alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0290

_____________________________
K ENNETH M ICHAEL G ILLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Cou rt for Santa Rosa County

. John F. Simon , Judge

. January 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W OLF , L EWIS , and W ETHERELL , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 o r 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Kenneth Michael Gilley, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appelle e.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TODD A. CARO, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-2800-D

VS. §

 §

NFN SPENCER, POLICE OFFICER, §

ADDISON POLICE DEPARTMENT, §

et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

August 30, 2005 findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the

findings and conclusions are correct and are therefore adopted. After considering plaintiff’s

objections, even if the court assumes he has raised some fact issues, they are not genuine issues of

material fact that are sufficient to preclude the entry of summary judgment. Accordingly,

defendant’s May 6, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted, and this action is dismissed with

prejudice by judgment filed today.

Plaintiff’s September 8, 2005 motion for reconsideration of counsel for trial is denied as

moot. Because the court is dismissing this case on motion for summary judgment, there is no

persuasive reason to appoint counsel to represent plaintiff at trial. To the extent plaintiff seeks

appointment of counsel to represent him before trial, the court declines to reconsider the magistrate

judge’s May 4, 2004 memorandum order, which the court affirmed on May 26, 2004 and that

correctly denied, for the reasons stated therein, an earlier motion to appoint counsel, and the

magistrate judge’s April 6, 2005 order denying a second motion for appointment of counsel.

 

 Case 3:03-cv-02800-D-BD Document 168 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1411
- - 2

To the extent the record in this case does not reflect that the court adopted the April 22, 2004

findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes, after making an

independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings and

recommendation, that the findings and conclusions are correct and are therefore adopted. Plaintiff’s

action against defendant City of Addison is also dismissed with prejudice by judgment filed today.

SO ORDERED.

September 20, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cv-02800-D-BD Document 168 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1412
Case 4:05-cv-00301-A Document 3 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 9
Case 4:04-cv-00944-Y Document 12-2 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 42
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

I, David C. Ho, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of JMG Exploration, 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)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 (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(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: September 12, 2006            By: /s/ David C. Ho
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PAUL ROBERT PITTS,

Petitioner,

VS.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-0612-G

)

) ECF

)

)

)

ORDER

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the

Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of

the court.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00612-G Document 8 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 66
- 2 -

SO ORDERED.

January 3, 2007.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00612-G Document 8 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 67
#### Bank of Laurel Hill, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. W. C. Pryor, Sarrah F. Pryor and T. J. Pryor, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 2, 1927.

*Purl G. Adams,*for Appellant;

*William Fisher,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered,^rdered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree'of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Exhibit
32.2



Statement
Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The
undersigned, Everett R. Bassie, Chief Financial Officer and Director of American International Holdings Corp., a Nevada corporation,
hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the
following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2019.



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



|Date:
    November 19, 2019 | 
|--------------------------- | 
|                            | 
|/s/
    Everett R. Bassie   | 
|Everett
    R. Bassie       | 
|Chief
    Financial Officer | 



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American International Holdings Corp.,
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.02

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
TSI International Software Ltd.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-30631 and 333-37969) on Form S-8 of TSI International Software Ltd. of our
reports dated February 4, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of TSI
International Software Ltd., as of December 31, 1997, and 1996, and the related
statements of income, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and related
schedule, which reports appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form
10-K of TSI International Software Ltd.


                                  KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
New York, New York
March 26, 1998
T.L. v. Lauderdale County DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160503

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SOMJAI MURRELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 01-6558

DARLENE BEST, Undercover Officer;

UNNAMED POLICE OFFICERS,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-01-209-2)

Submitted: February 25, 2002

Decided: March 19, 2002

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Somjai Murrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

We ordered a limited remand of this case to the district court to

ascertain whether Somjai Murrell’s allegations in his 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint amount to an attack on a conviction for which he was incarcerated. The district court found that Murrell’s action challenged the fact or duration of his confinement, and

thus should have been brought under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 2000). On remand, the district court determined that Murrell

was challenging an arrest that did not lead to a conviction or incarceration, and therefore that the incident that forms the basis of his § 1983

complaint is unconnected to his current incarceration. Thus, his claim

is cognizable under § 1983. See Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85

F.3d 178, 181-82 (4th Cir. 1996). We therefore vacate the district

court’s dismissal of Murrell’s action and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

2 MURRELL v. BEST
# C_2017239EN.01003101.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

(Case C-250/17)

(2017/C 239/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira

Applicant:

Defendant: Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the rule in Article 15 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes a lawsuit pending before a Member State seeking an order that a debtor pay a monetary sum due under a service contract and pay monetary damages for failure to comply with that obligation, bearing in mind that: (i) the debtor was declared bankrupt in proceedings commenced in a court in another Member State; and (ii) the declaration of insolvency applies to all of the debtor’s assets?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

1

---
In the INTEREST OF K.J.H. and K.M.H., minor children.

K.H., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-4347

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018123EN.01000701.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/7

---

Appeal brought on 19 August 2017 by CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2017 in Case T-906/16, CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-508/17 P)

(2018/C 123/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 8 February 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 83 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 83

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Rules in the One 
                      Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2025

    Ms. Foxx (for herself and Mr. McGovern) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Rules in the One 
                      Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Rules (hereafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the expenses of 
all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 
of the House of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 
not more than $8,544,397.95 for the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $4,272,198.97 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2025, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2026; and
            (2) not more than $4,272,198.97 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2026, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2027.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Ed STONE, et al. v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

18-763 18-547

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 7, 2019

Steven B. Rabalais, Melvin A. Eiden, Blake T. Couvillion, Rabalais & Hebert, 701 Robley Drive, Suite 210, Lafayette, LA 70503, (337) 981-0309, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Sentry Select Insurance Company

L. Lyle Parker, Christina S. Slay, Elizabeth B. Carr, Bolen, Parker, Brenner, Lee & Engelsman, APLC, P.O. Box 11590, Alexandria, LA 71315-1590, (318) 445-8236, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Steven Card

Barry A. Roach, Larry A. Roach, Inc., 2917 Ryan St., Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 433-8504, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Ed Stone

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

GREMILLION, Judge.

For the reasons set forth in *Stone v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company* , 18-547 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/19), --- So.3d ----, 2019 WL 1620341, the judgment *928of the trial court in favor of plaintiff/appellee, Ed Stone, and against defendant/appellant, Sentry Select Insurance Company, is reversed. All costs of this proceeding are taxed to plaintiff/appellee, Ed Stone.

**REVERSED AND RENDERED.**

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, concurs in the result.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHRIS CAPLANIS
, Appellant,

v.

AUTONATION, INC., including all of its affiliates, subsidiary companies, dealerships, officers, directors, employees, and agents

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2796

[ August 15, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; David A. Haimes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 13

- 15373 CACE (08)

.

Chris Caplanis, Black Canyon City, Arizona, pro se.

Kevin R. Jackson of the Law Offi ces of Kevin Jackson P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

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

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Docket No. 25-01]

                    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by 20230930-DK-Butterfly-1, Inc. (the “Complainant”) against BAL Container Line Co., Limited (the “Respondent”). Complainant states that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended, 46 U.S.C. 40101*et seq.*                     and personal jurisdiction over Respondent as an ocean common carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18).                

Complainant is a corporation existing under the laws of New York with a mailing address in Union, New Jersey, that was formerly known as Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Complainant identifies Respondent as a company existing under the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China with its principal place of business located in Sheung Wan, Hong Kong.

Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 41104(a)(10), and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainant alleges these violations arose from the assessment of detention and demurrage charges during periods of time in which the charges were not just or reasonable because of circumstances outside the control of Complainant and its agents and service providers, and the acts or omissions of Respondent that led to the assessment of such charges.

An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.

                    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at                     *https://www2.fmc.gov/​readingroom/​proceeding/​25-01/​*. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges.                           ( print page 3870)                        The initial decision of the presiding judge shall be issued by January 8, 2026, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by July 22, 2026.                

David Eng,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2025-00779 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Richard MUTSCHLER, Appellant, v. Richard James BANNAN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1316

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Larry BUTLER

CR-16-1313

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 1, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
Mynor G. MATIAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0170

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Michael ABNER, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit32.2**

**SOUTHERNHERITAGE BANCSHARES, INC.**

**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 Reportof Southern Heritage Bank (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Steven W. Ledbetter, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Steven W. Ledbetter |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Steven W. Ledbetter     |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| May 15, 2007            |   |   |

 

----
Case 3:04-cv-00652-R Document 9 Filed 05/20/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 62
Case 3:04-cv-00652-R Document 9 Filed 05/20/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 63
Case 3:04-cv-00652-R Document 9 Filed 05/20/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 64