alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Tyrone TERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1011

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nicole J. Martingano, Assistant Attorney General, Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BETTY J. CAMPBELL, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2706-D

VS. §

 §

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, §

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL §

SECURITY, §

 §

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Betty J. Campbell (“Campbell”) brings this action

under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for

judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability

insurance benefits under title II of the Act. In an August 9, 2005

order, the court raised sua sponte the question whether the

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) applied an incorrect legal

standard at the second step of the five-step sequential process.

The court permitted the Commissioner to file a supplemental

memorandum demonstrating either that the ALJ did not apply the

wrong standard or that any resulting error is harmless. 

In her supplemental memorandum, the Commissioner concedes that

the ALJ applied an incorrect standard to determine that Campbell’s

impairment was not severe, but she argues that there is substantial

evidence in the record from which the ALJ could have concluded that

Campbell’s impairment was not severe according to the standard

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02706-D Document 21 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 71
- 2 -

required by Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1985). The

court cannot determine from its review of the record and of the

ALJ’s decision, however, that the ALJ would have reached the same

result had he applied the proper standard. The Commissioner has

therefore failed to demonstrate that the ALJ’s error is harmless.

See Frank v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 618, 622 (5th Cir. 2003) (per

curiam) (holding that error was harmless where ALJ would have

reached same conclusion in absence of error). 

On remand the Commissioner is free to consider the arguments

Campbell advances in her motion for summary judgment. The court

intimates no view concerning the merits of these arguments.

Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is VACATED and this

matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

August 17, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02706-D Document 21 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 72
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.3

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Precision Auto Care, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge on the date hereof:

     (a)  the Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934 of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2002
          filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission
          (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

     Signature                                 Title                 Date
                                    -----------------------   ------------------

        /s/ Louis M. Brown, Jr.     Chief Executive Officer    October 15, 2002
     -----------------------------
            Louis M. Brown, Jr.

        /s/ Robert R. Falconi       Chief Financial Officer    October 15, 2002
     -----------------------------
            Robert R. Falconi
Willie James MCCANTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-962

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michael John HERREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2026

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 23, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Exantus-Barr v. State*, 193 So.3d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

ORFINGER, HARRIS, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 annual report on Form 10-K of FormFactor, Inc., a Delaware corporation, for the period
ended December 26, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of the undersigned officers of FormFactor, Inc. certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge:



Date: February 24, 2010

/s/ MARIO RUSCEV Dr. Mario Ruscev Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Director)Date: February 24, 2010

/s/ JEAN B. VERNET Jean B. Vernet Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
David O. JACOBSON v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

NO. 2018-CI-0521

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 2019

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Data is for Consolidated Historical Financial Statement as of December 31, 1998;
see Footnote 1. Basis of Presentation.<F1>
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          26,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,443
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,397
<PP&E>                                          22,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,669
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,129
<SALES>                                        129,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,855
<CGS>                                           70,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,178
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,729
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,419
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,419
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
<FN>
<F1>Statements of Proforma Combined Income Footnotes 1 and 4; Basis of 
    Presentation.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Charles DYE a/k/a Charles Edward Dye, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2017-CP-00799-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

July 17, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHARLES DYE (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: KAYLYN HAVRILLA MCCLINTON, JACKSON

BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, JJ.

WILSON, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. A Forrest County grand jury indicted Charles Dye for sexual battery under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-95(1)(d) (Rev. 2006). The indictment alleged that

> in Forrest County, between on or about May 1, 2013, and August 11, 2013, [Dye] did willfully, purposely, unlawfully, and feloniously commit Sexual Battery upon [H.B.], a child who was at the time in question under the age of 14 years, and [Dye] was at the time 24 months older than [H.B.], by engaging in the act of sexual penetration, to wit vaginal sexual intercourse ....

Dye later pled guilty, and the circuit court accepted his plea and sentenced him to serve thirty years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, with fifteen years suspended, fifteen years to serve, and five years of post-release supervision.

¶ 2. Four months after he pled guilty, Dye filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). His motion asserted one claim: that his indictment was "fatally defective for failing to charge and contain all the essential elements of sexual battery pursuant to [ section] 97-3-95(1)(d)." Specifically, Dye claimed that the indictment was defective because it did not allege the victim's specific age or birth date or Dye's specific age or birth date. The circuit court summarily dismissed Dye's motion as without merit. Dye then appealed.

