alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 24-50146-rlj11    Doc 38    Filed 07/01/24    Entered 07/01/24 16:57:31    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 7

Case 24-50146-rlj11    Doc 38    Filed 07/01/24    Entered 07/01/24 16:57:31    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 7

Case 24-50146-rlj11    Doc 38    Filed 07/01/24    Entered 07/01/24 16:57:31    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 7

Case 24-50146-rlj11    Doc 38    Filed 07/01/24    Entered 07/01/24 16:57:31    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 7

Case 24-50146-rlj11    Doc 38    Filed 07/01/24    Entered 07/01/24 16:57:31    Desc MainDocument      Page 5 of 7

Case 24-50146-rlj11    Doc 38    Filed 07/01/24    Entered 07/01/24 16:57:31    Desc MainDocument      Page 6 of 7

Case 24-50146-rlj11    Doc 38    Filed 07/01/24    Entered 07/01/24 16:57:31    Desc MainDocument      Page 7 of 7

- Section 1116(1) Statement
- Balance Sheet
- Statement of Operations (P&L)
- Cash Flow Statement
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7695
STEVEN E. HESTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusSTEVEN STOWE (F.B.I.); ED RYAN (F.B.I.); PATRICK MCNARDO (U.S.M.); SCOTT SEWALL (U.S.M.); OFFICER SWEET (AA County Poli ce); BEN WILSON (B.C.D.C); VENABLE, Social Worker, B.C.D.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 2300-AMD) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven E. Hester, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, UnitedStates Attorney, Perry F. Sekus, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Amy Kushner Kline, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.* Appellant also brought claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hester v. Stowe , No. CA-95-2300-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 1, 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
----

| 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:   3/12/2010 | By:    | /s/ Jonathan Ricker          |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   | Jonathan Ricker              |   |
|                              |   | Chief Executive Officer,     |   |
|                              |   | Chief Financial Officer and  |   |
|                              |   | Principal Accounting Officer |   |

----
Erin PICHE-PITTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1303

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 1, 2019

Affirmed.
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 James River Coal Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samuel M. Hopkins, II, Chief Accounting 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 registrant.











August 3, 2009




/s/     Samuel M. Hopkins, IISamuel M. Hopkins, IITitle:  Chief Accounting Officer
# C_2021189EN.01000501.xml

| 17.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice) (England & Wales), Family Division — United Kingdom) — SS v MCP

(Case C-603/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 10 - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Abduction of a child - Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State - Territorial scope - Removal of a child to a third State - Habitual residence acquired in that third State)

(2021/C 189/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SS

Defendant: MCP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a situation where a finding is made that a child has, at the time when an application relating to parental responsibility is brought, acquired his or her habitual residence in a third State following abduction to that State. In that situation, the jurisdiction of the court seised will have to be determined in accordance with the applicable international conventions, or, in the absence of any such international convention, in accordance with Article 14 of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2



RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Robert J. Salluzzo, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of EP Global Communications Inc.;





2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



4.

The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) 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 internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 control over financial reporting.



Date: August 9, 2005









/s/ Robert J. Salluzzo



———————————————



Robert J. Salluzzo



Chief Operating Officer (Chief Financial Officer)
Filed 9/29/14 Seabloom v. Wendel CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

CYNTHIA SEABLOM,

Cross-complainant and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTINE WENDEL,

Cross-defendant and Appellant.

 B248665

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. KC063482)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dan 

Thomas Oki, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

______

Christine Wendel, in pro. per., for Cross-defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Cross-complainant and Respondent.

______
2

Christine Wendel appealed from the May 7, 2013 order appointing a receiver in a 

cross-action brought against her by Cynthia Seablom and an underlying action between 

CPS Signage & Marketing Corporation, a company affiliated with Wendel, and Seablom. 

Wendel contends that the May 7, 2013 order is void because the trial court did not direct 

the posting of a bond along with the receiver appointment. The court, however, entered a 

subsequent order on May 20, 2013, in which it did direct the posting of a bond as a 

condition of the receiver appointment. Wendel maintains that the court lacked 

jurisdiction to enter the May 20, 2013 order because she already had filed a notice of 

appeal from the May 7, 2013 order. But Wendel did not appeal from the May 20, 2013 

order and accordingly has no basis to challenge it. The May 20, 2013 order thus is intact 

and directs the posting of a bond, which is Wendel’s only complaint about the May 7, 

2013 order. As a result, Wendel’s appeal from the May 7, 2013 order based on the 

failure to direct the posting of a bond is moot.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

We concur:

JOHNSON, J.

MILLER, J.*

 

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant 

to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 17, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2661

Lower Tribunal No. 84-13722

________________



### Danny Costello

, 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, Eric William Hendon

, Judge.

Danny Costello

, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.Affirmed without prejudice to file a legally sufficient Florida Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion.

2
T.L.D., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1315

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**State v. Raleigh* , 686 So.2d 621, 622-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (rejecting argument that section 800.04, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional as applied to defendant because it precluded the defense of consent of minor victim, observing that "[i]t cannot be of any constitutional or logical significance to the child victim if the perpetrator is only seventeen-sixteen ... or ten").

