alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 The re cord be fore the C ourt reflec ts that the p etitioner did no t timely file the no tice of app eal. 

Pursuant to T.R.A.P. 4(a), however, we have decided to waive the timely filing in this case.

FILED

January 26, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 1998 SESSION

ROBERT J. DYER, JR., )

)

Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9612-CC-00443

)

 vs. ) HENDERSON COUNTY

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 95-066

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s

second petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was originally convicted of firstdegree murder, child kidnapping, forgery, passing forged paper and two counts of

passing bad checks. This Court affirmed the convictions in 1992, and the petitioner

apparently did not seek an appeal to the Supreme Court. The petitioner thereafter filed

his first petition for post-conviction relief in 1992. After the appointment of counsel and

an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief. On appeal, this Court affirmed the

denial of the trial court, Robert June Dyer, Jr. v. State, No. 02C01-9207-CC-00161

(Tenn. Crim. App., April 7, 1993), and the Supreme Court denied permission to appeal

on August 2, 1993.

In the present petition, which was filed on May 23, 1995, the petitioner

alleges that the trial court denied the petitioner a full and fair hearing on his first postconviction petition. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing

stating that the petitioner failed to raise a colorable claim for which post-conviction relief

can be granted.1

T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c) provides that no more than one petition for post-
2

conviction relief may be filed attacking a single judgment, and mandates that the trial

court shall summarily dismiss any second or subsequent petition if a prior petition was

filed and resolved on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the

petitioner previously filed a petition that was resolved on the merits by the trial court and

by this Court on appeal, the petitioner's second petition was properly dismissed. 

Additionally, after reviewing the entire record on appeal, we find that the petitioner’s

claim does not fall within one of the limited circumstances under which a prior petition

may be re-opened. See T.C.A. § 40-30-217. 

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in dismissing the

petitioner’s second petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20,

Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Enter, this the ___ day of January, 1998.

___________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_______________________________

JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

_______________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

_______________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
# C_2021088EN.01003201.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/32

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 22 January 2021 — Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking

(Case T-533/20 R)

(Interim measures - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Reimbursement of sums paid - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 88/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Green Power Technologies, SL (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain) (represented by: A. León González and A. Martínez Solís, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents), ECSEL Joint Undertaking (represented by: A. Salaun, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the operation of debit note No 4440200016 of 17 June 2020 issued by the ECSEL Joint Undertaking for the amount of EUR 200 930,35.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
R.D., Mother of K.W., V.W., and A.W., Children, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3436

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 1, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL JAMES DEELY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-1614 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 9, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Victoria Hatfield, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, CRENSHAW, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
# C_2020068EN.01005501.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/55

---

Action brought on 3 January 2020 – Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen (BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE)

(Case T-2/20)

(2020/C 68/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark BIOPLAST BIOPLASTICS FOR A BETTER LIFE – International registration designating the European Union No 1 202 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 in Case R 418/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | revoke the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant and, in case Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG decides to intervene in the present proccedings, Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, in case Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG decides to intervene in the present proccedings, Bio-tec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 12.2 CERTIFICATION  I, David Pearce, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of MAX Resource Corp. (the Company);  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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Company'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 internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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 (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company'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 Company'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: June 24, 2008/s/Dave PearceDavid Pearce, Chief Financial Officer
Pamdoria ACOFF v. David ACOFF

2160485

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
T.W. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160436

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
W. Clifton Baldwin, Ph.D., ESEP

Strategic Initiatives Division (ANG-B6)

NAS Systems Engineering Integration

Clifton.Baldwin@faa.gov

609-485-4832

Validation & Verification and System of Systems

Federal Aviation

Administration

Federal Aviation

Administration

0

Baldwin, W. C., Felder, W. N., & Sauser, B. J. (2011). Taxonomy of increasingly complex systems. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 9(3), 298–316.

V&V and System of Systems

1

Federal Aviation

Administration

System vs SoS
| Traditional System                                                                         | System of Systems                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Overall system is autonomous but its parts are not                                         | Overall SoS is autonomous as well as its constituent systems                                       |
| Parts of a system collaborate only to the extent they are designed                         | Constituent systems collaborate as needed to help each other reach their goals                     |
| Parts of a system are statically connected                                                 | Constituent systems are dynamically connected, joining and separating from the SoS as needed       |
| Each system is unique                                                                      | SoS is composed of a diversity of constituent systems                                              |
| A system is more than the sum of its parts but functionality can be traced to a component. | An SoS exhibits emergent functionality that cannot be traced to any particular constituent system. |

V&V and System of Systems

2

Federal Aviation

Administration

Some Issues of SoS

Variety of configurations deter standardized processes

Changes in one system have unexpected impact on other systems

Even when individual systems have good requirements, overall SoS functionality is likely to be ambiguous

Documentation may be obsolete since the SoS evolves over time

Testing (as well as V&V) is distributed and federated

Functionality emerges from the connections between constituent systems

V&V and System of Systems

3

Federal Aviation

Administration

Questions

Federal Aviation

Administration

Federal Aviation

Administration

4

# image2.png

# image3.jpeg

# image4.png

# image1.jpeg
IN RE: Appeal of the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 18-PDB-055

NO. 2018-OB-2097

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Leave to appeal denied.
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 14 Filed 06/17/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID 99
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 FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
2nd Quarter 2008 ending February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Dunaway, Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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/ William J. Dunaway       
|William J. Dunaway           
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
|                             
|April 14, 2008               

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.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 15, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00370

- CR

Juan Guzman ZUNIGA JR

. , Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR5239

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The court has considered the appellant ’ s motion for en banc reconsideration , and the

motion is DENIED.

_____________ ____________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of February, 2018

.______________ _____________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

September 24, 2014

No. 10-15-00244-CR

EX PARTE AMBER HOPE HALFORD

From the 87th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-065-CR

**JUDGMENT**

This Court has reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record as relevant to the issues raised in this proceeding and finds that no reversible error is presented.  Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment signed on June 29, 2015 is affirmed.

	A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.

							PER CURIAM

****SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK			

						By: ___________________________

							Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.jpeg

# image3.png
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES A. MACHIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2024-0197

[June 27, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; James W. McCann, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562015CF000434.

James A. Machin, Bristol, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


10-Q




| |                                                                                                                                                                    
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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 Registrant.



| |     |                  
| | --- | -----------------
| | By: | /s/ DENISE BARTON

| |                                               
| | ----------------------------------------------
| |                                               
| | Denise Barton                                 
| | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial        
| | Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of           
| | American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC
Case 3:03-cr-00091-M Document 148 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 450
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1095 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-870, K2025-871.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31677 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT
32.1


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 OmniReliant Holdings Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the
“Report”), I, Paul Morrison, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      November 20, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Paul
      MorrisonPaul
      MorrisonChief
      Executive Officer (Principal
              Executive
      Officer)
Frank DEPINTO, Appellant, v. Robin SHADER and Rachael Fillingame, Appellees.

No. 1D18-5240

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 20, 2019

Frank DePinto, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED as duplicative.

Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31732]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 568 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-989, K2025-988.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31732 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Michael GLIDDEN, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0538

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

Michael Glidden, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Gayla Grant, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Case 3:03-cv-00333-M Document 21 Filed 06/29/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 87