alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

June 7, 2024

SC-2024-0289

Ex parte Jennifer Glass James PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Jennifer Glass James 

v. State of Alabama) (Chilton Circuit Court: CC-22-132; Criminal 

Appeals: CR-2022-1235).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on June 7, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Sellers, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, 

Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
EXHIBIT
32.1


Certification
of President and Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted


Pursuant
to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Danvers Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I
hereby certify, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company as of, and for, the period covered by the
      Report.





This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2202, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signal
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/    Kevin T.
Bottomley________________


Kevin T. Bottomley


President and Chief Executive
Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30725-30726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-431-000]


Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Report of Net Revenues

June 1, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 29, 2001, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP 
(Gulf South) tendered for filing its report of the net revenues 
attributable to the operation of its cash-in/cash-out program for an 
annual period beginning April 1, 2000 and ending March 31, 2001.
    Gulf South states that this filing reflects its annual report of 
the net revenues attributable to the operation of its cash-in/cash-out 
program used to resolve transportation imbalances. The report shows a 
negative cumulative position that will continue to be carried

[[Page 30726]]

forward and applied to the next cash-in/cash-out reporting period as 
provided in Gulf South's tariff, Section 20.1(E)(i) of the General 
Terms and Conditions.
    Gulf South states that copies of this filing have been served upon 
Gulf South's customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before June 8, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions of the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14349 Filed 6-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
32.1
            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350.




I, Ben
Roberts, the Chief Executive Officer of Southfield Energy Corporation, hereby
certify that to my knowledge, Southfield Energy Corporation’s quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-Q and the
financial statements contained therein fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Southfield
Energy Corporation.




Date: May
14, 2010




/s/
      Ben RobertsBen
      Roberts
H. Res. 1099 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 21, 2010. 

Whereas 2010 marks the 65th anniversary of the Battle of 

Iwo Jima, in which the United States Marine Corps, directly supported by the United States Navy and elements 

of the United States Army, captured the island of Iwo 

Jima during World War II; 

Whereas the Battle of Iwo Jima lasted from February 19 to 

March 26, 1945, and was among the most bitter battles 

in the history of the Marine Corps; 

Whereas more than 70,000 Marines participated in the Battle of Iwo Jima; 

Whereas 22 Marines, 4 Navy corpsmen, and 1 Navy landing 

craft commander received the Medal of Honor, the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force 

which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the 

United States Armed Forces, for their service during the 

Battle of Iwo Jima; 

Whereas half of the awards issued to Marines and Navy 

corpsmen of the 5th Amphibious Corps were posthumous 

awards; 

Whereas awards for service during the Battle of Iwo Jima 

represented more than one-fourth of the 80 Medals of 

Honor awarded Marines during World War II; 
2 

•HRES 1099 EH 

Whereas, in recognition of the particularly treacherous conditions experienced by Marines, sailors, and soldiers during 

the Battle of Iwo Jima, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz stated, 

‘‘Among the Americans who fought on Iwo island, uncommon valor was a common virtue’’; 

Whereas the raising of the American flag over Mount 

Suribachi on February 23, 1945, was witnessed by many 

Marines all over Iwo Jima and the ships at sea and, upon 

witnessing the sight, Navy Secretary James Vincent Forrestal said, ‘‘The raising of that flag means a Marine 

Corps for another five hundred years’’; 

Whereas Joe Rosenthal’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph 

of the 5 Marines and 1 Navy corpsman raising the American flag over Mount Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo 

Jima produced an iconic and lasting symbol of the courage and determination that helped achieve victory for the 

United States Armed Forces during World War II; 

Whereas the Battle of Iwo Jima was a military victory critical to the assault on Japan, providing a base for American fighter escorts and a way station for bombers raiding Japan; 

Whereas the United States success in capturing Iwo Jima 

was a crucial victory that led to the eventual triumph in 

the Pacific Theatre during World War II; and 

Whereas over 17,000 Marines were wounded and almost 

6,000 Marines made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their 

lives for their country in the Battle of Iwo Jima: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
3 

•HRES 1099 EH 

(1) recognizes the 65th anniversary of the Battle of 

Iwo Jima; and 

(2) recognizes and commends all members of the 

United States Armed Forces who participated in the 

Battle of Iwo Jima for their service and sacrifice, with 

particular honor and gratitude given to those gallant 

Americans who gave their lives in defense of the United 

States and of freedom during the Battle of Iwo Jima. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARSHAWN TYLIQUE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 271 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of April, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

NFL

NO. 2023 KW 0996

JANUARY 22, 2024

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 

20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West

Feliciana, Nos. 23- WFLN- 87, 23- WFLN- 88, 23- WMSD- 89. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the

Officer conceded he initiated the traffic stop at

issue solely for the left-hand lane violation. The State

concedes the Officer' s testimony concerning respondent driving

in the left lane failed to establish probable cause to believe

that a traffic violation had occurred, and thus, was

insufficient to support an investigatory stop of the vehicle. 

CHH

SNM

McClendon, J. , concurs and would deny the writ.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R

. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

April 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 03-10996

Summary Calendar

____________

CECIL RAY PATTERSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; JOHN

ASHCROFT,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:01-CV-135

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cecil Ray Patterson, Texas state prisoner # 77957 9, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. §

2241 petition fo r habeas corpus. Patterson was convi cted of both the Texas state charge of

attempted capital murder and the federal charge of felon in possession of a firearm. Patterson argues2

that the district court erred in finding that the rule against piecemeal incarceration did not prevent his

transfer from federal to state custody before he fully served his federal sentence.

We review the district court’s findings for clear error and it s rulings of law d e novo

. S ee

Moody v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 477, 480 (5th Cir.1998).

The district court correctly concluded that Patterson’s transfer to state custody did not violate

the rule against piecemeal incarceration because the transfer did not result in the lengthening of his

sentence. See Free v. Miles , 333 F.3d 550, 552 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pat t erson failed to argue and has therefore abandoned an appeal of the district co urt ’s

determination that it lacked jurisdiction over any § 2255 claims that he was attempting to assert. S ee

Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Further, Patterson has filed four previous federal habeas petitions challenging his transfer from

federal to state custody. He filed t wo previous § 2241, one previous § 2254, and one previous §

2255 petition. This is therefore Patterson’s fifth attempt to challenge his transfer. Because this

appeal is a “duplicative action arising from the same series of events and alleging many of the same

facts as an earlier suit” the appeal is DISMISSED as FRIVOLOUS. S ee Bailey v. Johnson

, 846 F.2d

1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); Howard v. King

, 707 F.2d 512, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

Patterson is WARNED that any future filings to this court or any court subject to the

jurisdiction of this court that challenge his transfer from federal to state custody will invit e sanctions,

which may include monetary fines and/or restrictions on his abilit y to file pleadings in federal court.

DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 27, 2009 

s0518 

Order 

 

May 27, 2009 

137583 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137583 

 COA: 283796 

Allegan CC: 05-014088-FH 

JOSH DUANE RUSSELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 8, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of IPC The Hospitalist Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ ADAM D. SINGER, M.D.Adam D. Singer, M.D. Chief Executive Officer


August 6, 2009
#### In the Matter of Thomas R. Mitchell, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[874 NYS2d 828]-

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1992. He maintained an office for the practice of law in California, where he was admitted to the bar in 1998.

By order dated August 3, 2007, the Supreme Court of California imposed upon respondent a 90-day actual suspension followed by a one-year stayed suspension, which was conditioned upon compliance with the conditions of a two-year period of probation. He was also ordered to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) within one year of the date of that order. By subsequent order dated September 19, 2008, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in California, pending proof of passage of the MPRE, since he had not passed it within the time prescribed by the August 3, 2007 order.

According to the decision of the State Bar Court of California, respondent engaged in professional misconduct by aiding another in the unauthorized practice of law, assisting a suspended attorney in collecting illegal fees, and committing acts of moral turpitude. Petitioner moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline upon respondent pursuant to this Court’s rules (see 22 ISTYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed a reply that does not *1268establish any of the defenses to reciprocal discipline *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]), and we therefore grant petitioner’s motion. Under the circumstances presented and given the seriousness of the misconduct engaged in, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years *(see e.g. Matter of Takvorian,*240 AD2d 95 [1998]).

Peters, J.P, Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
SUMMARY OF TRANSLATION OF SHARE TRANSFER AGREEMENT



 Exhibit 10.10 
  
 TRANSLATION 
 OF 
 SHARE TRANSFER AGREEMENT OF E-FUTURE (BEIJING) TORNADO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC. 
  
 Transferor: Dafu Zou 
 Transferee: Johnson Li 
  
 With regard to the share transfer of E-Future (Beijing) Tornado Information Technology, Inc., Mr. Dafu Zou and Mr. Junfeng Li agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Mr. Dafu Zou agrees to transfer all of his 20% shares, or capital contribution of RMB 100,000, of E-Future (Beijing) Tornado Information Technology, Inc. to Mr. Junfeng Li.


  

	 	2.	Junfeng Li agrees to purchase the aforementioned shares. 

  

	 	3.	The consideration for the share transfer is RMB100,000. 

  

	 	4.	The formal share transfer date shall be July 3, 2000, as of which the transferor won’t take rights and undertake obligations of the company with his capital contribution in the
company, while the transferee will take rights and undertake obligations of the company with his capital contribution in the company. 

  
 This Agreement shall enter into effect as of the date of signatures of both parties. 
  

			
		
	 Transferor:
	 	 /s/ Dafu Zou

	 	 	 Dafu Zou

		
	 Transferee: 
	 	 /s/ Junfeng Li

	 	 	 Junfeng Li


  
 Date: July 3, 2000
```

[Federal Register: August 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 44262]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04au06-41]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, August 25, 2006.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be considered: Surveillance Matters.

For further information contact: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-6714 Filed 8-2-06; 10:33 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Exhibit
31.1





Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.





I,
Wallace Boyack, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q with financial statements for the period
ended March 31, 2008, of NORTH HORIZON, INC.





2. Based
on my knowledge, this Form 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 circumstance under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period and disclosures covered by this Form.





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in the Form 10-Q, 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 Form.





4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:




a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 the Form 10-Q is being prepared;


b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the Form 10-Q
(the “Evaluation Date”); and


c)
presented in the Form 10-Q the conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;


c)
presented in this Form 10-Q our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;




5. The
registrant’s certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s
board of directors (or other persons performing equivalent
functions):




a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and





6. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in the Form 10-Q
whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
that could significantly affect internal control subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.




Date: April
      24, 2008/s/Wallace
      BoyackWallace
      BoyackPresident/Chief
      Executive Officer/Director
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








The undersigned, Timothy J. Neher, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of MIKOJO INCORPORATED (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:




1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 18th day of February, 2011.






/s/ Timothy J. Neher


Timothy J. Neher


Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer




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