alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A92A0792.

#### MARTIN v. THE STATE.

(422 SE2d 6)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and sentenced to life in prison pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-30 (d). Defendant was not given the possibility of parole because of his status as a repeat offender under OCGA § 17-10-7 (b). This appeal followed the denial of defendant’s motion for new trial. *Held:*

1. Defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him without the possibility of parole under OCGA § 17-10-7 (b). This enumeration presents nothing for review as “defendant lacks standing to contest the statute until such time as he claims a right of parole and the statute is asserted against him as a bar. *Green v. State,*244 Ga. 755 (262 SE2d 68).” *Yearby v. State,*195 Ga. App. 757 (1) (395 SE2d 29).

2. Defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him as a repeat offender under OCGA § 17-10-7 (b), arguing the State did not give fair notice of its intention to use prior convictions in aggravation of punishment. This contention is without merit. Defendant was served more than a week before trial with notice of the State’s intention to use six prior felony convictions in aggravation of punishment pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-7 (b). *Anderson v. State,*199 Ga. App. 559, 560 (3) (405 SE2d 558).

3. Defendant contends the mandatory life sentence requirement of OCGA § 16-13-30 (d) violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This contention is without merit for *201the reasons stated in *Rucks v. State,*201 Ga. App. 142, 144 (2) (410 SE2d 206).

Decided July 7, 1992

Reconsideration denied July 27, 1992

*Hallman & Associates, D. Jay Stewart,*for appellant.

*Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, Charles D. Howard, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

4. Defendant contends OCGA § 16-13-30 (b) violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions, arguing that the statute is vague and overly broad. However, defendant fails to show that this constitutional challenge was raised in the trial court. Consequently, this enumeration presents nothing for review. *Mack v. State,*224 Ga. 352 (161 SE2d 874).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Sognier, C. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of Bonfire Productions, Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed  with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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


Date:  January 30, 2009


/s/ Elena Bylbash
----------------------------------
Elena Bylbash
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary
Treasurer, principal accounting
officer and Director
November 22, 2006
Via E-Mail

Office of the Acting Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 06.139: Notification of
Procedural Changes for the Hours of Trading and the Opening Call
in Open Outcry Trading Sessions for Energy Futures Contracts

Dear Ms. Eileen Donovan:

The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX" or the "Exchange" is notifying the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) of Procedural Changes for the Hours of
Trading and the Opening Call in Open Outcry Trading Sessions for Energy Futures Contracts Related to
NYMEX Rule 6.02, “Hours for Trading,” and Rule 6.03, “Call.”

Effective Monday, December 4, 2006, the procedural changes include the following:

e NY Harbor products futures contracts, Heating Oil (HO), Unleaded Gasoline (HU), and Gasoline
Blendstock (RB) will open at 10:00 a.m., similar to the existing time for Crude Oil (CL).
Previously these contracts opened at 10:05 a.m.

° Additionally, the opening procedure of all energy futures will be to allow initial months to
remain open while subsequent months are opened (i.e., December 06 CL will remain open while
January 07 CL opens). Also, spread trading between months that have been opened will be
permitted.

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the
Exchange hereby certifies that the attached procedural changes comply with the Act, including
regulations under the Act.

Questions regarding these procedural changes should be directed to George Henderson, Vice
President, NYMEX Floor Operations, at (212) 299-2071, and Nancy Minett, Vice President, Compliance,
at (212) 299-2940

Very truly yours,

Thomas F. LaSala
Chief Regulatory Officer

cc: Nancy Minett
Brian Regan
George Henderson


Rule 6.02, Hours for Trading

The Board shall establish the hours for trading in commodities on the Exchange for each trading
session. All such trading shall take place within the prescribed hours.

Rule 6.03, Call

There may be one or more calls each business day for the purchase and sale of each commodity
futures and options contract in which trading is being conducted. Whether a call is to be
conducted, and the time and duration of each such call may be determined by the Board. The
Board may, from time to time, delegate to the President the authority to determine such time and
duration.
# C_2019206EN.01001202.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2019 — CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

(Case C-139/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) - Appraisal report - 2011 Appraisal exercise - Application for annulment of the decision closing the appraisal report)

(2019/C 206/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2017, CJ v ECDC (T-602/16, not published, EU:T:2017:893); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2017, CJ v ECDC (T-602/16, not published, EU:T:2017:893);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the appeal assessor of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 21 September 2015 closing CJ’s appraisal report for 2011; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the appeal assessor of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 21 September 2015 closing CJ’s appraisal report for 2011;

| 3. | Orders the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CJ relating both to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CJ relating both to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---
**CERTIFICATION          PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) OF**

