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

Case No. 2D18-4143

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 12, 2019

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Petitioner.

Julianne M. Holt, Public Defender, Tampa, for Respondent.

KELLY, Judge.

The State petitions for a writ of certiorari to review an order granting Kenyatta Bethley's motion in limine to exclude from his trial statistical testimony regarding DNA evidence. We grant the petition and quash the order.

An expert need not be a statistician to testify regarding the statistical significance of a DNA match. *Darling v. State*, 808 So.2d 145, 158 (Fla. 2002). However, the expert must "demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of the database grounded in the study of authoritative sources." *Id.* (quoting *Murray v. State*, 692 So.2d 157, 164 (Fla. 1997) ); *see also* *Butler v. State*, 842 So.2d 817, 828 (Fla. 2003) ("[A] sufficient knowledge of the authorities pertinent to the database is an adequate basis on which to render an opinion."). We conclude the State's expert satisfied this requirement and therefore, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in excluding her testimony. *See* *State v. Pettis*, 520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla. 1988) (stating that certiorari is the appropriate remedy to review nonfinal pretrial orders in criminal cases which negatively affect the State's ability to prosecute).

Petition granted.

SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
# C_2023063EN.01003601.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 — Green Power Technologies v Commission

(Case T-753/20) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement - Eligible costs - OLAF report finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible - Repayment of sums paid - Burden of proof - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Unjust enrichment - Action for annulment - OLAF report - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 63/44)

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: B. Araujo Arce and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz and Á. Ballesteros Panizo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 9 July 2018 reference number B.4(2017)4393 and, secondly, on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, that it be held (i) that the amounts advanced by the European Commission under grant contract No 2567509, concluded under the Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), with a view to financing several related projects, including, in particular, the Powair project, relating to the development of ‘Zinc-air flow batteries for electrical power distribution networks’, the recovery of which was requested by the issue of debit note No 3242010798, related to eligible costs and (ii) that the amounts claimed by the Commission by the issue of debit note No 3242010800, relating to penalties for late payment, were not repayable.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Green Power Technologies, SL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Green Power Technologies, SL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

AARON CHARLES MARTIN,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 220 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of February, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Jerry DONOGHUE and Kellie Donoghue v. PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL, an Alabama nonprofit corp.

1160307

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
C.C. and K.E.C. v. Chilton County DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160990

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Chilton Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.
Rufus MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-0023

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Edwin SMITH

NO. 2019-KH-0237

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 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 that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00402

- CV

In re Verlee Albert Jr. §

§

§

§

§ Original Proceeding

From the 211th District Court

o f Dento n County (F

- 2007

- 0838

- C )

January 7 , 2014

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

This court conditionally grants mandamus relief in part. We direct the trial

court to rule, whether favorably or unfavorably to Relator, on Relator’s request for

a free trial record and al ternative request for the loan of the trial record. O nly if

the trial court fails promptly to rule will the writ of mandamus issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**PURSUANTTO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

      Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C. 350), the undersigned, Donald Wells, Chief Financial Officer of JMGExploration, Inc. (the “Company”) has executed this certification in connectionwith the  filing  with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2007 (the “Report”).

 

      The undersigned certifiesthat:  (1) the Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany.

 

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this certification as of the 8th day of August 2007.

 

 
|        | JMG EXPLORATION, INC.          |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   |                           |   |
|   | /s/ Donald Wells               |   |
|   | Name: Donald Wells             |   |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of  Golden  State  Petroleum  Transport
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "SEC") on or about the
date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Tor Olav  Troim,  President  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  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 has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: March 31, 2005


/s/ Tor Olav Troim
-----------------------
Tor Olav Troim
President

02089.0007 #560011
SARABAY MARINE, INC., a Florida Corporation, and PND, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellants, v. Robert GREENE, Esq., an individual, and Greene, Hamrick, Perrey, Quinlan & Schermer, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-687

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; the Road 
to Prevention of Stillbirth--Clinical Research Center (UG1).
    Date: March 24, 2025.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child 
Health and Human Development, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 
20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting:
    Contact Person: Luis E. Dettin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch, 
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development, NIH 6710B, Rockledge Drive, Rm. 2131B Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 827-8231, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 8, 2025.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst,Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-00607 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
# C_2021182EN.01005401.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/54

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2021 — Techniplan v Commission

(Case T-426/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - EDF - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 182/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Techniplan Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Bonavita, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking, seemingly, the annulment of the Commission’s email of 28 May 2020 and accompanying debit note and, second, application seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Techniplan Srl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Techniplan Srl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
#### Charles A. Sigmond, Complainant, v. Louis Burrows, Barney Hultz and Max Levith, *Defendants.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 7, 1927.

*Franks & Franks*and *B. G. Adcock,*for Appellant;

*Kearley, Fisher, VanMetre-*and *Chapman*and *HorbUt & Wasserman*(of Boston, Mass.), for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the order of the chancellor sustaining a demurrer to an original bill of ocmplaint and thereafter sustaining the demurrer to an amended bill of complaint and dismissing the bill of complaint. The same should be sustained and affirmed on authority of the opinion in the case of Massengale v. O’Hara, 63 Fla. 521, 58 Sou. 42, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**NATIONAL INTERSTATE CORPORATION**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Gary N. Monda, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of National InterstateCorporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the quarterly report on Form10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: May 12, 2005   /s/ Gary N. Monda      Name: Gary N. Monda  Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
*A signed original of this written statement will be retained by the Registrant and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
Willie LONDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-857

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6150

In Re: KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-47; CA-00-647)

Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Spotts, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks a writ of mandamus to compel

the district court to apply United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),

retroactively to his case. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist.

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only

when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be

granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may

not be used as a substitute for appeal. The party seeking mandamus

relief bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other

adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his

entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem.

Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Spotts fails to

make the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and deny Spotts’ petition for writ of mandamus.

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. 

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of BRAZIL GOLD CORP. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Price, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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: May 14, 2014By:/s/ Steven PriceName:Steven PriceTitle:Chief Executive Officer
# C_2017112EN.01003001.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Varna (Bulgaria), lodged on 7 February 2017 — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva

(Case C-67/17)

(2017/C 112/39)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Rayonen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Todor Iliev

Applicant:

Defendant: Blagovesta Ilieva

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does an action between former spouses on the division of movable property acquired during the marriage as joint property of the spouses constitute a legal dispute relating to rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does an action between former spouses on the division of movable property acquired during the marriage as joint property of the spouses constitute a legal dispute relating to rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1)?

1

| 2. | Is a dispute concerning the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage, but registered with the competent national authorities only in the name of one of the spouses, excluded from its scope under Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a dispute concerning the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage, but registered with the competent national authorities only in the name of one of the spouses, excluded from its scope under Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001?

| 3. | Which court has jurisdiction over a dispute between former spouses on the ownership of immovable property acquired during their civil marriage, when the spouses are nationals of an EU Member State, but it has been established in the proceedings that at the time of entering the marriage, acquisition of the property, ending the marriage and the application for division of the property after the marriage had ended, they had their place of residence in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Which court has jurisdiction over a dispute between former spouses on the ownership of immovable property acquired during their civil marriage, when the spouses are nationals of an EU Member State, but it has been established in the proceedings that at the time of entering the marriage, acquisition of the property, ending the marriage and the application for division of the property after the marriage had ended, they had their place of residence in another Member State?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

---
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 261 

To amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an 

authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national 

marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by 

a Federal or State agency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia (for himself, Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mrs. CAMMACK, 

Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia, Mr. FRY, and Mr. PFLUGER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit 

requiring an authorization for the installation, continued 

presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of 

undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized 

by a Federal or State agency. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Undersea Cable Pro5 tection Act of 2025’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 261 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING AUTHORIZATIONS 

2 FOR UNDERSEA FIBER OPTIC CABLES PRE3 VIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL OR 

4 STATE AGENCIES. 

5 The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 

6 1431 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 310 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 310A. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING AUTHORIZA9 TIONS FOR UNDERSEA FIBER OPTIC CABLES 

10 PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL OR 

11 STATE AGENCIES. 

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro13 vision of this Act, the Secretary may not prohibit or re14 quire any authorization for the installation, continued 

15 presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of 

16 undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary 

17 if a license, lease, or permit has been issued by a Federal 

18 or State agency authorizing such installation, continued 

19 presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery. 

20 ‘‘(b) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.—The Secretary 

21 may direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin22 istration to engage in interagency cooperation under sec23 tion 304(d) in any Federal agency action described in that 

24 section and involving the installation, continued presence, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 261 IH

1 operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea 

2 fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS