alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. E. Williams, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Opinion filed March 30, 1929.

*402
      *B. C. Horne*and *J. M. Hearn*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant for the State.

Ellis, J.

The plaintiff in error was arrested and is in custody as a prisoner of the constable of the Fifth Judicial District of Suwannee County who holds him by reason of a warrant issued by the justice of the peace of the fifth district charging the accused with the offense of “passing worthless checks” to another not having sufficient funds on deposit with the drawee named in the check to insure the payment of same within a reasonable time after negotiation.

The accused applied for his discharge upon writ of *habeas corpus*upon return being made by the constable. The attorney for the accused moved for his discharge upon several grounds. The motion was denied and the accused was remanded to the custody of the constable. The case is here on writ of error.

The offense was alleged to have been committed in January, 1927.

In 1921, by Chapter 8401, the drawing or uttering by one person to another of any check “without there being at the time thereof sufficient funds on deposit or to his credit with the drawee named therein to insure the payment of same upon presentation within a reasonable time after negotiation” was made a misdemeanor. See Sec. 7922 Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida, 1927.

That statute is not the worthless check statute many times considered by this court, Chap. 5468 Acts 1905, Chap. 6871 Acts 1915 and Chap. 7263 Acts 1917.

*403While the warrant issued in this case may be subject to objections of inaccuracies and imperfections in pleading, although it does conform to the form prescribed by Sec. 7 of Chapter 8401, *supra,*it does not wholly fail to charge an offense under the law of this State as defined by See. 7922, *supra**The court issuing the warrant had jurisdiction of the person and the power to issue the warrant. The custody of the accused does not appear to be unlawful. See Porter v. Porter, 60 Fla. 407, 53 So. R. 546; Porter v. State, 62 Fla. 79, 56 So. R. 405.

The judgment remanding the accused is affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
HUAFENG XU, petitioner, v. TEREX CORP.

No. 16-1419.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# L_2012247EN.01001502.xml

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/15

---

Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 156/2011 of 2 December 2011 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 76 of 15 March 2012
  )

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 156/2011 shall be amended as follows:

| 1. | In recital 7, the words ‘Directive 2003/87/EC’ shall be replaced with the words ‘Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

In recital 7, the words ‘Directive 2003/87/EC’ shall be replaced with the words ‘Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council’;

| 2. | In recital 7, a footnote five with the words ‘OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32.’ shall be added after the words ‘Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

In recital 7, a footnote five with the words ‘OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32.’ shall be added after the words ‘Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council’;

| 3. | In Article 3, the words ‘This Decision shall enter into force on 3 December 2011 or on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement, whichever is the later, but not earlier than 1 January 2012.’ shall be replaced with the words ‘This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2012 or on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement, whichever is the later.’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In Article 3, the words ‘This Decision shall enter into force on 3 December 2011 or on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement, whichever is the later, but not earlier than 1 January 2012.’ shall be replaced with the words ‘This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2012 or on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement, whichever is the later.’.

---
Exhibit 4.24


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 





		Borrower:	Ehave, Inc. of 2020 Winston Park Drive, Suite 201, Oakville, ON L6H 6X7 (the “Borrower”)



 


		Lender:	________ of ________________________ (the “Lender”)



 


Principal Amount: $______
CAD


 


		1.	FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The Borrower promises to pay the Lender at such address as may be provided in writing to the Borrower,
the principal sum of $_______ CAD, without interest payable on the unpaid principal on demand.
	 	 	 



		2.	Any any time while not in default under this Note, the Borrower may repay the outstanding balance then owing under this Note
to the Lender without further bonus or penalty.
	 	 	 



		3.	This Note will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario.
	 	 	 



		4.	This Note will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the representative heirs, executors, administrators, successors
and assigns of the Borrower and the Lender.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly affixed their signatures
under seal on this 27 day of July, 2017.


 


	SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED	Ehave, Inc.
	 	 
	July 27, 2017	 
	 	Per ________________________________________
	 	 
	SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED	___________________________________________
	 	 
	July 27, 2017	 
	 	Per ________________________________________
----

Exhibit 99.14
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
In connection with the amended Annual Report of Gammon Lake ResourcesInc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Russell C. Barwick, the  Chief Executive Officer and Director of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 4,    2007    /s/    Russell C. Barwick                                               Russell C. Barwick Chief Executive Officer and Director  
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
In connection with the amended Annual Report of Gammon Lake ResourcesInc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Colin P. Sutherland, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
Date: May 4,    2007    /s/ Colin P.    Sutherland                                                Colin P.    Sutherland Chief Financial    Officer
Nehemiah ARMSTRONG, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 16-9661.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Nguyen VU, petitioner, v. John E. WETZEL, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-5446.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6469** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. CLEVE ALEXANDER JOHNSON, a/k/a Cuz , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00233

- TDS

- 1 ; 1:12

- cv - 00571

- TDS

- JLW )

