alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 1 of 11 PageID 337
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 2 of 11 PageID 338
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 3 of 11 PageID 339
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 4 of 11 PageID 340
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 5 of 11 PageID 341
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 6 of 11 PageID 342
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 7 of 11 PageID 343
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 8 of 11 PageID 344
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 9 of 11 PageID 345
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 10 of 11 PageID 346
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 62 Filed 01/12/04 Page 11 of 11 PageID 347
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| a.   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                                   | **HemoBioTech,                Inc.** |                                                                                 |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |                                 |                                                                                 |   |
| Date:                  August 9,                  2007 | By:                                  | /s/ Mark                J. Rosenblum                                            |   |
|                                                   |                                 | Mark                J. Rosenblum                                                     |   |
|                                                   |                                 | Chief Financial                Officer                                          |   |
|                                                   |                                 | (Principal Financial                and                Accounting Officer) |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 70 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 70

    To prohibit the Administrator of General Services from awarding 
  contracts for certain commercial payment systems under the SmartPay 
                    Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Ogles, and Mr. Cline) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the Administrator of General Services from awarding 
  contracts for certain commercial payment systems under the SmartPay 
                    Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No SmartPay for Anti-2A Companies 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL 
              PAYMENT SYSTEMS UNDER THE SMARTPAY PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Administrator of General Services may not 
award a contract under the SmartPay Program for the procurement of a 
commercial payment system that uses a payment processing agency that 
has implemented a merchant category code for gun retailers.
    (b) Applicability.--This Act shall not apply to any contract 
awarded before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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: August 14, 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.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARCEL A. WRIGHT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2864

[ March 17, 2022 ]

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

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Martin S. Fein , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 10

- 7746CF10A

.

Marcel A. Wright, Defuniak Springs, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and G ERB ER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EX PARTE Tyler Len REYNOLDS

1161039 (CR-16-0147)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Sylvester DAVIS, Jr. v. STATE

CR-15-1458

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 7, 2017 Reh. denied August 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 27, 2016

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

________________

No. 3D15-1849

Lower Tribunal No. 11-25865

________________



### The State of Florida

, Appellant,

vs.



### Darrell Smith

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diane V. Ward

, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jonathan Tanoos

, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellant.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Special

Assistant Public Defender, and Oscar A. Quintero

, Certified Legal Intern, for

appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA, and LOGUE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.The State of Florida appeals a decision labeled “Order Declaring Mistrial.”

Given the trial court did not issue its decision until more than a month after the

jury was discharged and the verdict was rendered by being filed in the clerk’s

records, the decision is actually an order granting a new trial. See Keene Bros.

Trucking v. Pennell

, 614 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 1993) (“[W]hen the judge

reserves ruling on a mistrial motion until after the trial, or the motion is not made

until after the discharge of the jury, then the motion must be considered a motion

for new trial.”). Section 924.07(1)(b) of Florida Statutes, therefore, provides the

State authority to appeal. See State ex rel. Sebers v. McNulty

, 326 So. 2d 17, 18

(Fla. 1975) (“Although the motion was denominated a motion for mistrial,

correctly labeled at the time it was made during the course of trial, it was in legal

effect when ruled upon a motion for new trial. As such, the order was

appealable.”). State v. Fudge

, 645 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), which held that

the State cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal on a count of an indictment on

which the jury deadlocked, is inapposite because it did not involve setting aside a

verdict after the verdict was rendered and the jury was discharged.

Turning to the merits, we hold that no abuse of discretion occurred in

granting the new trial. See generally State v. Williams

, 478 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla.

3d DCA 1985) (“It is a well-established rule of law that the trial judge has wide

discretion in the matter of granting or denying motions for new trial and that an

2appellate court will not overturn such a ruling unless some abuse of discretion is

shown.”).

Affirmed.

3
**EXHIBIT 31.2****NATIONAL INTERSTATE CORPORATION****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATIONS**I, Julie A. McGraw, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Interstate Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter 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 and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.November 7, 2006     BY: /s/ Julie A. McGraw Julie A. McGraw
STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone FOLSE

NO. 2018-K-1740

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
No. 30,485.

#### William T. Fortune, as Director, and Ed Sullivan, as Treasurer, of Rural High School District No. 1 in Pottawatomie County, *Appellees,*v. Kate E. Hooven, as County Superintendent, etc., *Appellant.*

(2 P. 2d 142.)

Opinion filed August 31, 1931.

*D. C. Hill,*of Westmoreland, *C. A. Leinbach,*of Onaga, *A. E.-Crane, B. F. Messick, A. Hairy Crane,*all of Topeka, and *W. F. Challis,*of Wamego, for the appellant.

*H. E. Harlan, A. M. Johnston,*both of Manhattan, *E. C. Broohens, E. S. Francis, H. L. Hart,*all of Westmoreland, and *M. A. Bender,*of Holton, for the appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

In this action the plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin the defendant from declaring the old districts disorganized. The elections for the consolidation of two rural high-school districts were held as provided by chapter 275 of the Laws of 1931, and the injunction is asked for on the ground that illegal votes were cast at the election. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, and from this order the defendant appeals.

This court has repeatedly held that private persons have no standing to question the legality of proceedings to organize a rural high-school district, nor to enjoin public officers from acting on the result of elections establishing rural high-school districts. *(Bealmear v. Hildebrand,*107 Kan. 419, 191 Pac. 263; *Elting v. Clouston,*114 Kan. 85, 217 Pac. 295; *School District No. 38 v. Rural High School District,*116 Kan. 40, 225 Pac. 732; *Scamahorn v. Perry,*132 Kan. 679, 296 Pac. 347.)

The judgment of the district court is reversed and it is directed to set aside the temporary injunction and dismiss the action.

Burch, Dawson and Hutchison, JJ., not participating.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Christopher Clemente, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Joseph M. Squeri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to our best knowledge and
belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: November 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Christopher Clemente            
|                        |  | Christopher Clemente                
|                        |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|Date: November 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Joseph M. Squeri                
|                        |  | Joseph M. Squeri                    
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer             

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 3:05-cr-00108-M Document 107 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 209
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 DYNAMIC ALERT LIMITED (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Audrey Reich, 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:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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







Date: December 22, 2006





By: /s/ Audrey Reich



Audrey Reich

Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer
Eric Eugene JOHNSON v. CITY OF FAIRHOPE

CR-15-0853

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018142EN.01001902.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/19

---

Appeal brought on 5 September 2017 by Isabel Martín Osete against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2017 in Case T-427/16: Martín Osete / EUIPO

(Case C-529/17 P)

(2018/C 142/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Isabel Martín Osete (represented by: V. Wellens, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 22 February 2018 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ISMAEL TORRES FIGUEROA, §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-074-Y

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, §

T.D.C.J., Correctional § 

Institutions Division, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Ismael Torres Figueroa 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of

the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

May 5, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on May 26, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Figueroa’s

objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus should be denied, for the reasons stated in the

magistrate judge's findings and conclusions. 

 It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby,

ADOPTED.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00074-Y Document 10 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 44
2

It is further ORDERED that Figueroa’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus be, and is hereby, DENIED.

SIGNED June 1, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00074-Y Document 10 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 45
### 1 

# PD

- 0281

- 15

Ct. of Appeals No

. 08- 13

- 00119

- CR

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Petitioner

v.

JEFFREY GENDRON

, Respondent

N OTICE OF DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS :

Respondent, Jeffrey Gendron , files this notice of designation of

counsel pursuant to Rule 6 .1 (b ) of the Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure.

Timothy A. Hootman is hereby designated as counsel for respondent in the

Court of Criminal Appeals

.

Respect fully submitted,

/s/Timothy A. Hootman

T imothy A. Hootman

SBN 09965450

2402 Pease St

Houston, TX 770 03

713 .247. 9548

713.583.9523 (f )

E mail: thootman2000@yahoo.c om

A

TTORNEY FOR R ESPONDENT

, J EFFREY

G ENDRON PD-0281-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/20/2015 8:54:42 PM

Accepted 3/25/2015 10:48:08 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

### 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this day, the above document was served

electronically through the electronic filing manager or email on the parties

below.

Lisa C. McMinn

State Prosecuting Attorney

J ohn R. Messinger

Assistant State Prosecuting Attorney

P.O. Box 13046

Austin, TX 78711

John.Messinger@SPA.Texas.gov

Brock Benjamin

747 E. San Antonio Ave., Ste. 203

El Paso, TX 79901

brock.benjamin@gmail.com

Joe Monsivais

Assistant District Attorney

500 E. San Antonio, Rm 201

El Paso, TX 79901

JoMonsivais@epcounty.com

Dated: March 20, 2015

/s/Timothy A. Hootman

T imothy A. Hootman
# C_2017402EN.01003601.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/36

---

Order of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Alex v Commission

(Case T-841/16) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - State aid - Financing of an urban development project - Complaint - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision of the Commission finding no State aid - Action challenging the merits of the Commission’s decision - No individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 402/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alex SCI (Bayonne, France) (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K Herrmann and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting a complaint relating to State aid allegedly unlawfully granted by the French Republic to the Côte-Basque-Adour Conurbation Authority (SA.44409).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the French Republic’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the French Republic’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | Alex SCI shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Alex SCI shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The French Republic shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The French Republic shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

1

---
Jason MEMMER, Appellant, v. Pam STEWART, as Commissioner of Education, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2946

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Henry BYRD v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-0998

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.