¶ 3. "The rule in this state is that an indictment which states the statutory language is generally sufficient to inform the accused of the charge against him." *State v. Hawkins* , 145 So.3d 636, 639-40 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2014) (quoting *King v. State* , 580 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Miss. 1991) ). "The [Supreme] Court has held repeatedly that, so long as a fair reading of the indictment, taken as a whole, clearly describes the nature and cause of the charge against the accused, the indictment is legally sufficient." *Id.* at 640 (¶ 9) (quotation marks, *19alterations omitted). Here, Dye's indictment specifically cited the statute under which he was indicted, Mississippi Code Annotated § 97-3-95(1)(d), and tracked the language of the statute. Consistent with the statute, the indictment alleged that the victim was under the age of fourteen and that Dye was at least twenty-four months older than her at the time of the offense.1 There is no requirement that an indictment provide the victim's or defendant's exact age or birth date. Dye's indictment sufficiently informed him of the nature of the charge, and the circuit court correctly dismissed his PCR motion as without merit.

¶ 4. **AFFIRMED.**

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR, GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

1

Dye was twenty-five years old at the time of the offense.
Gerald Rodney WHITE and Charlotte White v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS DEVELOPMENT, et al.

NO. 2018-OC-0056

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

*712Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, § 5(a).
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




Stockholders and Board of Directors
Jupiter Media Metrix, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Jupiter Media
Metrix, Inc. (formerly Media Metrix, Inc.) and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2000. Our audits also included the financial statement
schedule listed in the Index at Item 14(a). These financial statements and
schedule are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our
audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Jupiter
Media Metrix, Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the
consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2000, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States. Also, in our opinion, the
related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.


                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                          Ernst & Young LLP




New York, New York
February 7, 2001, except for Note 16 as to which
the date is February 26, 2002
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 957 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that certain medical 

facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs have physical locations 

for the disposal of controlled substances medications. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 24, 2021 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that 

certain medical facilities of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs have physical locations for the disposal of controlled substances medications. 

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 ‘‘Dispose Unused Medi5 cations and Prescription Opioids Act’’ or the ‘‘DUMP 

6 Opioids Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 957 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL FACILITIES TO 

3 HAVE PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR THE DIS4 POSAL OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES MEDI5 CATIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 shall ensure that each covered Department medical facility 

8 has a physical location where any individual may dispose 

9 of controlled substances medications. 

10 (b) COVERED DEPARTMENT MEDICAL FACILITY DE11 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered Department 

12 medical facility’’ means a medical facility of the Depart13 ment of Veterans Affairs with an onsite pharmacy or a 

14 physical location dedicated for law enforcement purposes. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

16 on January 1, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ASSUMPTION PARISH POLICE JURY, et al. v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, et al.

State of Louisiana v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al.

Assumption Parish Sheriff Mike Haguespack v. Texas Brine Company, LLC

NO. 2018-CC-0311

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Stay denied. Writ denied.
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of NetSol Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Tina Gilger,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





Date:
      November 26, 2008


/s/ Tina
              GilgerTina
              Gilger, Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Dated: May 15, 2006 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§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. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

[BANK OF AMERICA LOGO]

                        AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO LOAN AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 7 (the "Amendment") dated as of June 25, 2003, is
between Bank of America, N.A. (the "Bank") and Cohu, Inc. (the "Borrower").

                                    RECITALS

         A. The Bank and the Borrower entered into a certain Business Loan
Agreement dated as of June 15, 1998 (together with any previous amendments, the
"Agreement").

         B. The Bank and the Borrower desire to amend the Agreement.

                                    AGREEMENT

         1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this
Amendment shall have the meaning given to them in the Agreement.

         2. Amendments. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         2.1      In Paragraph 1.2 of the Agreement, the date "July 1, 2004" is
substituted for the date "July 1, 2003.

         3. Representations and Warranties. When the Borrower signs this
Amendment, the Borrower represents and warrants to the Bank that: (a) there is
no event which is, or with notice or lapse of time or both would be, a default
under the Agreement except those events, if any, that have been disclosed in
writing to the Bank or waived in writing by the Bank, (b) the representations
and warranties in the Agreement are true as of the date of this Amendment as if
made on the date of this Amendment, (c) this Amendment does not conflict with
any law, agreement, or obligation by which the Borrower is bound, and (d) this
Amendment is within the Borrower's powers, has been duly authorized, and does
not conflict with any of the Borrower's organizational papers.

         4. Effect of Amendment. Except as provided in this Amendment, all of
the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each
of which when so executed shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts
together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

         6. FINAL AGREEMENT. THIS WRITTEN AMENDMENT REPRESENTS THE FINAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN AND AMONG THE PARTIES HERETO AND MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY
EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN OR
AMONG THE PARTIES. THERE ARE NO UNWRITTEN ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN OR AMONG THE
PARTIES.

This Amendment is executed as of the date stated at the beginning of this
Amendment.

Borrower:                              Bank:

Cohu, Inc.                             Bank of America, N.A.

By /s/ John H. Allen                   By /s/ Gordon W. Wiens
-----------------------------------    -----------------------------------------
   John H. Allen, Vice/President &        Gordon W. Wiens, Senior Vice President
   Chief Financial Officer
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 16, 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 January 7, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1255 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1073, K2025-1072.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00881 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P