**THE          SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,          AS          ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF          2002**

| (a) | The                    Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section                    13(a) or                    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                    and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                     |                                                                                                                                                                  |                                  |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Date:                  November 14, 2008 | STONE                  CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.                                                                                                                      |
|                                |                                                                                                                                                             |                             |
|                                     | By:                                                                                                                                                         | /s/ Michael                Stone |
|                                     | Michael                  Stone, President and Chief                  Executive Officer (Principal                  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
|                                     |                                                                                                                                                                  |

----
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Gulfstream International Group, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert M. Brown, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Gulfstream International Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Gulfstream International Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/  Robert M. BrownRobert M. BrownChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial
      Officer)





May 17, 2010
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Devon HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-8137.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 28, 2013.

Curtis Devon Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Michel Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Devon Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.*
EXHIBIT 23



MCNAIR, MCLEMORE, MIDDLEBROOKS & CO., LLP

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



RALPH S. McLEMORE, SR., CPA (1963-1977)

SIDNEY B. McNAIR, CPA (1954-1992)



|                                |  |  |  |                              
|------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                                |  |  |  | RICHARD A. WHITTEN, JR., CPA 
|SIDNEY E. MIDDLEBROOKS, CPA, PC |  |  |  | ELIZABETH WARE HARDIN, CPA   
|RAY C. PEARSON, CPA             |  |  |  | CAROLINE E. GRIFFIN, CPA     
|J. RANDOLPH NICHOLS, CPA        |  |  |  | RONNIE K. GILBERT, CPA       
|WILLIAM H. EPPS, JR., CPA       |  |  |  | RON C. DOUTHIT, CPA          
|RAYMOND A. PIPPIN, JR., CPA     |  |  |  | CHELSEY P. CAWTHON, JR., CPA 
|JERRY A. WOLFE, CPA             |  |  |  | CHARLES A. FLETCHER, CPA     
|W. E. BARFIELD, JR., CPA        |  |  |  | MARJORIE HUCKABEE CARTER, CPA
|HOWARD S. HOLLEMAN, CPA         |  |  |  | BRYAN A. ISGETT, CPA         
|F. GAY McMICHAEL, CPA           |  |  |  | DAVID PASCHAL MUSE, JR., CPA 



March 24, 2005



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated March 17, 2005, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the
Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc. 2001 Incentive Stock Option Plan (File #333-92440), as filed with the SEC on July 16, 2002.



LOGO

McNAIR, McLEMORE, MIDDLEBROOKS & CO., LLP



389 Mulberry Street  Post Office Box One  Macon, GA 31202

Telephone (478) 746-6277  Facsimile (478) 743-6858

www.mmmcpa.com
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27041-27042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12269]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-1148; MM Docket No. 00-42; RM-9826]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Charleroi and Duquesne, PA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Keymarket Licenses, LLC, 
reallots Channel 252A from Charleroi to Duquesne, Pennsylvania, and 
modifies Station WOGI-FM's license accordingly. See 65 FR 15886, March 
24, 2000. Channel 252A can be reallotted to Duquesne in compliance with 
the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site 
restriction of 3.1 kilometers (1.9 miles) east at petitioner's 
requested site. The coordinates for Channel 252A at Duquesne are 40-21-
52 North Latitude and 79-48-49 West Longitude.

DATES: Effective June 18, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-42, adopted April 25, 2001 , and 
released May 4, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, 
SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

47 CFR PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 54, 303, 334, and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under 
Pennsylvania, is amended by removing Channel 252A at Charleroi and by 
adding Duquesne, Channel 252A.


[[Page 27042]]


Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-12269 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sinobiopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2009,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Xinjie
Mu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350 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.





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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.








Date:
      January 14, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Xinjie MuXinjie
      Mu
                Chief
      Financial Officer and Director
                (principal financial and
      accounting
      officer)
# C_2017129EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/21

---

Action brought on 10 February 2017 — RT v Parliament

(Case T-98/17)

(2017/C 129/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RT (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 30 June 2016 rejecting a medical certificate; together with, and so far as necessary annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 January 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 30 June 2016 rejecting a medical certificate; together with, and so far as necessary annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 January 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 59 of Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the Internal Rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 59 of Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the Internal Rules.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the Internal Rules. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the Internal Rules.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the Internal Rules, failure to state adequate reasons, and violation of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the Internal Rules, failure to state adequate reasons, and violation of the principle of legal certainty.

---
#### In the Matter of Hailey ZZ., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Ricky ZZ., Appellant.

Submitted March 19, 2012;

decided March 22, 2012

Reported below, 85 AD3d 1265.

Motion by Saratoga County Department of Social Services et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.