alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order of Dismissal 

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.16\07009Overton_dism-fee.docx

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL LOUIS OVERTON,

Petitioner, 

v. 

ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 16-07009 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISAL 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 On December 7, 2016, the Clerk notified Petitioner that he 

needed to either pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) within twenty-eight days from the date of the notice to avoid dismissal. (Docket 

No. 9.) The deadline has passed, and Petitioner has failed to respond. Accordingly, the 

action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

 

1

 The matter was transferred in from the Central District on December 9, 2016. (Docket 

No. 8.) 

2/14/2017

Case 5:17-cv-00090-EJD Document 4 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 1
---

Exhibit 99.8


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. § 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of GLG Life Tech Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian Meadows, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Brian Meadows
Brian Meadows 
Chief Financial Officer 
Date: March 31, 2011


---
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10236]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[GGD 95-036]


National Boating Safety Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) will meet 
to discuss various issues related to recreational boating safety. 
Agenda items include: Boating education, boat occupant protection, 
multiple use waterways, inflatable personal flotation devices, 
nighttime boating, search and rescue, and Recreational Boating Safety 
Program direction. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 22 and 23, 1995, from 8:30 a.m. 
to 5 p.m. daily. Written material should be submitted not later than 
May 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel, 187 
Monroe, NW, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503. Written material should be 
submitted to Mr. Albert J. Marmo, Executive Director, Commandant (G-
NAB), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW, Washington, DC 20593-
0001, telephone (202) 267-1077.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 1 et seq. 
The agenda will include discussion of the following topics:
    1. Review of action taken at the 54th meeting of the Council.
    2. Executive Director's Report.
    3. Boat Occupant Protection Subcommittee Report.
    4. Multiple Use Waterways Subcommittee Report.
    5. Mandatory Education Subcommittee Report.
    6. Report on Boating Safety Education in California.
    7. Report on the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Subcommittee.
    8. Report on Recreational Boating Safety Program Direction.
    9. Presentation on Inflatable Personal Flotation Device Rulemaking.
    10. Report on Nighttime Boating Study.
    11. Report on the Search and Rescue Program.
    12. Presentation on Streamlining and Other Issues.
    13. Chairman's Session.
    Attendance is open to the interested public. With advance notice, 
members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. 
Persons wishing to present oral statements should so notify the 
Executive Director listed above under ADDRESSES, no later than the day 
before the meeting. Written material may be submitted at any time for 
presentation to the Council. However, to ensure advance distribution to 
each Council member, persons submitting written material are asked to 
provide 25 copies to the Executive Director no later than May 10, 1995.

    Dated: April 19, 1995.
G. A. Pennington,
Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 95-10236 Filed 4-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
---

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David K. Ryan, the Principal Accounting Officer of Yaterra
Ventures Corp. (the Company), 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:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended August 31, 2010, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                   



| | By:    | /s/
      David K. Ryan     
| | ------ | ----------------------------
| |        |                             
| | Name:  | DAVID K. RYAN               
| |        |                             
| | Title: | Principal Accounting Officer
| |        |                             
| | Date:  | December 14, 2010           



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Stephen DRAKUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4457

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2019

Stephen Drakus, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

After his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was denied following an evidentiary hearing, the appellant raises three issues on appeal. We reject the appellant's argument on Issue I and agree with his arguments on Issues II and III.

In Issue I, the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to appoint postconviction counsel. *See* *Simmons v. State* , 99 So.3d 620, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (recognizing there is no absolute right to counsel in postconviction proceedings and the decision to provide counsel rests in the sound discretion of the trial court).

Regarding Issues II and III, the State concedes that the postconviction court erred by failing to make any factual findings or conclusions either orally or in its written order. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(A) (requiring such findings following an evidentiary hearing). As such, this case cannot be reviewed on appeal and must be remanded for a proper order. *See* *White v. State* , 198 So.3d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Even though the State argues that the court must have regarded defense counsel's testimony as more credible, the postconviction court never said as much, and we cannot make such an assumption. *See id.* While it also appears that the testimony does not support a finding of prejudice, the lack of factual findings precludes this Court from determining the sufficiency of the trial court's conclusion under the prejudice prong. *Marcus v. State* , 201 So.3d 851, 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). The proper remedy is to remand with instructions for the postconviction court to make the necessary findings upon the record to resolve Issues II and III. *Id.*

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Roberts and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A1 24 1 . DEMONTA PRI C E v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 7
, Dem o n t a Pri ce was co n v i ct ed o f fel on y m u r de r an d ot h er cri m es

. Pri ce fi led a m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al
, wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed

. Pri ce t hen fi l ed t h i s ap p eal

. He n ex t fi l ed a m ot i o n t o t ran sfer t h i s ap p eal t o t h e Su p rem e Co urt , ex pl ai n i n g t h at
h e erro n eo u s l y fi l ed t he ap p eal i n t h i s Co u rt d u e to a cl eri cal erro r. Pri ce co n ten d s t h at

t h e Su prem e Co u rt h as ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h i s cas e. W e ag ree. Th e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n ov er “ [a] l l cas es i n w h i c h a

s en t en ce o f deat h was i m p o s ed o r co u l d be i m

p o s ed .” G a

. C o n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3
, Art

. VI,
Sec. VI, Par. III ( 8 )

. B e c a u s e a p en al t y o f d eat h m ay b e i m p o sed fo r t h e cri m e o f

m u rd er, ju ri s d i ct i o n i s p ro p er i n t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

. See O CGA § 1 6 -5 -1 (e) (1 ); Nea l

v. S t a t e , 2 9 0 Ga. 5 6 3
, 57 2 (7 2 2 SE2 d 7 6 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (Hu n s t ei n , C. J

. , co n cu rri n g ); s ee al s o S t a te v. Th o r n t o n , 2 5 3 Ga. 5 2 4
, 5 2 4 (1 ) (3 22 SE2 d 7 1 1 ) (1 9 8 4 ) (d i rect i n g t h i s Co u rt t o t ran s fer t o th e Su p rem e Co u rt “ al l cas es i n w h i ch ei t h er a s en t en ce o f d eat h

o r o f li fe i m

p ri s o n m en t h as b een i m

p o s ed u p o n co n vi ct io n of m urd er”), o v erru l ed in

p art o n o th er g ro u nd s as reco g n i zed i n El l i o t t v. S t a t e , 3 0 5 Ga. 1 7 9
, 2 0 5 (III) (C) (i ) (8 2 4 SE2 d 2 6 5 ) (2 0 1 9 ). Acco rd i n g ly , t h e m o t i o n t o t ran s fer i s GRANTED an d t h i s April 18, 2022ap p eal i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/18/2022
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ronny Wagner, Appellant

No. 06-19-00173-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

18F0035005). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Ronny Wagner, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Order filed April 28 , 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00676

- CV

____________ PETRA MUELLER , Appellant

V.
NORBERT MUELLER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 250th District Court

Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 16

- 003688



### ORDER
This is an appeal from a n order granting a partial summary judgment made final and appealable by the trial court’s severance order signed June 2 5 , 2018

. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 23, 2018

. The notice of appeal is
d efective.
An incorrect cause number on the notice of appeal does not defeat the jurisdiction of the court of appeals if the instrument is a “bona fide attempt” to invoke appellate court jurisdiction. See City of S an Antonio v. Rodriguez , 828 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Tex. 1992). An appellant should be given an opportunity to amend a defective perfecting instrument before the court of appeals may dismissan appeal. See G rand Prairie I.S.D. v. S

. Parts Imports, Inc. , 813 S.W.2d 499, 500

(Tex. 1991).
Appellant was given the opportunity to amend her defective notice of appeal. Appellant was ordered by this Court to file an amended notice of appeal reflecting the correct trial court cause nu mber on or before March 20, 2020. We
informed a

ppellant that, i f appellant d id not comply with our order, we would consider dismissal of the appeal. Appellant failed to file an amended notice of appeal as ordered.

We again order a ppellant to file an amended notice of appeal reflecting the
correct trial court cause number.

The amended notice of appeal shall be filed on or before May 8 , 2020

. If appellant does not comply with this order, th is C ourt will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b)

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Just ices Wise and Ha s san.
EXHIBIT 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Nigel Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Arch Management Services 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. I am 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 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) Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition Rules
contained in SEC Release No. 33-8238;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants 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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants 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 registrants
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 registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: July 15, 2005


By:  /s/  Nigel Johnson
Nigel Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,
Secretary, and a member of the Board of Directors
Gabriel N. TALPA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-568

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2019

Peyton Bush Hyslop, of Hyslop & Greenfelder, PA, Brooksville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have for our consideration an appeal from county court where a question of great public importance was certified, and we accepted jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.160(e)(2). The Hernando County Court, pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(4), certified the following question to this Court as involving a matter of great public importance:

> WHEN A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF, OR ENTERED A NO CONTEST PLEA TO A CHARGE OF CONTRACTING WITHOUT A LICENSE (489.127(1)(F) FLA. STAT.), IS THE MEASURE OF RESTITUTION DUE TO THE VICTIM DISGORGEMENT OF ALL MONIES PAID TO THE DEFENDANT BY THE VICTIM WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY VALUE THE GOODS OR SERVICES SO PROVIDED MAY HAVE?

Upon further consideration of the parties' briefs, we decline to accept this appeal and do not answer the certified question. Accordingly, we transfer this appeal to the Fifth Judicial Circuit of Florida, appellate division, pursuant to rule 9.160(f)(2).

EVANDER, C.J., WALLIS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
U.S.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE 

FOR CRIME VICTIM NOTIFICATION 

U.S. v. MATSUO, 3:17-CR-00073-JD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JACKLIN CHOU LEM (CASBN 255293)

HOWARD J. PARKER (WASBN 07233)

PARADI JAVANDEL (CASBN 295841)

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

Box 36046, Room 10-0101 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Telephone: (415) 934-5300 

jacklin.lem@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

 v. 

MATSUO ELECTRIC CO., LTD., 

 Defendant.

No. 3:17-CR-00073-JD

UNITED STATES’ [PROPOSED] 

ORDER ESTABLISHING 

PROCEDURE FOR CRIME 

VICTIMS NOTIFICATION 

UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3771 

Case 4:17-cr-00073-JD Document 10-1 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 2

xxxxxxxxxx

Case 4:17-cr-00073-JD Document 14 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 2
1 

U.S.’ [PROPOSED] ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE 

FOR CRIME VICTIM NOTIFICATION 

U.S. v. MATSUO, 3:17-CR-00073-JD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On this date, the Court considered the United States’ Motion to Establish Procedure for 

Crime Victims Notification Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The Court GRANTS the Motion and 

ORDERS that for crime victim notification required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771 of public court and 

parole proceedings, plea bargains and deferred prosecution agreements, and various rights, 

services and points of contacts, the Antitrust Division may, as an alternative to individual 

notices, provide reasonable, accurate, and timely notice through its web site, 

https://www.justice.gov/atr/victims-rights, and through written notice to counsel for Flextronics 

and lead counsel for the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the parallel civil actions 

pending before this Court (In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-cv-03264-JD). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: , 2017 

 Honorable James Donato 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 4:17-cr-00073-JD Document 10-1 Filed 03/16/17 Page 2 of 2

March 28

Case 4:17-cr-00073-JD Document 14 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 2
Alejandro MEDINA, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2236

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018335EN.01000101.xml

| 20.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 September 2018

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2018

(2018/C 335/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | the Union’s budget for the financial year 2018 was definitively adopted on 30 November 2017 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union’s budget for the financial year 2018 was definitively adopted on 30 November 2017 (2),

| — | on 10 July 2018, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget for the financial year 2018, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 10 July 2018, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget for the financial year 2018,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2018 was adopted on 18 September 2018.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 18 September 2018.

For the Council

The President

G. BLÜMEL

---

(1)  OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 57, 28.2.2018, p. 1.

2

---