alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony FARRIER

NO. 2018-KH-1944

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 28, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing *425that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20817

Summary Calendar

Ashok Sheth, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BW/IP International, Inc., John Donatiello, Don Segers, Dan Sheehy, and Otto Rudinger, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas

(H-93-CV-4114)

October 18, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ashok Sheth appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his

Title VII and ADEA claims. We will uphold a dismissal with

prejudice where there is a clear record of delay by the plaintiff

and lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.

Price v. McGlathery

, 792 F.2d 472, 474 (5th Cir. 1986). The lower

court in this case tried to compel Sheth to attend depositions

before finding that Sheth’s delay could only be remedied by2

dismissal . The district court’s ruling is therefore within its

discretion and the judgment is AFFIRMED.
All Rights Reserved • Federal Aviation Administration

FAA IT Training Services - 158_17_007 Revision May 1, 2017 Page 1

Getting Started

Users must have completed the first time registration before using this Job Aid. For help with the External MyAccess 

procedure or first time registration please see the corresponding Job Aids.

Submitting an PDR Application Request

Complete the following steps to submit a PRD 

External application registration request.

1) From your web browser please type https://www.

prd.faa.gov/

2) Select “Sign into Pilot Record Database”.

3) The MyAccess page will appear.

a. For FAA Employees that have a PIV card select “Agree 

& Continue” on the right side of the page. 

b. For external users, enter the email address that you gave 

when setting up your External MyAccess then select 

“Agree and Continue” on the left side of the page.

4) The second FAA MyAccess Sign In screen is displayed. Enter your registered PIN 

number and answer one of your security questions. Select “Sign in”.

5) The System Use Notice screen will appear. Select “Accept” and continue. The PRD 

screen will appear.

Getting Started .................................................................................................................................................................1

Submitting an PDR Application Request.........................................................................................................................1

Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................1

PRD Pilot User Log On

The purpose of this Job Aid is to describe the steps needed for a pilot to log into the Pilot Record Database 

(PRD).

Federal Aviation 

Administration

Table of Contents
All Rights Reserved • Federal Aviation Administration

FAA IT Training Services - xxxx_xx Page 2

Resources 

For technical assistance, please contact:
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a)/15d-14(a)**

 

I, Paul G. Anderson, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FCStone Group, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined 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 registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: July 15, 2005
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 China Sun Group High-Tech Co. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Ming Fen Liu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 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.





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





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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 of any general incorporation language in such
filing.




Date:   April
      14, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/ Ming
      Fen LiuMing
      Fen LiuChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 46 Filed 05/19/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID 256
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 46 Filed 05/19/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID 257
# C_2021490EN.01004001.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — NZ v Commission

(Case T-668/20) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 - Decision not to include the applicant's name on the competition reserve list - Obligation to state reasons - Secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board - Broad discretionary power of the selection board - Failure to communicate the intermediate marks and the weighting of the components of the oral test)

(2021/C 490/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NZ (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the selection board of 29 April 2020, taken after a review, not to include the applicant's name on the reserve list for internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 29 April 2020, by which the selection board for internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 refused, after a review, to include the name of NZ on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 10, in the field of ‘Coordination, communication, human resources and budgetary management, audit’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 29 April 2020, by which the selection board for internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 refused, after a review, to include the name of NZ on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators at grade AD 10, in the field of ‘Coordination, communication, human resources and budgetary management, audit’;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---
Steven L. BALDWIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3943

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 14, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 7, 2019

Steven L. Baldwin, pro se, Petitioner.

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

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

Rowe, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



STATEMENT PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



With reference to the Quarterly Report of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Fyfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DAVID FYFE         
|DAVID FYFE             
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 13, 2005
# C_2022024EN.01002702.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Eternit v EUIPO — Eternit Österreich (Building panel)

(Case T-193/20) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a building panel - Earlier design representing a panel for a noise-reduction wall - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Sector concerned - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Relevance of goods actually marketed - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2022/C 24/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eternit (Kapelle-op-den-Bos, Belgium) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eternit Österreich GmbH (Vöcklabruck, Austria) (represented by: M. Prohaska-Marchried, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 (Case R 1661/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Eternit Österreich and Eternit.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eternit to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Eternit Österreich GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eternit to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Eternit Österreich GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0393

STATE OF MONTANA, )

)

Plaintiff and Appellee, ) 

) ORDER GRANTING 

 v. ) APPELLANT SECOND

) EXTENSION FOR

JUSTIN DEAN KALINA, ) APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

)

 Defendant and Appellant. )

Upon review of Defendant’s unopposed motion for a second extension of time to file the 

Opening Brief in this matter and good cause therefrom;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opening Brief shall be filed on or before November 

13, 2023. 

