alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:05-cv-00669-B Document 2 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 17
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00669-B Document 2 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 18
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00669-B Document 2 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 19
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00669-B Document 2 Filed 04/26/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 20
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00669-B Document 2 Filed 04/26/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 21
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 25 Filed 08/01/03 Page 1 of 3 PageID 152
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 25 Filed 08/01/03 Page 2 of 3 PageID 153
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 25 Filed 08/01/03 Page 3 of 3 PageID 154
M.R. v. C.A.

2161065

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Houston Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**SOUTHERN HERITAGE BANCSHARES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

***SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Southern Heritage Bank (the "Company")on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, J. Lee Stewart, President 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)        The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ J. Lee Stewart |
|--------------------|

J. Lee Stewart

President

November 10, 2004
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 Alchemy Enterprises, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jonathan R. Read, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Harold W. Sciotto, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/s/ Jonathan R. Read

|   | Jonathan R. Read |  
 

Chief Executive Officer

 

November 13, 2006

 
 

 

/s/ Harold W. Sciotto

 

Harold W. Sciotto

 
 

Chief Financial Officer

 

November 13, 2006

 
 

 

 

 

 

  |
|--------|------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed September 16, 2013.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 000 96
- CR No. 05
- 13
- 00097
- CR
CRYSTAL LUCIA LIVELY, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11
- 45876
- K , F11
- 56676
- K


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O’Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Evans Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal s . Appellant’s counsel has approved
the motion. Th e Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS th at the appeal s be DISMISSED
and this decision be certified below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47
130096F.U05
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00140-CV 

RAY WINN, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

SALLY LAWSON, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Bell County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 74271, Honorable Jeanne Parker, Presiding 

 

July 22, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Ray Winn, appeals from a judgment entered on January 29, 2015. 

The clerk’s record has been filed. On June 12, 2015, the court reporter filed three 

volumes of the reporter’s record. However, the third volume, the exhibits volume, was 

blank. The clerk of this court contacted the court reporter and advised him of the 

situation. The reporter advised he would promptly file the third volume. Because the 

third volume had not been received by the court, we issued a letter on July 1, 2015 

directing the court reporter to file the third volume of the record no later than July 13, 
2

2015. To date, the court reporter has failed to file the third volume of the reporter’s 

record.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the County Court at 

Law No. 1 of Bell County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial 

court shall immediately determine, through hearing or otherwise; 

1) whether a third volume of the reporter’s record exists; 

2) whether all exhibits tendered to and received by the trial 

court in the trial of this cause appear in the reporter’s 

record filed by the reporter with this court; and, if not,

3) the reasonable date by which all evidence and 

proceedings omitted from the current reporter’s record 

can be transcribed into written form and filed with the 

clerk of this court in a manner that does not further delay 

the prosecution of this appeal or have the practical effect 

of depriving the appellant of his right to appeal.

If the trial court convenes a hearing to address this matter, it shall cause the 

hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of 

law addressing the foregoing issues, and 2) cause to be developed a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may 

issue in response to the directives contained in this order. Additionally, the trial court 

shall then cause the supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records to be filed with the 

clerk of this court on or before August 21, 2015. Should further time be needed by the 

trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before August 21, 

2015.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1



                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 Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002, of
ABB Ltd (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jurgen Dormann, Chairman 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:

       (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.


                                                   /s/ Jurgen Dormann
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Jurgen Dormann
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   July 24, 2003

       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to ABB and will be retained by ABB and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 4:04-cv-00891-A Document 5 Filed 01/04/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 11
Case 4:04-cv-00891-A Document 5 Filed 01/04/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 12
Case 4:04-cv-00891-A Document 5 Filed 01/04/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 13
# C_2019065EN.01001701.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Francesca Cadeddu v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro

(Case C-667/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(4) - Concept of beneficiary - Article 80 - Prohibition on making a deduction or withholding sums paid - Other specific charge or charge with equivalent effect - Concept - Study grant co-financed by the European Social Fund - Treatment as income from employment - Retention on account of income tax increased by additional regional and municipal taxes))

(2019/C 65/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesca Cadeddu

Defendants: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale di Cagliari, Regione autonoma della Sardegna, Regione autonoma della Sardegna — Agenzia regionale per il lavoro

