alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 192/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.192.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 192 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5323 July 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.192.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 192

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5323 July 2010

---

| Contents | | IV   Acts adopted before 1 December 2009 under the EC Treaty, the EU Treaty and the Euratom Treaty | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Council Directive 2009/156/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing the movement and importation from third countries of equidae (1) | 1 |

Contents

IV   Acts adopted before 1 December 2009 under the EC Treaty, the EU Treaty and the Euratom Treaty

page

*

Council Directive 2009/156/EC of 30 November 2009 on animal health conditions governing the movement and importation from third countries of equidae (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
GEORGIA, et al., Petitioners, v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.

No. 18-1150

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,267-01

EX PARTE LAWRENCE JOINER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 13,679A IN THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM BASTROP COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., and

SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of aggravated robberyand sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment.

The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Joiner v. State, No. 03-09-00694-CR (Tex.

App.—Austin, Aug. 3, 2010). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the

county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that the State presented false testimony at his punishment hearing, trial

counsel was deficient in his preparation for and during the punishment hearing, and trial counsel’s

advice to Applicant to reject the State’s plea offer, plead to guilty, and request probation from the
2

jury was objectively unreasonable. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that counsel’s

representation was not deficient, but that the testimony in question was false or created a false

impression for the jury, that the testimony was material, and that Applicant was harmed by the

misrepresentation.

We agree. Relief is granted. Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The sentence in cause number 13679 in the 21st District Court of Bastrop County is set aside, and

Applicant isremanded to the custodyofthe Sheriff ofBastrop County for a new punishment hearing.

The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of this Court’s

mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminalJustice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: June 30, 2021

Do not publish
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 Amendment No. 1 to
Annual Report of VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (“the Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2019, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Steve
Shindler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 15, 2020



| | /s/ Steve Shindler     
| | -----------------------
| | Steve Shindler         
| | Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION OFPERIODIC REPORT

I, Dennis G. McLaughlin, III, Chief Executive Officerof Earth Biofuels, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the six months endedJune 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(2)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 18, 2006 |   |                          |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |                          |   |
|                            |   | /s/ Dennis G. McLaughlin, III |   |
|                            |   | Dennis G. McLaughlin, III     |   |
|                            |   | Chief Executive Officer       |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7656

TONY CUNNINGHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (5:11-cv-01037-JMC)

Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Cunningham seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(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 

(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 petition 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 Cunningham 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 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Kevin MCCABE, et al., Petitioners v. LIFETIME ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC.

No. 18-1353

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN RE Billie BYRD, Petitioner

No. 19-6726

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">1646 Union, LLC, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Aldena Williams, Appellant, et al., Undertenants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>South Brooklyn Legal Services (Sarah Telson, Regina Gennari and Logan Schiff of counsel), for appellant.Stern &amp; Stern, Esqs. (David Lyle Stern of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Marina C. Mundy, J.), entered August 3, 2015. The order denied tenant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition and granted landlord's cross motion for summary judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that landlord's cross motion for summary judgment is denied and that, upon a review, pursuant to CPLR 409 (b), of the pleadings, papers and admissions, the petition is dismissed, and by further providing that the denial of tenant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition is on the ground of mootness; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this holdover proceeding based on a claim that tenant failed to execute a renewal lease (Rent Stabilization Code ยง 2524.3 [f]), tenant moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the renewal offer was invalid because the rents listed therein were above the legal regulated rent. Landlord cross-moved for summary judgment. Tenant appeals from an order denying tenant's motion and granting landlord's cross motion.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>1646 Union, LLC v Simpson</i> ( __ Misc 3d __, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-2100 K C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that landlord's cross motion for summary judgment is denied and that, upon a review, pursuant to <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>CPLR 409 (b), of the pleadings, papers and admissions, the petition is dismissed, and by further providing that the denial of tenant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition is on the ground of mootness.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: January 18, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# Official Journal C 244A/12 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 244A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6112 July 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 244A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6112 July 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2018/C 244 A/01 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/361/18 — Irish-language (GA) translators (AD 5) | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2018/C 244 A/01

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/361/18 — Irish-language (GA) translators (AD 5)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 31

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

   I, John M. Sharpe, Jr., President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Inner Systems, Inc., certify that:

   1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Inner Systems,
Inc.

   2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

   3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, 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 report.

   4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I 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 me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on such
evaluation.

   5. I have disclosed, based upon my most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):

      (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.

   6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 21, 2007                      By: /s/ John M. Sharpe, Jr.
                                            -----------------------
                                            John M. Sharpe, Jr., President
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Chief Financial Officer
STATE ex rel. v. RATE BUREAU.

No. 596A03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2004.

William M. Trott, Marvin M. Spivey, Raleigh, for North Carolina Rate Bureau.

Sherri L. Hubbard, Cary, Stewart L. Johnson, Raleigh, for Commissioner of Insurance.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of March 2004 by Appellant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Appellant (North Carolina Rate Bureau) shall have up to and including the 17th day of March 2004 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of March 2004.
STATE of North Carolina v. Richard McKinley TAYLOR.

No. 224P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Margaret Creasy Ciardella, Wrightsville Beach, for Richard McKinley Taylor.

Robert T. Hargett, Special Deputy Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th day of May 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


August 1, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 439 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on July 31, 2019, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-231493) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                    


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERESA DE JESUS PATINOGONZALEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71761 

Agency No. A095-194-152 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Teresa De Jesus Patino-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 

motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 14 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71761 

F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Patino-Gonzalez’s seventh 

motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where she filed it more than nine

years after the order of removal became final, and she has not established that any 

statutory or regulatory exception applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(2), (3).

The court’s jurisdiction to review the BIA’s sua sponte determination is 

limited to reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional 

error, and Patino-Gonzalez has not established any error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 

F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016); De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 n. 5 

(9th Cir. 2009) (denial of an application for cancellation of removal does not 

implicate constitutional rights concerning family unity or child rearing).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Patino-Gonzalez’s challenges to the 

agency’s underlying hardship determination, because this petition is not timely as 

to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review of a final order of

removal must be filed within 30 days of that order); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 

F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review an 

underlying order of removal on petition for review from the denial of a later 

motion to reopen).
3 17-71761 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Patino-Gonzalez’s request for prosecutorial 

discretion or deferred action. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (order). 

We do not consider the documents that Patino-Gonzalez submitted with her

opening brief because they were not part of the administrative record. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the administrative record); 

Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of

out of record evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
STATE of North Carolina v. Larry Spencer HILL.

No. 249P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 12, 2004.

Larry Spencer Hill, Pro Se.

*860William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 6th day of July 2004 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Forsyth County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of July 2004."

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 6th day of July 2004 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State Actions), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Forsyth County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of July 2004."
# Official Journal C 250A/30 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 250A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6330 July 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 250A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6330 July 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2020/C 250 A/01 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/381/20 — Administrators (AD 5) in the field of European law | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2020/C 250 A/01

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/381/20 — Administrators (AD 5) in the field of European law

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN