alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. ZERA P. SUMMERS, JR. , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0 149 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2013

- 416358

- 001 The Honorable William L. Brotherton , Judge , Retired
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent
Zera P. Summers, Jr. , Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 1-23-2018STATE v. SUMMERS Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Zera P. Summers, Jr., s eeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (A pp. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner h as not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-7942



#  B ERNARD D ONNELL S HERRILL , a/k/a Nard, Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-5, CA-98-444-3) Submitted: March 28, 2002 Decided: April 24, 2002 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Bernard Donnell Sherrill, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Bernard Donnell Sherrill appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. The district court entered the order on June 8, 2001. On September 4, 2001, Sherrill filed a notice of appeal and motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal due to excusable neglect, which the district court entered on September 11, 2001. The district court forwarded the notice of appeal without making a determination on the motion for an extension of time. Parties in a civil action where the United States is a party have sixty days following a final order in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The district court may grant an extensionof this time up to thirty days upon a showing of good cause or excusable neglect. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). If the defendant files his notice of appealoutside the applicable appeal period, but within the thirty-day extension period, the district court must make factual findings concerning whether there was excusable neglect that warrants an extension of the appeal period. Reyes , 759 F.2d at 353-54.Sherrill filed his notice of appeal eighty-seven days after the district court entered its judgment. While this filing was after the sixtyday limit, it was within the thirty-day extension period applicableupon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Because the district court made no factual findings on this issue, we remand the caseto the district court with instructions to make factual findings concerning whether there was excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the sixty-day appeal period. We defer ruling on Sherrill’s motion for permission to file an oversized brief and granthis motion to seal the presentence report. We dispense with oral argu2 U NITED S TATES v. S HERRILLment, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS 3 U NITED S TATES v. S HERRILL
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PRIDE, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pride, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Schumacher,
Chief Executive Officer and 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), as applicable, 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/ Michael Schumacher
----------------------------------------------
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
May 11, 2007
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-90-00064-CV

DAN BOYLES, JR., Appellant

V.

SUSAN LEIGH KERR, Appellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 86-29876

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O RDER

As part of the appellate record in this matter, original exhibits were transferred to this 

Court for our use when this appeal was before us. Specifically, original documents marked 

“Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 and 22; and Defendant’s Exhibit 13” were transferred to this Court. It 

appears to this Court that the proper repository for these exhibits should be the Harris County 

District Clerk’s Office. Accordingly, we order the clerk of this Court to transfer the original 

exhibits filed in this appeal into the keeping of the Harris County District Clerk by mailing the 

exhibits to the district clerk via certified mail, return receipt requested.

We further order the Harris County District Clerk, Chris Daniel, on receipt of said 

exhibits, to sign and return to this Court the enclosed receipt for said exhibits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: January 23, 2015
3

RECEIPT FOR ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

I, Chris Daniel, Harris County District Clerk, hereby acknowledge receipt of the 

following original exhibits from the Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, Texarkana, 

Texas, in the case of Dan Boyles, Jr. v. Susan Leigh Kerr, appellate cause number 06-90-00064-

CV, trial court cause number 86-29876: original documents marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 and 

22; and Defendant’s Exhibit 13.”

___________________________________

Chris Daniel

Harris County District Clerk

Date: __________________
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 11, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 5 7 4 7 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 5

- 0 0 0 7 9

- C R

- F T M

- 3 3

- D N F

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

S T U R L E E B R O W N , I I I ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e D U B I N A , C h i e f J u d g e , T J O F L A T a n d P R Y O R , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

J o h n E

. F e r n a n d e z , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r S t u r l e e B r o w n , I I I , i n t h i s d i r e c tc r i m i n a l a p p e a l , h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e

a p p e l l a n t a n d f

i l e d a b r i e f p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

.
1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s

t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e
i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t ,

c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D a n d B r o w n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e

a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. and Gallagher Bassett Services, Appellants, v. Luis CANDURRA, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3861

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 24, 2019

David J. Gerhardt of Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A., Miami, for Appellants.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, and Jesus E. Ravelo of Rosenberg & Rosenberg, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Wetherell, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2445

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Nyle Thomas Brocks

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: February 22, 2022

Filed: March 15, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Nyle Brocks appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to a drug offense. Brocks argues that the district court abused its discretion by

1The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.
imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence after giving insufficient weight to

mitigating factors such as his personal history, especially his traumatic childhood; and

giving too much weight to his criminal history.

We conclude that Brocks’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as

there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in

weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th

Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d 1167, 1169 (8th

Cir. 2012). The court made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented

in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Stults,

575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
D.B. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2170395

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 6, 2018

Dismissed.
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Steven Santo, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
November 16, 2009





/s/ Steven
      Santo





Name:
                
                Steven
      SantoTitle:
                
                Chief
      Executive Officer
Javoney D. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2974

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019.

Javoney D. Roberts, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
David PEMBELTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida and Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondents.

No. 1D18-4419

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
V.D. v. A.J.

2160921

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 16, 2018

Affirmed.
(LOGO)
HOMESIDE
LENDING, INC.

