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

Case No. 5D18-2497

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.2

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
         ---------------------------------------------------------------

     I, David F. Knapfel, hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10Q-SB of Sockeye
Seafood Group, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, the quarterly 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 the quarterly report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows as of, and for, the periods presented in the quarterly report.

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
    material information relating to Sockeye Seafood Group, Inc.,
    including subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within
    those entities, particularly during the period in which this
    quarterly report is being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
    filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
    our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our
    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
    and have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware
    of any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

b)  that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
    our management or other employees who have a significant role in
    our internal controls; and

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation.

                                   Sockeye Seafood Group, Inc., Registrant

Dated: May 11, 2006               /s/ David F. Knapfel
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                   By: David F. Knapfel, Chief Financial
                                   Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3106

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kendal Duane Letcher

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

Submitted: April 7, 2023

Filed: April 12, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kendal Letcher appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he

pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense. His counsel has moved for leave to

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences

are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives

significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment

in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the

Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir.

2013).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Clay SLATE v. Dawn Kelly STRONG

2160805

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Steven John PORKOLAB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cr-00075-N Document 486 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1109
Jack Alexander MASON v. Keith COOLEY, Warden

No. 2018-KP-0110

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. CHARLES**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The court of appeal's ruling is reversed to the extent it ordered an evidentiary hearing on respondent's claims regarding newly discovered evidence of intellectual disability and his associated claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court correctly denied relief based on the application, answer, and supporting documents. *See* La.C.Cr.P. art. 929(A) ("If the court determines that the factual and legal issues can be resolved based upon the application and answer, and supporting documents, including relevant transcripts, depositions, and other reliable documents submitted by either party or available to the court, the court may grant or deny relief without further proceedings."); *see also**State ex rel. Tassin v. Whitley* , 602 So.2d 721, 722-723 (La. 1992).
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 56 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 56

 To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 with respect to the Acer access 
            and development program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 9, 2025

   Mr. Welch (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. King) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 with respect to the Acer access 
            and development 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 ``Supporting All Producers Act'' or 
the ``SAP Act''.

SEC. 2. ACER ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

    Section 12306 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 1632c) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
        (f) and (g), respectively;
            (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
    ``(e) Consultations.--
            ``(1) In general.--Beginning with the first request for 
        applications under this section that occurs at least 1 year 
        after the date of the enactment of the SAP Act, not later than 
        6 months before such a request for applications, the Secretary 
        shall solicit input from maple industry stakeholders with 
        respect to the research and education priorities of the maple 
        industry.
            ``(2) Consideration.--The Secretary shall consider the 
        information provided through the consultation required under 
        paragraph (1) when making grants under this section.''; and
            (3) in subsection (g), as so redesignated, by striking 
        ``2023'' and inserting ``2030''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2018301EN.01001001.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd

(Case C-532/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(b) - Scope - Definition of ‘operating air carrier’ - Lease of aircraft including crew ‘Wet lease’))

(2018/C 301/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Wolfgang Wirth, Theodor Mülder, Ruth Mülder, Gisela Wirth

Defendant: Thomson Airways Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of an ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 and, in particular, of Article 2(b) thereof must be interpreted as not covering the case of an air carrier, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which leases to another air carrier an aircraft, including crew, under a wet lease, but does not bear the operational responsibility for the flights, even where the booking confirmation of a seat on a flight issued to passengers states that that flight is operated by the former air carrier.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I,  David  Zaikin,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  of  Siberian  Energy  Group Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended  June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Siberian  Energy  Group  Inc.

Date:  August 22, 2005

                                        By: /s/ David Zaikin
                                            ----------------
                                            David Zaikin
                                            Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
Sherry C. ROLLINS v. Shawn HENSON and The Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama

2160836

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 21, 2017

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line, 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 officers 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 we 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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 function):

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: November 3, 2006
|                       | 
|By:                    |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|                       |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
E.T.R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. C.R., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael Schmidt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/A of Language Line, 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 officers 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 we 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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 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 function):

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: September 13, 2007                
|                                        
|/s/ Michael Schmidt                     
|Michael Schmidt                         
|Chief Financial Officer, Vice President,
|Secretary and Director
Richard L. BELL, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3236

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



STATEMENT PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



With reference to the Quarterly Report of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Black, Vice-President, Finance of the Company, certify, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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/ MICHAEL BLACK      
|MICHAEL BLACK          
|Vice-President, Finance
|May 13, 2005
# C_2017195EN.01001401.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 March 2017 — SIA ‘E LATS’

(Case C-154/17)

(2017/C 195/18)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SIA ‘E LATS’

Appellant:

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that used articles, acquired by a trader, that contain precious metals or precious stones (as in the present case) and are resold principally in order for those precious metals or precious stones to be extracted, may be regarded as second-hand goods? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that used articles, acquired by a trader, that contain precious metals or precious stones (as in the present case) and are resold principally in order for those precious metals or precious stones to be extracted, may be regarded as second-hand goods?

1

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is it relevant, for the purpose of limiting the application of the special arrangements, that the trader knows that the subsequent buyer intends to extract the precious metals or precious stones present in the used articles, or are the objective characteristics of the transaction (the quantity of goods, legal status of the counterparty to the transaction, etc.) relevant? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is it relevant, for the purpose of limiting the application of the special arrangements, that the trader knows that the subsequent buyer intends to extract the precious metals or precious stones present in the used articles, or are the objective characteristics of the transaction (the quantity of goods, legal status of the counterparty to the transaction, etc.) relevant?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
---

Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to18 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 Sound Revolution Inc.
  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2007,
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  Report), I, Penny Green, 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: October 19, 2007

|By: | /s/
      Penny Green                        | 
|--- | -------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Penny Green                                  | 
|    | Director, President, Chief Executive Officer | 

---