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

Case No. 2D18-1452

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
1 Filed 9/10/14 P. v. Taylor CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. BRANDON LASHAUN TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant. C075306
(Super. Ct. No. 13F01381)

Appointed counsel for defe ndant Brandon Lashaun Taylor has asked this court to
review the record to determ ine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) We shall affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND Following jury deadlock and declaration of a mist rial, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a conv icted felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd.2 (a)(1)), 1 admitted a prior serious felony stri ke conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and waived all accrued presentence credits. In exchange, two related counts
were dismissed. The parties stipulated that on January 18 , 2013, in Sacramento County, defendant possessed a firearm. He previously had been convicted of a felony violation of section 273.5 in Solano County in August 2011. The strike allegation was based on defendant’s January 2007 Contra Costa County convic tion for violating section 459.
The trial court sentenced defendant to stat e prison for the stipulated term of four years, awarded him 20 days of custody credit and 20 days of conduct credit for the period following the plea, and ordered him to pay a $280 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), a $280 suspended restitution fi ne (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 court facilitie s assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant appealed, but did not request or obtain a certifi cate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)
DISCUSSION Counsel filed an opening brie f that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that
we review the record and de termine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have receive d no communication from defendant. Having
undertaken an examination of the entire r ecord, we find no argua ble error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

BUTZ , J.
Exhibit
32





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 ECOtality, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jonathan R. Read, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Barry S.
Baer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our
knowledge, pursuant to18 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) and 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.








/s/
      Jonathan R. ReadJonathan
      R. ReadChief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      15, 2010/s/
      Barry S. BaerBarry
      S. BaerChief
      Financial OfficerNovember
      15, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, INC.

                            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 Report of LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth C.
Donahey, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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) To the best of my knowledge information contained in the Report
     fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
     results of operations of the Company.

                                        /s/ Kenneth C. Donahey
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Kenneth C. Donahey
                                        Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
                                        President

Date: April 27, 2006
Antonio BASS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2594

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018052EN.01001901.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brindisi (Italy) lodged on 17 November 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Moro

(Case C-646/17)

(2018/C 052/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Brindisi

Defendant in the main proceedings

Defendant in the main proceedings

Gianluca Moro

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 2(1), Article 3(1)(c) and Article 6(1), (2) and (3) of Directive 2012/12/EU, (1) and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well, be interpreted as precluding procedural rules under the criminal law of a Member State on the basis of which the safeguards for the rights of the defence following a change to the charge are guaranteed in terms that differ, both in quality and in quantity, depending on whether that change relates to the factual elements of the charge or to its legal classification, in particular allowing the accused person only in the first case to request the alternative and beneficial procedure of the imposition of a negotiated penalty (the ‘patteggiamento’ procedure)?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

1

---
Susan MARACLE, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB, Appellee.

No. 1D18-280

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### L. J. Montgomery et al., *Appellants,*v. Frances Louise Burrus et al., *Appellees.*

En Banc.

Decision Filed August 1, 1927.

*Zach H. Douglas*and *W. S. Broome,*for Appellants;

*J. G. Adkins*and *Robert E. Davis,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This case should be reversed on authority of the opinion in the case of Thompkins v. Thompkins filed at this term of the Court, and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum, J., did not participate.

Opinion Piled October 27, 1927.

On Rehearing.

On original hearing this case was reversed on authority of Thompkins v. Thompkins, filed at this term of the Court. Motion for rehearing was presented in due time. The case was reversed solely upon the ground that it appeared that the Special Master in Chancery, acting as such, took testimony and made his report before the order of the chancellor making such appointment was recorded in the minutes of the Court or in the Chancery Order Book. The record discloses no other material .error.

*522The attention of the Court has been called to the. provisions of Senate Bill No. 725, Acts of the Legislature of 1927, approved May 28, 1927, Section 1 of which provides as follows:

‘ ‘ That it shall not be necessary to record or enter in the Minutes of the Court or Chancery Order Book any order or decree made in any cause in chancery appointing a general or special master or examiner, and any and all decrees heretofore or hereafter made where such orders have not been entered or recorded shall be as valid and effectual for every purpose as if the same had been recorded. ’ ’

In accordance with the provisions contained in the above quoted section the Per Curiam Order originally entered herein wherein and whereby this case was reversed is now overruled and set aside, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell* Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, B. Steven Springrose, certify that:


1.
        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Biotel Inc.;


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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;


4.
        The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:


(a)
        Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


(b)
        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


(c)
        Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely, to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and


5.
        The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.




Date: February 12, 2007
        By:
        /s/ B. Steven SpringroseChief Executive Officer and President








---
Thomas HANDY, Jr., Sandra Handy and Thomas Handy, III v. OWENS CORNING CORPORATION, et al.

NO. 2019-C-0153

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

*91Denied.
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Scott D. Scheid, the ChiefExecutive Officer and President of the Registrant, certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB****of Scheid Vineyards Inc.;

 

2.                                       Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.                                       Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.                                       The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e))****and we have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosuresand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based upon such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosedin this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                                       TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s Board ofDirectors  (or persons performingequivalent functions):

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| * * | */s/  Scott D. Scheid*                 | * * |
|----------|----------------------------------------|----------|
|     | Scott D. Scheid                        |
|     | Chief Executive Officer  and President |
|     | March 30, 2005                    |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RONALD CHARLES ERVIN )

)

V. ) 3-05-CV-1728-N

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice )

Correctional Institutions Division )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Signed June 16, 2006.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01728-N Document 15 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 76
Terry STURGEON, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3583

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Julius FLEMING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3485

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Proguard Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Allerton Towne, 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; 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/Allerton Towne
-----------------------------
Allerton Towne
Chief Executive Officer

May 30, 2008


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 Proguard Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Norman Becker, 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:
            (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/Norman Becker
-----------------------------
Norman Becker
Chief Financial Officer

May 30, 2008
Exhibit 32 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 this Report of VALLEY HIGH MINING COMPANY (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Michael Coombs, hereby 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(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.  VALLEY HIGH MINING COMPANY    Date:November 3 , 2009By:/s/John Michael CoombsJohn Michael CoombsChairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)  Date:November 3 , 2009By:/s/John Michael CoombsJohn Michael CoombsChief or Principal Officer (CFO), and Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
Gregory LaKeith HUFFMAN v. STATE

CR-16-1068

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, k/d/s Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

NO. 2019-CC-0535

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

Stay recalled. Writ denied as moot.

HUGHES, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.

GENOVESE, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATIONS     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report onForm 10-K/A (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code.     Dr. F. Patrick Smith, the Chief Executive Officer and James E. Condon, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Tekni-Plex, Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the ExchangeAct; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Tekni-Plex, Inc.Date: February 22, 2008       /s/ F. Patrick Smith     Name: Dr. F. Patrick Smith    Chief Executive Officer         /s/ James E. Condon     Name: James E. Condon    Chief Financial Officer
EX PARTE Darryl SWINT

CR-17-0133

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 13, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
#### Harry Delaney, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 14, 1927.

*W. E. Zewadslti, Jr.,*and *Wm. G. Pierce,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred E. Davis,*Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Lajwhan D. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1622

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 2, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Pete JIMENEZ v. STATE

CR-16-0637

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Jay VANN

CR-16-1258

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 11, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.