alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:05-cv-01182-B Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID 37
Case 3:05-cv-01182-B Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID 38
Case 3:05-cv-01182-B Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID 39
Case 3:05-cv-01182-B Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID 40
Case 3:05-cv-01182-B Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID 41
Case 3:05-cv-01182-B Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID 42
Case 3:05-cv-01182-B Document 8 Filed 09/14/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID 43
Juan Francisco VEGA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Robert W. GERMAINE, Clerk, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0932

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Carmello RIVERA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4616

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Suyapa E. LAGOS, Appellant, v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D18-1676

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

Suyapa E. Lagos, in proper person.

McGuireWoods LLP, and Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Emily Y. Rottmann, and C.H. Houston, III (Jacksonville), for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ("When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal."); *Cudeiro v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Fritz*, 99 So.3d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing *Starks v. Starks*, 423 So.2d 452, 453-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) ("finding that without a transcript of the hearing, the appellate court is unable to ascertain whether the lower court erred; noting that '[t]he appellant retains the burden *142of overcoming the presumption of correctness attributed to a trial court's final judgment. Appellant's burden includes a demonstration of error from the *record* , which he must supply' ") ).
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ironclad Performance Wear Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Thomas E. Walsh, 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, to the best of 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ Thomas E. Walsh
-----------------------
Thomas E. Walsh
Chief Financial Officer
February 9, 2007
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 Quarterly Report of Valley High Mining Company (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), I, John Michael Coombs, CEO, President, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Accounting Officer, and Chairman of the Board of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.

Dated: August 14, 2006                    /s/ John Michael Coombs
                                          -------------------------------
                                          John Michael Coombs,
                                          CEO, President, CFO, and Chairman of
                                          the Board
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

                                                                         V VITEX

February 16, 2000

By Facsimile and Certified Mail

Mark DeWyngaert
Director, Office of Patents & Licenses
Commercial Development
The New York Blood Center, Inc.
310 E. 67th Street
New York, NY 10021-6295

Re:  Exclusive License Agreement (#5) for Virally Inactivated Cellular Products

Dear Mark,

Pursuant to Section 10.5 of the Exclusive License Agreement (#5) for Virally
Inactivated Cellular Products between The New York Blood Center, Inc. ("NYBC")
and V.I. Technologies, Inc. ("Vitex"), dated September 21, 1995, as amended
("Agreement"), Vitex hereby notifies NYBC that it is terminating the Agreement
effective February 1, 2000.

VITEX will return all know-how related to phthalocyanines to NYBC.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at
617.864.4800 x240.

Sincerely,

/s/ Yukari Y. Perrella
Yukari Y. Perella
Director, Business Development

cc:  General Counsel, The New York Blood Center, Inc.
     John Barr, VITEX
     Tom Higgins, VITEX
     Frank Pascale, Pall Corporation
# C_2019016EN.01002601.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/26

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano

(Case C-426/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Beneficiary of legal aid - Remuneration of legal aid lawyers - Fee scale set by order of the Bar Council - No prior information on fees provided by the lawyer to her client - Complaint as to fees - Examination as to whether terms and practices are unfair - Main dispute - Referral to a competent body - No referral to the referring court - Answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Utility - None - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 16/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elena Barba Giménez

Defendant: Francisca Carrión Lozano

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Social Court No 2, Terrassa, Spain), by decision of 27 June 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0217

__________________________________________________________________

JULIE KOSTELECKY, an individual, on behalf of herself and her minor child 

S.M.K.; and JASON KOSTELECKY, an individual, on behalf of himself and his 

minor child S.M.K.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

PEAS IN A POD LLC; LACEY ALLEN; ERICA WILLIAMS; JANE AND 

JOHN DOES 1-10,

Defendants and Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________

GRANT OF SECOND EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellants’ second unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing therefrom, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants are granted an extension of time 

to and including September 3, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve their 

opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 12 2021

08/12/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0217
A.K.M. v. STATE

CR-16-1070

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-00940-K Document 3 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 61
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00940-K Document 3 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 62
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 of Avaya Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kevin J. Kennedy, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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.



