alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(83 South. 927)

#### STEWART v. STATE.

(1 Div. 121.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 15, 1919.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County;. Joel W. Goldsby, Judge.

Robert E. Cunningham and Cecil F. Bates, both of Mobile, for appellant.

J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
#### Anthony BARBER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT of The Army, Respondent.

No. 2012-3134.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 16, 2013.

John L-R Poindexter, Attorney at Law, of Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

Eric P. Bruskin, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Scott D. Austin, Assistant Director.

MOORE, LINN, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

*927JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 19, 2019

v No. 341504

Manistee Circuit Court

SAMUEL DARNEL HARPER, LC No. 17-004727-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: STEPHENS, P.J., and GLEICHER and BOONSTRA, JJ.

BOONSTRA, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result reached by the majority, and in its holding that defendant’s sentence 

was proportionate and reasonable. I write separately only to reiterate my belief that the language 

of “departure” sentences and the “extent of the departure” from our pre-Lockridge caselaw is of 

questionable continuing utility after Lockridge and its progeny, for the reasons set for in my 

concurring opinion in People v Lampe, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2019) (Docket 

No. 342325) (BOONSTRA, J., concurring).

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 1 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 1 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 1 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 1 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 1 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Clifford K. Bown,
certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended on September 30, 2007, 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Clifford K. Bown        
|Clifford K. Bown            
|Executive Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer     
|November 7, 2007
EXHIBIT 99.2

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Hy-Tech Technology Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending February 28, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary F. McNear, 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:

         (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 respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

         A signed original 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 Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Gary F. McNear
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer


June 12, 2003
LCH

VIA EMAIL TO: FOlAsubmissions@cftc.gov
21 November 2016

US Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Attention: FOIA Compliance Office

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: FOIA Request for Confidential Treatment

Dear Sir/Madam

In accordance with Commission Regulation 145.9(d), LCH.Clearnet Limited (“LCH”) respectfully requests
confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act (the “FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for Appendix A of
the LCH portal submission on 21 November 2016, titled “Margin Collateral Haircut Change”, including
subsequent emails and replies between LCH and Commission staff (the “Information”).

LCH is requesting confidential treatment for the Information pursuant to Commission Regulation 145.9(d)(ii),
which provides that confidential treatment may be requested on the grounds that disclosure would reveal
trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. LCH further requests that the Information
receives confidential treatment in perpetuity.

This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other protection from disclosure or confidential
treatment accorded by law, and LCH will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection. LCH requests
notification from the Commission in advance of any disclosure of the Information, pursuant to the FOIA or the
Commission’s Rules of Practice so that this request for confidential treatment may be substantiated.

Yours faithfully

Sx =>

Denise Holder

Regulatory Advisor

Contact: +44 20 7392 8331
denise.holder@Ichclearnet.com

LCH -LTD | Aldgate House | 33 Aldgate High Street | London EC3N 1EA | T: +44 (0)20 7426 7000 | F: +44 (0)20 7426 7001 | ich.com
LCH.Clearnet Group Limited | LCH.Clearnet Limited | Banque Centrale de Compensation | LCH.Clearnet LLC
Registered in England No. 25932 Registered Office: Aldgate House, 33 Aldgate High Street
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 21

- 1120 Filed October 20, 2021
IN THE INTEREST OF K.R., Minor Child, R.S., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Jennifer Bahr , District Associate Judge.

A father appeals a permanency order in a child

- in

- need

- of

- assistance proceeding. AFFIRM ED.

Justin R. Wyatt of Woods & Wyatt, PLLC, Glenwood, for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Diane Murphy Smith, Assistant Attorney General, and Jennifer V. Mumm, Harrison County Attorney, for appellee State. Sara E. Benson of Meldrum & Benson Law, P.C., Council Bluffs, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Mullins, P.J. , and May and Ahlers, JJ.2

MULLINS , Presiding Judge

. A father appeals a permanency order in a child

- in

- need

- of

- assistance proceeding s etting the permanency goal as establishment of a guardianship in maternal relatives. The father questions whether the juvenile court erred in not placing the child in his custody and whether the establishment of a guardianship is in the child’s best int erests. But he only states his disagreement with the juvenile court ’ s factual determinations and legal conclusions. Other than providing conclusory statements without citations to the record, he offers no meaningful substantive argument to facilitate app ellate review, 1 so we affirm without further opinion, deeming the arguments waived. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d) (“The petition on appeal shall substantially comply with form 5 in rule 6.1401.”); 6.1401

– Form 5 (“[S]tate what findings of fact or conclusions of law the district court made with which you disagree and why, generally referencing a particular part of the record, witnesses’ testimony, or exhibits that support your position on appeal

. . . . General conclusions

, such as ‘the trial court’s ruling is not supported by law or the facts’ are not acceptable. ”); see also In re C.B. , 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (“A broad, all encompassing argument is insufficient to identify error in cases of de novo review.”); Hyle r v. Garner , 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (1996) (“[W]e will not speculate on the arguments [a party] might have made and then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such arguments.”); Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. , 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974) (“To reach the merits

1 He cites no case law and only two nominal statutes that reference what the court shall do after a permanency hearing.3

of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.”); cf. Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (requiring arguments in briefs to contain reasoning, citations to authorities, and references to pertinent parts of the record).
AFFIRMED.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [AK-962-1410-HY-P; F-19557] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, DOI. 

# ACTION:

Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to the Heirs, Devisees, and/or Assigns of Evans Egowa for lands in T. 1 S., R. 1 W., Fairbanks Meridian, located in Fairbanks, Alaska. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. 

# DATES:

The time limits for filing an appeal are: 

1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until June 15, 2001 to file an appeal. 

2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. 

Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. 

# ADDRESSES:

A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerri Sansone (907) 271-3231. 

Jerri Sansone, 

Land Law Examiner. 

[FR Doc. 01-12257 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

The Urban Targets Panel Meeting will meet in Washington, DC on May 29-31, 2001 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to receive briefings and discuss the direction of the study. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c) of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) thereof.

For further information, contact the HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat at (703) 697-8404.

Janet A. Long,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-12446 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Momentive Performance Materials Inc. for the fiscal three-month period ended September 28,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 13(a) and 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|/s/ Jonathan D. Rich    |  |  |  | /s/ Steven P. Delarge  
|Jonathan D. Rich        |  |  |  | Steven P. Delarge      
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  | 
|DATE: November 12, 2008 |  |  |  | DATE: November 12, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and will be retained by Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Cite as State v. Rabatin , 2017-Ohio-7815.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, :

-vs- : CASE NO. 2017-P-0036 MARC C. RABATIN, : Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 CR 00696. Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Gregory A. Price, 159 South Main Street, Suite 910, Akron, OH 44308 (For Defendant-Appellant).

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. {¶1} On July 7, 2017, appellant, by and through counsel, filed a notice of appeal from a June 6, 2017 judgment entry of the Portage County Court of Common

Pleas. {¶2} Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than July 6, 2017, which was not a holiday or a weekend. Thus, his appeal was untimely filed by one day. {¶3} App.R. 4(A)(1) states in relevant part:2 {¶4} “* * * [a] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” {¶5} App.R. 5(A) states: {¶6} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of righ t, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: {¶7} “(a) Criminal proceedings; {¶8} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and {¶9} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. {¶10} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. * * *.” {¶11} In the present case, appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule set forth in App.R. 4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Appellant has a remedy under App.R. 5(A) to file an untimely appeal from a criminal judgment. {¶12} Based upon the foregoing analysis, this appeal is hereby sua sponte dismissed as being untimely. {¶13} Appeal dismissed.

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.,

concur.
# C_2005087EN.01000301.xml

| 9.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/3

---

Corrigendum to the communication from the Commission pursuant to Article 4(1)(A) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Revision by Ireland of public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services between Galway and Dublin

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 39 of 16 February 2005
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 39 of 16 February 2005

(2005/C 87/03)

On page 4, in point 2.4(a)(i), first line:

for:

for:

‘A minimum fare of EUR 75 each way in respect of a maximum of 80 % of seat capacity...’,

read:

read:

‘A maximum fare of EUR 75 each way in respect of a minimum of 80 % of seat capacity...’.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-10842 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Cindy Romero-Arreola, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:21-CR-176-1 

Before King, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cindy RomeroArreola 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). Romero-Arreola has not filed a response. We have 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 18, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-10842 Document: 00516170551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
No. 21-10842 

2 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents 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 APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2. 

Case: 21-10842 Document: 00516170551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2022
#### DAVIS, Director General of Railroads, v. KEENAN.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 16, 1923.)

No. 229.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action at law by Joseph Keenan, as administrator of the goods, etc., of Robert Keenan, deceased, against James C. Davis, Director General of Railroads as Agent under Transportation Act of 1920, § 206. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Alexander & Green, of New York City (Clifton P. Williamson, H. S. Ogden, and Edward W. Bourne, all of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error. Edward J. McCrossin, of New York City, for defendant in error.

Before ROGERS, MANTON and MAYER,. Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment' affirmed.
EXHIBIT 2 

Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-7 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-7 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-7 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 1-7 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 4
# C_2019220EN.01003601.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019. — UPF v Commission

(Case T-747/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by France in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid - Concept of economic activity - Obligation to state reasons - Distortions of competition and effect on trade between Member States - Principle of sound administration)

(2019/C 220/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union des Ports de France — UPF (Paris, France) (represented by C. Vannini and E. Moraïtou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by B. Stromsky and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2116 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38398 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by France — Taxation of ports in France (OJ 2017 L 332, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Union des ports de France — UPF to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Union des ports de France — UPF to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB     Document 6      Filed 08/28/2007     Page 1 of 4

Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB     Document 6      Filed 08/28/2007     Page 2 of 4

Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB     Document 6      Filed 08/28/2007     Page 3 of 4

Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB     Document 6      Filed 08/28/2007     Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1199

In re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:15-mc-00369)

Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s order returning her 

complaint because it was not in compliance with the prefiling injunction. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED