alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Folmar Brothers *v.*Shows.

Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court.

Tried before tlie Hon. J. M. Carmichael.

A. A. Wiley, Foster, Samford & Carroll, R. L. Harmon and C. E. Hamilton, for appellants.

J. M. Chilton and Rushtqn & Powell, for appellee..

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellee, T. W. Shows, against Folmar Brothers. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendants appeal..

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeremy Clark, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 884]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Gerald J. Whalen, J.), rendered November 30, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. We reject that contention *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal does not encompass his contention with respect to the severity of the sentence, however, because the record establishes that Supreme Court “failed to advise defendant of the ‘potential periods of incarceration that could be imposed before he waived his right to appeal’ ” *(People v McLean,*302 AD2d 934 [2003]; *cf. People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]). We conclude, however, that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Varni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Robert Cumberland, Petitioner, v Harold D. Graham, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[948 NYS2d 841]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Thomas G. Leone, A.J.], entered November 17, 2011) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier II hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present — Scudder, P.J., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40901

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO LOPEZ-TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant

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

Consolidated with 16-40903

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO LOPEZ TORRES, also known as Pedro Lopez-Torres

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-1252-1

USDC No. 5:16-CR-78-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 23, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40901 Document: 00513845049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2017
No. 16-40901

Cons. w/No. 16-40903

2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro Lopez-Torres

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez-Torres has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 16-40901 Document: 00513845049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2017
# C_2021256EN.01000201.xml

| 30.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10211 — L Catterton/Birkenstock)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 256/02)

On 22 April 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10211. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10211. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### In the Matter of Rosemary Chinye Okolie Toriola, Petitioner, v Lee A. Mayersohn, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 879]

Froceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, inter alia, in the *1070nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, Lee A. Mayersohn, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to conduct a hearing in a proceeding entitled *Matter of Theresa O.,*pending in that court under index No. 14286/09, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the petitioner is enjoined from making any additional motions or commencing any additional proceedings in this Court regarding the proceeding entitled *Matter of Theresa O.,*pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under index No. 14286/09, without leave of this Court; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Calvin E. Jenness, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blount International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

     (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 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 controls.



Date: July 30, 2004

/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
----------------------
Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation (DOT).

# ACTION:

Notice of request to release surplus property.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the City of Spokane, Washington and the County of Spokane, Washington, to waive the surplus property requirements for approximately 2.9 acres of airport property located at Spokane International Airport, in Spokane, Washington. The subject property is located away from the aeronautical area and currently includes two existing city water reservoirs located in the southeast section of the business park. This release will allow the City and the County to sell a portion of 1 parcel of airport property to the City of Spokane and to construct an additional potable water reservoir. There will be proceeds generated from the proposed release of this property for capital improvements at the airport. The City and County will receive not less than fair market value for the property and the revenue generated from the sale will be used for airport purposes. It has been determined through study that the subject partial parcel will not be needed for aeronautical purposes.

# DATES:

                        Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice in the                         **Federal Register**                        . Emailed comments can be provided to Ms. Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports District Office,                         *mandi.lesauis@faa.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist,                               ( print page 51219)                            Seattle Airports District Office,                         *mandi.lesauis@faa.gov,*                         (206) 231-4140.                    

Issued in Des Moines, Washington on September 9, 2021.

Warren D. Ferrell,

Acting Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.

[FR Doc. 2021-19796 Filed 9-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10965 Conference Calendar

ALVA L. TURNER, an individual, and Successor in Interest and former Executor to the Estate of Lillie Mae Crittendon, a/k/a Lillie Mae York, a/k/a Lillie York Crittendon, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JO DRANE; GERALD G. WOLFSON; HENRY W. BOCKMAN; LAWRENCE GALE; GINA CONYERS; SANDRA DAVIS; DARREL JOHNSON; BRIAN SMITH; DEBORAH CHILDS; DE WITT W. CLINTON; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; BANK OF AMERICA; DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-467-A

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alva L. Turner, individually, and as successor in interest and former executor of the estate of Lillie Mae Crittendon, argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous based on its being barred by the statute of limitations.No. 96-10965 - 2 - We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district court, and the brief, and find that the appeal has no arguable merit and, accordingly, is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
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 Northwest Pipe Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian W. Dunham, 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, 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/ Brian W. Dunham                  
|Brian W. Dunham                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 4, 2007
Exhibit
32.1 - Certification
of Principal Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet America, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the three months ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
E. Ladin, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 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/ William E. Ladin,
      Jr.William
      E. (Billy) Ladin, Jr.Chief Executive Officer and Acting
                Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      February 10, 2011
**CERTIFICATION**

**OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

|                                    |                                                                  |                                            |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                             |                                       |
| Date: August              14, 2007 |                                                             |                 /s/ Douglas Abel |
|                                    | Douglas              Abel                                             |
|                                    | President              and              Chief Executive Officer  |
|                                    |                                       |                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                  |                                                |
| Date: August              14, 2007 |                                       |                 /s/ Michael G. McGuinness |
|                                    | Michael              G. McGuinness         |
|                                    | Chief              Financial Officer  |

----
# C_2021065EN.01000201.xml

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10117 — A.P. Moller/APMH Invest/Faerch Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/02)

On 5 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10117. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10117. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Order entered October 5 , 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 15

- 01179

- CV

IN RE MICHAEL C. WADE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 046500



### O RDER

Before Justice Lang

- Miers, Evans and Whitehill

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we D ISMISS the petition for writ of habeas

corpus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Geraldine W. Jones et al., Respondents, v Alice Sachs et al., Respondents-Respondents, and James H. DeGraffenreidt, Appellant.

In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Geraldine W. Jones and Lee H. Bostic as candidates in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, for the respective Party positions of Female Member of the Republican State Committee, 29th Assembly District, Queens County (petitioner Jones), Male Member of the Republican State Committee, 29th Assembly District, Queens County (petitioner Bostic), and Delegates to the Republican Judicial District Convention, Eleventh Judicial District, Queens County (petitioners Jones and Bostic), the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le Vine, J.), dated August 11, 1987, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners, Geraldine W. Jones and Lee H. Bostic, are candidates for the Republican Party positions of Female Member of the Republican State Committee (Jones), Male Member of the Republic State Committee (Bostic), and Delegates to the Eleventh Judicial District Republican Convention, in the 29th *196Assembly District, Queens County. The last day for the filing of the designating petition was July 16, 1987. Pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 (2), the last day to commence a proceeding with respect to the petition was July 30, 1987. On August 5, 1987, the board of elections invalidated the petition, and the instant proceeding was thereafter commenced by order to show cause dated August 7, 1987.

Where the board of elections fails to notify a candidate of its decision to invalidate his or her petition within the 14-day statutory period prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2), and the petitioner is unable to satisfy the requirements of that section, it is error to dismiss the proceeding as untimely provided the petitioner acted with due diligence following notification by the board *(see, Matter of Pell v Coveney,*37 NY2d 494; *see also, Matter of Fortes v English,*133 AD2d 193 [decided herewith]). In this case, we conclude that the petitioners acted with due diligence in commencing the proceeding, and thus it was properly entertained *(see, Matter of Pell v Coveney, supra; Matter of Carr v New York State Bd. of Elections,*104 AD2d 577).

Finally, the record in this case supports the court’s finding of fact that the board improperly invalidated 76 of the signatures on the designating petition. Thus, the petition is valid and the petitioners were properly ordered on the ballot. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.