Submitted : March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Harvey Alexander Carpenter, IV, LAW OFFICES OF H.A. CARPENTER IV, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joan Brodish Childs, Sandr a Jane Hairston, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cleve Alexander Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit just ice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. 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 (2000) ; see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dis pense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/02/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       21,309
COMMITMENTS
   7,832    4,759    3,522    2,625    9,543   13,979   17,824    7,330    3,485

CHANGES FROM 05/26/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:          .)
       .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    36.8     22.3     16.5     12.3     44.8     65.6     83.6     34.4     16.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       20)
       9        6        5        5        3       17       11
```

----

Updated June 5, 2009
Jeffery GREENE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-8272.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 32

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 Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for
the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth D. Walter, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, and Interim President and Chief
Executive 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 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    Kenneth D. WalterKenneth D. Walter Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer, and Interim President and Chief Executive
Officer


May 26, 2009
UNITED STATES, ex rel. Roland Wade JACKSON, petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, et al.

No. 16-1098.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Roberto Barbosa ORTIZ, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-5502.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC. OF GEORGIA, et al., petitioners, v. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, GEORGIA.

No. 17-1211.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Dexter OWENS, petitioner, v. James DZURENDA, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections.

No. 17-5828.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
Stacy L. CONNER, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, et al.

No. 17-7625.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Paul Henry RICHARDS, II, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6326.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 4, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18
             UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMTROL Inc (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Albert
D. Indelicato, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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:  May 14, 2004                    By: /s/ALBERT D. INDELICATO
                                           -------------------------------------
                                            Albert D. Indelicato,
                                            President, Chairman of the Board,
                                            Chief Executive Officer and Director
MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE, et al., petitioners, v. Joe MANSKY, et al.

No. 16-1435.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

Motion of Cato Institute, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Motion of the American Civil Rights Union, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Motion of Center for Competitive Politics for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.
Dontae MORRIS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-5917.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

*453Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Christopher Don'te LOUD, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-6173.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/23/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       98,964
COMMITMENTS
  25,071    7,285   16,228   39,540   51,686   80,838   75,198   18,126   23,765

CHANGES FROM 06/16/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -6,702)
    -972    1,388   -2,178   -2,161   -5,233   -5,311   -6,023   -1,391     -679

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    25.3      7.4     16.4     40.0     52.2     81.7     76.0     18.3     24.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      140)
      41       15       31       59       63      112      102
```

----

Updated June 26, 2009
Amendment No. 1
                            Executive Retirement Plan


         May AII amend or terminate  this Plan?  This Plan may not be amended or
terminated until on or after April 1, 2007.


         o    Are there exceptions to this rule? Yes.

              >    An amendment or  termination  of this plan may not  adversely
                   affect the rights and benefits under this plan of a person if
                   such amendment or termination is adopted after,  or less than
                   three years prior to, the date such person becomes "eligible"
                   to "retire"  (determined  without  regard to the  amendment);
                   provided  that  the  person  "acknowledged  eligibility"  and
                   executed  either  an  employment  agreement  or a  Change  in
                   Control and  Noncompete  Agreement  prior to the date of such
                   amendment or termination; and

              >    Except during the 18 months  following a "change in control,"
                   a plan  amendment  adopted at any time will apply to a Person
                   if, in AII's reasonable  judgment,  the promises and benefits
                   of the amended Plan are in the aggregate no less favorable to
                   such  person  than  the  promises  and  benefits  before  the
                   amendment or if, in AII's reasonable judgment, such amendment
                   is  necessary  to  achieve  the  purpose  of the  Plan or the
                   purpose  of  the  Plan's  benefits.   For  example,  such  an
                   amendment  may be required due to future legal  compliance or
                   accounting  issues, or to prevent deferred  compensation from
                   becoming  taxable before the intended date. Such an amendment
                   will apply to all  persons  regardless  of  whether  they are
                   retired or approaching retirement.

              >    Except  during the  eighteen  months  following  a "change in
                   control,"  exhibits to this Plan may be revised or deleted at
                   any time in the Company's sole discretion,  and such revision
                   or deletion  will apply to all persons  regardless of whether
                   they are retired or  approaching  retirement.  The Company is
                   not required to attach to this Plan any revised exhibit.  You
                   should check with the Company before relying upon any exhibit
                   to this Plan.

              >    This  Plan  may  not be  amended  or  terminated  during  the
                   eighteen  month period  following the occurrence of a "change
                   in control."
# C_2011252EN.01000902.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/9

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 March 2011 — Claro SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Telefónica SA

(Case C-349/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Failure to file a statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2011/C 252/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Claro SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Telefónica SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 2010 in Case T-225/09 Claro v OHIM and Telefónica, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009 (Case R 1079/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Telefónica, SA and BCP S/A

Claro

OHIM and Telefónica

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Claro SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Claro SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn L. Cooper, Chief Executive 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 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; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Glenn L. Cooper                 
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer May 10,
2007



46