As of February  10,  1998 and for the period from March 1, 1997 to February  10,
1998,  HomeSide  Lending,  Inc. has complied in all material  respects  with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKER. As of and
for this same period,  HomeSide Lending,  Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond and
errors  and  omissions  policy in the  amount of $76  million  and $20  million,
respectively.

/s/Willian Glasgow, Jr.
William Glasgow, Jr.
Executive Vice President

April 15, 1995
Date
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15




                                 THIRD AMENDMENT
                             TO THE CHOICEPOINT INC.
                           DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


                  THIS AMENDMENT to the ChoicePoint Inc. Deferred Compensation
Plan (the "Plan") is made and entered into by ChoicePoint Inc. (the "Company")
as of the first day of September, 2002;

                  WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the Plan, which
was originally effective July 30, 1997, and has amended the Plan on two prior
instances; and,

                  WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12.5 of the Plan, the Management
Compensation & Benefits Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company did,
by resolution duly adopted, approve the amendment of the Plan as contained
herein, and Section 12.5 permits amendment of the Plan in the Plan
Administrator's discretion consistent with the overall compensation and benefit
policies of the Company.

                  NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

                                       1.

         Section 2.5 is hereby amended by adding the following sentence prior to
the last sentence thereof:

         The fund, and any accounts invested therein, shall be adjusted as
         appropriate by the Plan Administrator to prevent any dilution or
         enlargement of the rights of Participants that otherwise would result
         from (a) any stock dividend, stock split, combination of shares,
         recapitalization or other change in the capital structure of the
         Corporation, or (b) any merger, consolidation, spin-off, split-off,
         spin-out, split-up, reorganization, partial or complete liquidation or
         other distribution of assets, issuance of rights or warrants to
         purchase securities, or (c) any other corporate transaction or event
         having an effect similar to any of the foregoing.

<PAGE>


                                       2.


         Section 10.2(c) is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to
the end of said section:

         In the event that a Beneficiary is to receive payments over a period of
         time, rather than in an immediate lump sum, the Beneficiary shall have
         the rights of a Participant with respect to the deceased Participant's
         Account, including the right to elect to treat the Account as if
         invested in one of the investment funds described in Section 7.3 and
         receive reports as described in Section 7.5.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Third Amendment to be
executed as of the date and year first above written.

                                         CHOICEPOINT INC.



                                         By: /s/ John H. Karr
                                             ------------------------------

                                         Title: Vice President;
                                                Compensation and Benefits

Attest: /s/ Mary J. Rupert

Title: Notary
Ida R. MILLER, Appellant, v. Evelyn MCKENZIE, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2194

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

AFFIRMED.
Eugene C. WILLIAMS and Lynne M. Williams, Appellants, v. IBERIABANK; Priscilla A. Searcy a/k/a Pricilla A. Searcy; and Brightwater Cove Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-1964

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

Mark P. Stopa of Stopa Law Firm, LLC, Tampa (withdrew after briefing); Latasha Scott of Lord Scott, PLLC, Tampa (withdrew after briefing); Richard J. Mockler of Stay In My Home, P.A., St. Petersburg (withdrew after briefing); Christopher Hixson of Athena Law, PLLC, Largo (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellants.

Melissa A. Campbell of Jones Walker, LLP, Miami, for Appellee IberiaBank

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Willie Lee MCGEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4167

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
D.W.M. v. LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2161018

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 2018

Affirmed.
Eugene MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3248

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Continuous/Deployment (CI/CD) for R

Zech Kottilil

Sr. Systems Analyst

zechkottilil@westat.com

http://www.westat.com
Introduction

 Version Control in Analytics

 Continuous Integration

 Continuous Deployment

2 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
Version Control

 Version Control in Analytics?

 Benefits

 Integrate Analytics Feedback Life Cycle with SDLC

 Software Development Life Cycle

 Define Requirements, Design, Development, QA, UAT, Release

 Analytics Development Life Cycle

 Identify Problem, Data Prep, Explore, Transform, Select, Modeling, 

Validate Models, Deploy, Monitor Results

3 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
Continuous Integration (CI)

 CI?

 Benefits

4 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
Continuous Deployment

 CD?

 Testing

 Delivery

5 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
The workings – R/Studio

6 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
The workings – R/Studio (contd.)

7 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24

 Add Unit Test
The workings – R/Studio (contd.)

 Test the Package

 Run a Check

8 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
The workings – R/Studio (contd.)

 Add a YAML file (.gitlab-ci.yml) for the CI to the project folder

 Initialize the GitLab Repository and Commit

9 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
The workings – R/Studio (contd.)

 Push to GitHub from R/Studio.

10 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
The workings – GitLab

 After Push on GitLab

11 CI/CD in R 2018-10-24
Enjoy CI/CD!

Zech Kottilil <zechkottilil@westat.com>
# C_2017161EN.01000701.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2017 — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

(Case C-30/17)

(2017/C 161/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu

Appellant:

Respondent: Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

In the light of Article 3(1) and the objectives of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (1) in the determination of the basis of assessment for flavoured beers using the Plato scale, must the extract resulting from the flavourings added following the completion of fermentation be added to the real extract of the finished product or is the extract resulting from the added substances to be disregarded?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.

1

---
Ed BULLOCK and Pool Builders, LLC v. Kevin GREGORSKI

2160758

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

Affirmed.