|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|/s/    Kevin J. Kennedy                                                             
|Kevin J. Kennedy President
and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

February 16, 2010
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jeremy Lawrence WHITFIELD, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2469

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 25, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
**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**

|              |                                                                                                                                                                                                  |                                               |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|         | STARGOLD                MINES, INC.                                                                                                                                                                   |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                             |                                          |
|         | By:                                                                                                                                                                                         | /s/ Marcus              U.              Segal |
|  Name:  | Marcus              U. Segal                                                                                                                                                                          |
| Title:  | President,                Chief Executive Officer,Chief                  Financial Officer, and Director(Principal                  Executive, Financial, andand                  Accounting Officer) |

----
Heather Kellar District Clerk 

150 N. Seguin Avenue Ste. 304 

New Braunfels, TX 

78130 

Re: State of Texas v. Eric Byron Crayton, Cause No. CR 2012-225, in the 20i11 

District Court of Comal County and Eric Byron Clayton v. State of Texas, No. 03-

14-00570-CR 

Dear Clerk Kellar: 

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(l), this letter will serve as my official request 

for you to prepare and file a supplemental Clerk's Record in the above-styled and 

numbered cause. The Clerk's Record previously filed does not contain Judge Robison's 

fmdings of fact and conclusions of law of July 1, 2014, on Crayton's motion to suppress. 

The Register of Actions reflects they were filed on that date. I need those findings and 

conclusions in order to effectively represent Mr. Crayton on appeal. 

Thank you for your attention and cooperation in this matter. 

cc: Court of Appeals 

ACDA Presley 

Sincerely, 

Richard E. Wetzel 

Attorney at Law
# C_2017374EN.01000901.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas

(Case C-270/17 PPU) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Reasons for optional non-execution - Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA - Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order - ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ - Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance - Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case - Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings))

(2017/C 374/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Tadas Tupikas

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Where the issuing Member State has provided for a criminal procedure involving several degrees of jurisdiction which may thus give rise to successive judicial decisions, at least one of which has been handed down in absentia, the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as relating only to the instance at the end of which the decision is handed down which finally rules on the guilt of the person concerned and imposes a penalty on him, such as a custodial sentence, following a re-examination, in fact and in law, of the merits of the case.

An appeal proceeding, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in principle falls within that concept. It is nonetheless up to the referring court to satisfy itself that it has the characteristics set out above.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

1

---
EX PARTE Raymond Dennis EARL

CR-16-0856

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification

I, Juan Ferreira, certify that:

       1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Centale,
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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this  report;

       4.  The small business issuer's 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) for the
small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business
issuer's internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

       5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

       a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: August 21, 2006                /s/ Juan Ferreira
                                     --------------------------------------
                                     Juan Ferreira, Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:05-cv-01149-M Document 10 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 25
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 defendant Brandon Lashaun Taylor has asked this court to 

review the record to determine 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 mistrial, defendant pleaded no 

contest to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. 
2 

(a)(1)),1 admitted a prior serious felony strike 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 conviction for violating section 459. 

 The trial court sentenced defendant to state 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 fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. 

(a)(1)), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant appealed, 

but did not request or obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) 

DISCUSSION 

 Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that 

we review the record and determine 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 received no communication from defendant. Having 

undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable 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.
Gary E. WALKER v. STATE

CR-16-1121

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of XsunX, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date himself (the “Report”), the undersigned
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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 results of operation of the Company.




Date:     January
12, 2010





/s/  Tom
      DjokovichName:
      Tom DjokovichTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive
                Officer,
      and Principal Financial and
                Accounting
      Officer, and Director





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, 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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
R.V.D. v. STATE

CR-16-1317

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 15, 2017

Dismissed.
Darryl Ronald HOLLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3036

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.