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW. 

cc: Attorney General 

 Jami Rebsom

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 12 2023

10/12/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0393
# C_2021019EN.01007203.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/72

---

Order of the General Court of 27 October 2020 — CH and CN v Parliament

(Case T-490/20) (1)

(2021/C 19/81)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 269 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 269

 Designating July 22, 2023, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2023

 Mr. Barrasso (for himself, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Rounds, 
Mr. Risch, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Thune, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Cornyn) submitted 
 the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating July 22, 2023, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy''.

Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as ``cowboys'', helped to establish 
        the American West;
Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a 
        strong work ethic, and patriotism;
Whereas the cowboy spirit exemplifies strength of character, sound family 
        values, and good common sense;
Whereas the cowboy archetype transcends ethnicity, gender, geographic 
        boundaries, and political affiliations;
Whereas the cowboy, who lives off the land and works to protect and enhance the 
        environment, is an excellent steward of the land and its creatures;
Whereas cowboy traditions have been a part of American culture for generations;
Whereas the cowboy continues to be an important part of the economy through the 
        work of many thousands of ranchers across the United States who 
        contribute to the economic well-being of every State;
Whereas millions of fans watch professional and working ranch rodeo events 
        annually, making rodeo one of the most-watched sports in the United 
        States;
Whereas membership and participation in rodeo and other organizations that 
        promote and encompass the livelihood of cowboys span every generation 
        and transcend race and gender;
Whereas the cowboy is a central figure in literature, film, and music and 
        occupies a central place in the public imagination;
Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; and
Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys and cowgirls to their 
        communities should be recognized and encouraged: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates July 22, 2023, as ``National Day of the 
        American Cowboy''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
EX PARTE Jabarie ARNOLD

CR-16-0730

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 15, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-21335

Summary Calendar

 

DONALD W. GRANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DR. EDGER HULIPAS; DR. K. KYKENDALE; DR. T. REVELL; TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-2135

 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald W. Grant, Texas prisoner # 397067, appeals from an

order granting summary judgment for the defendants. Grant sued

three prison doctors who treated him after he sustained a spider

bite in June 1995. Grant alleged deliberate indifference and

inadequate medical care. After reviewing Grant’s medical records

and copies of administrative grievances, the district court held
1 See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876

(5th Cir. 2000); Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d

1257, 1266-67 (5th Cir. 1991).

2

that the claims against Dr. Kuykendall were barred by the two-year

statute of limitations and the claims against Dr. Revell were

subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The district court also held

that the medical records showed that Grant received extensive

treatment and that the defendants were not deliberately

indifferent.

In its order granting the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, the district court also denied Grant’s motion for a

“discovery period,” concluding that the defendants had already

provided Grant with evidence relating to his complaint, including

medical records, and that the issues in the case were sufficiently

clear so as not to require additional discovery. Grant argues that

the district court erred by granting summary judgment without

providing him the additional discovery period. We conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion.1

AFFIRMED.
Dexter FARMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of United Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 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 17, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Ronald WilenRonald WilenChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated September 22, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-212721) of Smart Trust
265, comprising Smart Trust, New York Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 13.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


September 22, 2016
### NUMBER 13 - 20 - 00 517 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ EX PARTE V.G.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 2 14th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
This cause is before the Court on its own motion . On December 23, 2020, the Court abated this matter and remanded to the trial court for entry of a certification of defendant’s right to appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 25.2(d). On January 14, 2021, the Court received findings from the trial court indicat ing appellant does not have the right to appeal. On October 21, 2020, appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in
cause number 07

- CR

- 3875

- F in the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas , seeking relief from a 2008 conviction for capital murder . On November 12, 2020, the trial court denied the relief sought in the application. On November 13, 2020, the Court of2

Criminal Appea ls received an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief in the
same trial court cause number

. On November 30, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal in this Court wherein he attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial habeas corpus relief

. J urisdiction to grant post

- conviction habeas corpus relief in felony cases rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (Vernon Supp. 2011); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re McAfee , 53 S.W .3d 715, 717

– 18 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter

. Accordingly, we reinstate the cause and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

.
GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed on the 4th day of February , 202 1

.
Case 3:03-cv-00684-N Document 169 Filed 03/31/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1268
Case 3:03-cv-00684-N Document 169 Filed 03/31/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1269
Eddie CARGILE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2433

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.