WALLIS, LAMBERT, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule
15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John H.
Homier, President and Chief 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, 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, 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:  August
9, 2010


/s/ John H. HomierJohn
      H. HomierPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Chadwick MCGHEE

15-286

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

January 30, 2019

Charles A. Riddle, III, District Attorney, Twelfth Judicial District Court, Michael F. Kelly, Assistant District Attorney, P. O. Box 1200, Marksville, LA 71351, (318) 253-5815, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Paula C. Marx, Louisiana Appellate Project, P. O. Box 80006, Lafayette, LA 70598-0006, (337) 991-9757, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Chadwick McGhee

Chadwick McGhee, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Main Prison - Walnut 4, Angola, LA 70712, PRO SE

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

GREMILLION, Judge.

*820Defendant, Chadwick McGhee, was originally charged with second degree kidnapping, a violation of La.R.S. 14:44.1, but was found guilty of simple kidnapping, a violation of La.R.S. 14:45. He was adjudicated a third felony offender and sentenced to life imprisonment without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. This court vacated his conviction due to insufficient evidence being presented at trial, which required the vacating of his habitual offender life sentence. *State v. McGhee* , 15-285 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/15), 179 So.3d 739 ; *State v. McGhee* , 15-286 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/15), 178 So.3d 316. The supreme court reversed this court's ruling and remanded the case for consideration of the pretermitted assignments of error. *State v. McGhee* , 15-2140, 15-2141 (La. 6/29/17), 223 So.3d 1136.

On remand, this court affirmed Defendant's conviction and relegated two of Defendant's pro se assignments of error to post-conviction relief. *State v. McGhee* , 15-285 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/4/17), 229 So.3d 581. His habitual offender sentence was affirmed as well. *State v. McGhee* , 15-286 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/4/17), 227 So.3d 863.

Defendant filed a writ application in the supreme court, and on September 21, 2018, the court issued the following ruling:

> Writ granted. Defendant, charged with second degree kidnapping, was found guilty of simple kidnapping. This court determined in *State v. Price* , 17-K-0520 (La. 6/27/18), 250 So.3d 230, that guilty of simple kidnapping is not responsive to a charge of second degree kidnapping. In addition, the return of a nonresponsive verdict constitutes an error patent reviewable even in the absence of a defense objection. La.C.Cr.P. 920 ; *State v. Mayeux* , 498 So.2d 701, 703 (La. 1986) ; *State v. Thibodeaux* , 380 So.2d 59 (La. 1980) ; *State v. Vincent* , 387 So.2d 1097 (La. 1980). Therefore, we grant the application to remand to the court of appeal to reconsider its affirmance of defendant's conviction in light of *State v. Price**.*

*State v. McGhee* , 17-1951 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So.3d 895.

In light of the supreme court's ruling, Defendant's conviction for simple kidnapping has been set aside in 15-285 and remanded to the trial court for the entry of a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on the charge of second degree kidnapping. As a result, Defendant's life sentence is vacated.

**DECREE**

Defendant's life sentence is vacated.

**SENTENCE VACATED** .
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Alistair F. McLaren, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Curon Medical, Inc., on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Curon Medical, Inc.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  |                                                                          
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  March 30, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    ALISTAIR F.
MCLAREN
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | Alistair F. McLaren Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

          - RIN 3145-AA58

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice announcing updated penalty inflation adjustments for civil monetary penalties for 2025.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF or Foundation) is providing notice of its adjusted maximum civil monetary penalties, effective January 15, 2025. These adjustments are required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bijan Gilanshah, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone: 703.292.5055.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On June 27, 2016, NSF published an interim final rule amending its regulations to adjust, for inflation, the maximum civil monetary penalties that may be imposed for violations of the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (ACA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 2401*et seq.,*                     and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), 31 U.S.C. 3801,                     *et seq.*                     These adjustments are required by the 2015 Act. The 2015 Act also requires agencies to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Pursuant to OMB guidance dated December 17, 2024, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2025 is 1.02598. Accordingly, the 2025 annual inflation adjustments for the maximum penalties under the ACA are $21,568 ($21,022 × 1.02598) for violations and $36,498 ($35,574 × 1.02598) for knowing violations of the ACA. Finally, the 2025 annual inflation adjustment for the maximum penalty for violations under PFCRA is $14,308 ($13,946 × 1.02598).                

Suzanne H. Plimpton,

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 2024-31057 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 1 of 23 PageID 76
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 2 of 23 PageID 77
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 3 of 23 PageID 78
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 4 of 23 PageID 79
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 5 of 23 PageID 80
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 6 of 23 PageID 81
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 7 of 23 PageID 82
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 8 of 23 PageID 83
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 9 of 23 PageID 84
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 10 of 23 PageID 85
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 11 of 23 PageID 86
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 12 of 23 PageID 87
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 13 of 23 PageID 88
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 14 of 23 PageID 89
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 15 of 23 PageID 90
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 16 of 23 PageID 91
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 17 of 23 PageID 92
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 18 of 23 PageID 93
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 19 of 23 PageID 94
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 20 of 23 PageID 95
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 21 of 23 PageID 96
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 22 of 23 PageID 97
Case 3:04-cv-01213-G Document 8 Filed 06/28/04 Page 23 of 23 PageID 98
Jody HENDERSON v. STATE

CR-16-0668

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Alexander BURGOS, DOC# T70414, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Affirmed.