Operative part of the judgment

Article 80 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of that regulation, must be interpreted as not precluding national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies personal income tax to the amounts awarded to natural persons in the form of study grants by the public body responsible for implementing the project selected by the managing authority for the operational programme at issue, for the purposes of Article 2(3) of that regulation, and financed through the European structural funds.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---
# C_2017283EN.01002701.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/27

---

Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

(Case C-381/17)

(2017/C 283/37)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Mataija, T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, acting as Agent(s))

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Croatia

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 42(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 60, p. 34), by failing to adopt, by 21 March 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that Directive or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 42(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 60, p. 34), by failing to adopt, by 21 March 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that Directive or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission;

| — | order the Republic of Croatia, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment of EUR 9 865,40 per day, as from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/17/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Croatia, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment of EUR 9 865,40 per day, as from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/17/EU;

| — | order Republic of Croatia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/17/EU within the period laid down in Article 42(1) of that Directive.

---
Case 2:03-cr-00107-J Document 47 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 123
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 15, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean 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 January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 584 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1044, K2025-1043.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00804 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Daniel Antoine ISRAEL, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-596

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Greg Caracci, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Daniel Antoine Israel, Sr., appeals his judgment and sentence for resisting an officer with violence, arguing that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a jury instruction on the lesser *277included offense of resisting an officer without violence. "Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are rarely addressed on direct appeal because they normally turn on questions of fact and both sides are entitled to present relevant evidence at an evidentiary hearing." *Barnett v. State* , 181 So.3d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). In order to prevail on an ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal, an appellant must demonstrate " 'ineffectiveness on the face of the record, indisputable prejudice, and an inconceivable tactical explanation for the conduct.' " *Id.* (citation omitted).

Appellant has failed to establish any of the necessary elements to prevail on his claim. Given the evidence presented at trial of the violence Appellant used in resisting the officers who were attempting to take him into custody, ineffectiveness has not been shown on the face of the record. Nor has indisputable prejudice been established. *See* *Sanders v. State* , 946 So.2d 953, 960 (Fla. 2006) (holding that "the possibility of a jury pardon cannot form the basis for a finding of prejudice" under *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and that "a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request an instruction on a lesser-included offense may be summarily denied); *see also* *Johnson v. State* , 247 So.3d 689, 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (citing *Sanders* for the proposition that as a matter of law, the possibility of a jury pardon cannot form the basis for a finding of prejudice under *Strickland* ). Appellant has also failed to show an inconceivable tactical explanation for why trial counsel did not request the instruction at issue. Instead, Appellant acknowledged in his reply brief that it was plausible that trial counsel hoped for a full exoneration given the fact that Appellant was a wounded veteran.

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and LEWIS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00797]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, 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 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. 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 
January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1238 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1055, K2025-1054.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00797 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 33 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 33

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
Commission relating to ``Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate 
                               Program''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2025

    Mr. Fulcher submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
Commission relating to ``Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate 
                               Program''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 
``Addressing the Homework Gap Through the E-Rate Program'' (89 Fed. 
Reg. 67303 (August 20, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
Case 24-41764-mxm7 Doc 6 Filed 05/23/24 Entered 05/23/24 11:58:47 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Daniel Dror, Chairman of
Hammonds Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification
as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the
following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934: Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007.

The undersigned certifies that the above annual
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and information contained in the above annual report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results of its
operations.

Date: August 13, 2007
Daniel Dror
Chairman/s/ Daniel Dror
# Contact Us

Please contact your local FBI office to submit a tip or report a crime. Use our online form to file electronically or call the appropriate toll-free number.

- Overseas Offices 
- How can screenwriters, authors, and producers seeking authenticity work with the FBI? If you are a writer, author, or producer who wants to feature the FBI, we may be able to work with you to create an accurate portrayal of the Bureau. Project assistance is considered on a case-by-case basis.
- International Offices The FBI has offices around the globe. These offices—called legal attachés or legats—are located in U.S. embassies.
- FBI Headquarters Our Headquarters is located between 9th and 10th Streets in northwest Washington, D.C. The closest Metro subway stops are Federal Triangle on the Orange/Blue lines, Gallery Place/Chinatown and Metro Center on the Red line, and Archives/Navy Memorial on the Yellow and Green lines.
- Field Offices The FBI has 56 field offices (also called divisions) centrally located in major metropolitan areas across the U.S. and Puerto Rico. They are the places where we carry out investigations, assess local and regional crime threats, and work closely with partners on cases and operations.
Gerald Nix TAYLOR v. STATE

CR-16-0210

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.