: 01/09/2024 Page 3 of 3

Airports Division

Name Position Email address Phone number

Marion Fletcher Airport Certification Safety Inspector marion.fletcher@faa.gov 404-305-6714

Gabriel Mahns Airport Certification Safety Inspector, 

Airports Compliance Program Manager gabriel.mahns@faa.gov 404-538-3435

Keturah Pristell Airports Compliance Program Manager keturah.pristell@faa.gov 404-305-6764

Carmen Robinson Airports Compliance Program Manager Carmen.robinson@faa.gov 404-305-5786

Brian Creasy GIS & UAS Program Manager brian.creasy@faa.gov 404-305-6725

Anthony Cochran Regional Civil Engineer anthony.cochran@faa.gov 404-305-6713

Matthew Ludwig Management and Program Analyst matthew.ludwig@faa.gov 404-305-6740

Other FAA Staff Assignments

Name Position Email address Phone number

Vicki Bromberek Administrative Officer vicki.bromberek@faa.gov 404-305-6703

Emmanuel DeStephano Management and Program Analyst emmanuel.destephano@faa.gov 404-305-6700

Karessa John Technical Writer karessa.k.johnson@faa.gov 404-305-6737

David Shumate Service Area Airport Airspace 

Specialist david.shumate@faa.gov 404-305-5753

Bruce Aron Accessibility Analyst bruce.ctr.aron@faa.gov 404-783-2568
Kenneth CHRISTIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4117

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIUQIN YAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-71630 

Agency No. A200-781-003 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Xiuqin Yan, native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen 

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 

for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 

* 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 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-71630 

840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition 

for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yan’s motion to reopen as 

untimely where it was filed more than three years after the final removal order, and 

Yan has not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of 

the final removal order); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (listing exceptions). 

Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen sua sponte 

is limited to determining whether the BIA based its decision on legal or 

constitutional error. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 581-82. Yan has not shown any legal 

error underlying the BIA’s determination that she is ineligible for any benefits 

under the Immigration and Nationality Act, including adjustment of status, where 

she was found to have filed a frivolous application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(d)(6); see also Manhani v. Barr, 942 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[A]

determination that an applicant filed a frivolous asylum application renders the 

applicant permanently ineligible for immigration relief.”) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). We lack jurisdiction to consider Yan’s remaining 

contentions as to the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d 

at 588.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.