alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010315EN.01000501.xml

| 19.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2010/C 315/05

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 30.9.2010 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 30.9.2010-31.12.2010 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | DGS/2AC4-C. |
| Species | Spurdog/dogfish (Squalus acanthias) |
| Zone | EU waters of IIa and IV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 664718 |

Date and time of closure

30.9.2010

Duration

30.9.2010-31.12.2010

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

DGS/2AC4-C.

Species

Spurdog/dogfish (Squalus acanthias)

Squalus acanthias

Zone

EU waters of IIa and IV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

664718

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES M. PIPER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

DOMINGO URIBE, Jr., Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-56677

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-05984-AHM-JC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2014** 

Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,

Senior District Judge.

*** 

FILED

SEP 02 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Charles Piper appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas

corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I

Piper contends that the state courts’ rejection of his federal due process

claim—premised on the trial court’s allowance of an amendment to add a count

that had been dismissed at a preliminary hearing—was contrary to or an

unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

An independent review of the record reveals a reasonable justification for the state

courts’ decision. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). The

preliminary hearing transcript, reviewed by the trial judge, suggests that the

dismissed count was “shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary

examination,” Cal. Penal Code § 1009; see also People v. Graff, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d

827, 838 (Ct. App. 2009). Thus, even if we assume that § 1009 establishes a

liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the state courts might

reasonably have concluded that Piper was not deprived of such right in an

“arbitrary” manner. See Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980).

II

Piper maintains that the state courts’ rejection of his ineffective assistance of

counsel claim—premised on his counsel’s failure on appeal to challenge the

2
amendment—was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668 (1984). But because the state courts might reasonably have concluded

that the amendment did not violate state law, they might reasonably have decided

also that the failure to challenge the amendment on appeal was not constitutionally

ineffective. See Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

3
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14100]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed During the Week Ending May 
25, 2001

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers 
may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2001-9725.
    Date Filed: May 21, 2001.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC31 SOUTH 0106 dated May 18, 2001. Expedited South 
Pacific Resolutions r1-r4. Intended effective date: August 1, 2001.

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 01-14100 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 22, 2019.

________________

No. 3D18-2623

Lower Tribunal No. 14-9874

________________

Hector Lopez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber, Judge.

Hector Lopez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

ON PARTIAL CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Hector Lopez, the defendant below, appeals an order summarily denying his

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion for correction of jail credit. 
Lopez’s motion is facially insufficient because the motion is not under oath and

otherwise fails to contain the contents required by rule 3.801(c). As the State

properly and commendably concedes, however, the trial court erred by denying

Lopez’s motion without giving him leave to amend the motion. See Fla. R. Crim.

P. 3.801(e) (incorporating the amendment procedure under Florida Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2) for timely but facially insufficient post-conviction

motions); Belanger v. State, 146 So. 3d 136, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). 

Accordingly, we reverse the order under review to allow Lopez to file a facially

sufficient rule 3.801 motion within sixty days of the issuance of this Court’s

mandate. See Belanger, 146 So. 3d at 137.

Reversed.

2
153 So. 237

#### KRATZ v. BAKER.

6 Div. 538.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 8, 1934.

C. J. Griffith, of Birmingham, for appellant'.

J. P. Mudd, of Birmingham, for appellee.

FOSTER, Justice.

This record shows the rendition of the judgment on June 1, 1933. The bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge July 29, 1933. He certifies that he approved and signed his approval on September 5, 1933, as of August 26, 1933. This means no more than that he signed his approval on September 5, 1933.

Appellee moves to strike the bill because not approved and signed by the judge within thirty days after it was presented to him. The motion in this respect is controlled by section 31 of the Act approved July 20, 1931, pages 621, 627, applicable to county courts of common claims. It requires that the bill must be signed by the trial judge within thirty days after the date of presentation.

The motion made by appellee in accordance with section 6434, Code, must be, and it is, granted, and the bill of exceptions is stricken.

The only assignments of error which appellant argues are shown in the bill of exceptions and not elsewhere. We cannot consider them, so that the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JONATHAN ANDREW BUCHANAN,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22

- 1265
LT Case No. 2017

- 300787

- CFDB

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

/

Opinion filed February 3, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Raul A. Zambrano, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joshua Mosley, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

WALLIS, J.In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence,

but remand for the trial court to correct the order revoking his

p robation. Specifically, although the trial court’s order states that Appellant

willfully and substantially violated condition 10, the trial court's oral

pronouncement was that a violation had not been proven. Consequently,

we remand with instructions for t he trial court to enter a corrected written

order that comports with the conditions that were determined to have been

violated. See Wasden v. State

, 342 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022);

Crichton v. State

, 299 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); Hart v. State

, 252 So.

3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (“Where the oral pronouncement of

revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement

controls.”).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

LAMBERT, C.J. and EVANDER, J., concur.

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

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 annual report of Allied First Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Kenneth
L. Bertrand, President and Chief Executive 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


Date: September 29, 2003                /s/ Kenneth L. Bertrand
                                        ------------------------
                                        Kenneth L. Bertrand
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
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 State

          - [Public Notice 3668] 

The Department of State announces meetings of the U.S. International Telecommunication Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Department on policy and technical issues with respect to the International Telecommunication Union. Meetings will be held at the Department of State, 2201 “C” Street, NW, Washington, DC. 

The ITAC will meet from 10 am to noon on June 5 and June 13, to continue preparations for meetings of the ITU Council. All meetings will be at the Department of State. The ITAC-D will meet from 10 am to noon on Friday, June 8 to prepare for the September meeting of ITU-D Study Groups 1 and 2. 

Members of the general public may attend these meetings. Directions to meeting locations and actual room assignments may be determined by calling the Secretariat at 202-647-0965/2592. For meetings held at the Department of State: Entrance to the building is controlled; people intending to attend any of the ITAC meetings should send a E-mail to williamscd@state.gov no later than 48 hours before the meeting for   preclearance. This e-mail should display the name of the meeting and date of meeting, your name, social security number, date of birth, and organizational affiliation. One of the following valid photo identifications will be required for admission: U.S. driver's license, passport, U. S. Government identification card. Enter the Department of State from the C Street Lobby; in view of escorting requirements, non-Government attendees should plan to arrive not less than 15 minutes before the meeting begins. 

Attendees may join in the discussions, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Admission of members will be limited to seating available. 

Dated: May 25, 2001. 

Doreen McGirr, 

Director, Telecommunication Development Sector, International Communication & Information Policy,  Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 01-13808 Filed 5-29-01; 2:16 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4710-45-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, David C. Scott, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of 3PAR Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarterly report period ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 3PAR Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 13, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ David C. Scott                             
|                        |  |  |  | David C. Scott                                 
|                        |  |  |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director
|                        |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                  

I, Adriel G. Lares, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of 3PAR Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarterly report period ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 3PAR Inc.

|                        |  |  |  |                                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 13, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Adriel G. Lares                                  
|                        |  |  |  | Adriel G. Lares                                      
|                        |  |  |  | Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to 3PAR Inc. and will be retained by 3PAR Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q 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, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or
after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of

Millennium Bankshares Corporation



| |  |  | Millennium Bank, National Association (Virginia)
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Millennium Capital, Inc. (100% owned) (Virginia)
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Millennium Bank Mortgage, L.L.C. (51% owned) (Virginia)
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Millennium Hyland Mortgage, L.L.C. (51% owned) (Virginia)
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Millennium Sunbelt Mortgage, L.L.C. (51% owned) (Nevada)
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Millennium Brokerage Services, Inc. (Virginia)
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Millennium Financial, Inc. (Virginia)
| | - |  | -------------------------------------



| |  |  | Millennium Capital Trust I
| | - |  | --------------------------
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00056-CR

KEDRICK DEON THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District 

Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1543324D)

February 27, 2020

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Johns Brothers Security v. Hugh Jack Jennings et al.

March 25, 2003

Case No. (Chancery) 01-1842

By Judge John C. Morrison, Jr.

Defendants Hugh Jack Jennings, Joseph Carragino, and Advanced Wiring Solutions, Inc. (“AWS”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 9, 2002. Parties argued the motion at a hearing on Friday, December 13, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. Defendants Jennings and Carragino seek summary judgment on the ground that Johns Brothers Security, Inc. (“Johns Brothers”) cannot enforce the non-competition clause against them. Both defendants signed a contract with Security Systems of Tidewater, Inc. (“SST”) that contained the following language:

> This Agreement may not be altered, modified, or assigned or breach thereof waived except in writing signed by the Salesperson and by the President of the Company.

Carragino Agreement ¶ 18; Jennings Agreement ¶ 19. Defendants assert that prohibiting competition against SST is not the same thing as prohibiting competition against Johns Brothers. Therefore, Johns Brothers’s acquisition of SST modified the defendants’ employment contracts without their written consent. For the reasons discussed below, the Court overrules Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

*374In Virginia, a trial court may enter summary judgment only if no material fact is genuinely in dispute. Va. Sup. Ct. Rules, Rule 3:18. When considering a motion for summary judgment, a trial court must adopt those inferences from the facts that are most favorable to the nonmoving party, unless the inferences are forced, strained, or contrary to reason. *Dickerson*v. *Fatehi,*253 Va. 324, 327 (1997). Summaryjudgment is authorized only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is appropriate only where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove. *Id.; Stevens v. Howard D. Johnson Co.,*181 F.2d 396 (4th Cir. 1950); *Hill*v. *Diamond,*203 F. Supp. 877 (E.D. Va. 1962); Michie’s Jur., *Judgments & Decrees,*§ 217.3, at 338, 344.

Whether or not a contract has been modified is a question of fact. *John H. Maclin Peanut Co. v. Pretlow & Co.,*176 Va. 400, 410, 11 S.E.2d 607, 611 (1940). In this case, the parties disagree as to whether or not the merger of Johns Brothers and SST modified the covenant not to compete between Defendants and their employer. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
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 on Form 10-Q of Enterprise Acquisition Corp.  (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Ezra Shashoua, 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, to my knowledge, that: (1) The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: August 14, 2008 /s/ Ezra Shashoua Ezra Shashoua Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.1




	
  

  	
  INCORPORATED
  UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE This Certifies that is the record
  holder of FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR
  VALUE, OF BODY CENTRAL CORP. transferable on the books of the Corporation in
  person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate
  properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the
  Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile seal of
  the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.
  Dated: SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 09689U 10 2 TREASURER
  DELAWARE SEAL 2006 CORPORATE BODY CENTRAL CORP. PRESIDENT BODY CENTRAL CORP.
  BC COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY,
  LLC (New York, NY) TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 

  






 












	
  

  	
  Signature(s)
  Guaranteed By THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR
  INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT
  UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
  PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. TEN COM — as tenants in common TEN ENT — as
  tenants by the entireties JT TEN — as joint tenants with right of
  survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT — Custodian
  (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (State) UNIF TRF MIN ACT —
  Custodian (until age) (Cust) under Uniform Transfers (Minor) to Minors Act
  (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above
  list. FOR VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT
  SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR
  TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) shares of the
  common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably
  constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of
  the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.
  Dated THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS
  WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
  ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. X X NOTICE: The following
  abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
  shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable
  laws or regulations: