alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 2 1 WY 126

October Term, A.D. 20 2 1

November 10, 2021

ABDULAI BARRIE,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff). S

- 21

- 0171



### O RDER 

### A FFIRMING THE 

### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### ’ S 

### J UDGMENT AND 

### S ENTENCE

[¶ 1 ] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that

A ppellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court

. Appellant

entered unconditional guilty plea s to three misdemeanors and one felony: possession of

m arijuana with intent to deliver

. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3 5

- 7

- 1031 ( a )( i i)

. On the felony, t he

district court imposed a three to f i ve

- year sentence

, which was s uspended in favor of three

years of probation

. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s Ma y 2 8

, 20 2 1 Judgment and Sentence

.

[¶2] On Septem ber 8 , 20 2 1, Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel e

- filed a

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). T his Court subsequently entered an Order

Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief. This Court ordered that, on

or before October 25 , 20 2 1, Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief which

specifies the issues for the Court to consider in this appeal.” This Co urt also provided

notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling

on counsel’s motion to withdraw

, and if appropriate, make a final decision” on th i s appeal.

This Court notes that Appellant did not file a p ro se brief or other pleading in the time

allotted.[¶3] Now, f ollowing a careful review of the record and the Anders brief submitted by

appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be

granted and the district court’s Judgment and Sentence should be a ffirmed. It is, therefore,

[¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court

- appointed counsel

for A ppellant Abdulai Barrie , is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for

A ppellant; and it is further

[¶ 5 ] ORDERED that the d istrict c ourt’s May 2 8 , 2021 Judgment and Sentence be , and

the same h ereby is , affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 10 th day of Nove mber , 20 2 1.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

KATE M. FOX

Chief Justice
STATE v. Kenneth Wayne GOFORTH.

No. 389P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of July 2006 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of August 2006."
EXHIBIT 31.4

                     SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION FOR FORM 10-Q
CERTIFICATIONS
--------------

I, David L. Sokol, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of  MidAmerican  Funding,
LLC;

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.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

    a)  Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or  caused  such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  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  this  report is being
    prepared;

    b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls and
    procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our   conclusions   about  the
    effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of
    the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

    c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's  internal control
    over financial  reporting that occurred during the registrant's  most recent
    fiscal  quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is reasonably  likely to
    materially  affect,   the  registrant's   internal  control  over  financial
    reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

    a) All  significant  deficiencies  and material  weaknesses in the design or
    operation of internal control over financial  reporting which are reasonably
    likely to  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to record,  process,
    summarize and report financial information; and

    b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that  involves  management or other
    employees who have a significant role in the  registrant's  internal control
    over financial reporting.

Date:  August 6, 2003
                               /s/ David L. Sokol
                               ------------------
                                 David L. Sokol
                             Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 06, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 06, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0020. SYNDEL KABCHEF V. DONNIE CRAIG, PICKENS COUNTY SHERIFF ET 

AL. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

SUCV2017000076
# L_2013062EN.01001701.xml

| 6.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/17

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 189/2013

of 5 March 2013

amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 in respect of the known consignor regime

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 (2) lays down a transitional period for the implementation of the requirements regarding the approval of known consignors. For reasons of simplification, it is necessary to harmonise this date with other dates in this Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 (2) lays down a transitional period for the implementation of the requirements regarding the approval of known consignors. For reasons of simplification, it is necessary to harmonise this date with other dates in this Regulation.

| (2) | Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Civil Aviation Security set up by Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 March 2013.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 97, 9.4.2008, p. 72.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 55, 5.3.2010, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

In Chapter 6 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 point 6.4.1.2(d) is replaced by the following:

| ‘(d) | where a known consignor has been approved before 29 April 2010 to ensure that the requirements covered by point 6.4.2 were met, it may be considered as a known consignor for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and its implementing acts until 28 April 2013;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

where a known consignor has been approved before 29 April 2010 to ensure that the requirements covered by point 6.4.2 were met, it may be considered as a known consignor for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and its implementing acts until 28 April 2013;’.

---
Exhibit 32
 Page 1 of 1 Page
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Internet
Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31,
2004 (the “Report”), I, George Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that to my knowledge:

(1)The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); 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 26, 2005
    By:
    /s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChairman and Chief Executive
Officer
The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure
document.
Exhibit 10.20



AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



This Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of the fifth day of February, 2004 by and between Allin Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (Employer), and Richard W. Talarico (Employee), a resident of Pennsylvania.



WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of January 10, 2002, effective as of January 1, 2001 (the Employment
Agreement); and



WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to extend the term
of the Employment Agreement.



NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
promises and agreements herein contained and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:



| | 1. | Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended effective January 1, 2004 by replacing the date December 31, 2003 appearing in the second line of such Section 2
with the date December 31, 2006.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                        |  | Allin Corporation                         
|                        | 
|/s/ Richard W. Talarico |  | By: /s/ Dean C. Praskach                  
|Richard W. Talarico     |  | Dean C. Praskach                          
|                        |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.1



Certification

Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Occidente y Caribe Celular S.A., a sociedad anónimaorganized under the laws of Colombia (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  | 
|------------------ |  | 
|Date: July 8, 2003 |  | 
|                   |  | 
|                   |  | 



|                   |  | 
|------------------ |  | 
|Date: July 8, 2003 |  | 
|                   |  | 
|                   |  | 



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, Unites States Code).



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            8904
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               3
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      70915
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            8140
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              7555
<LOANS>                                         511735
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  616958
<DEPOSITS>                                      438935
<SHORT-TERM>                                     29459
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               5499
<LONG-TERM>                                     107334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                       35676
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  616958
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  20631
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2359
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    80
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 23070
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                9297
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               13714
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             9356
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      350
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   7009
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3013
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3013
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1990
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.06
<LOANS-NON>                                        407
<LOANS-PAST>                                        86
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2100
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  4254
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       36
<RECOVERIES>                                       125
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 4639
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              4639
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to theincorporation by reference into the registration statement of BIO-keyInternational, Inc. (formerly SAC Technologies, Inc.) on Form S-8(file no. 333-37351), which became effective October 7, 1997,of our report dated June 14, 2006 relating to the financial statementswhich appear in this Form 10-KSB/A Amendment No. 2 for theyears ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003.
| /s/ DS & B, Ltd. |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                |   |   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota              |   |   |
| June 19, 2006                  |   |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION FOUND ON
PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                       559
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,632
<PP&E>                                           5,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,337
<BONDS>                                          6,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,076
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,111
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,771
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,717
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,311
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,406
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,406
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
        

</TABLE>
Derek A. PATE and Michelle D. Pate v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

No. 188P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NC DOT.

James F. Hopf, Charles C. Edwards, Jr., Greenville, for Derek & Michelle Pate.

*820*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of April 2006 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 29th day of June 2006."
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,718

EX PARTE PAUL RAY DESILETS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 08-12-11262-CR IN THE 359th DISTRICT COURT

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts of

intoxication assault and sentenced to five years’ and six years’ imprisonment, respectively. The

Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Desilets v. State, No. 09-09-00375-CR (Tex.

App.–Beaumont, delivered October 6, 2010). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of
2

his right to petition for discretionary review pro se.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely advise him

of his right to petition for discretionary review pro se. The trial court recommends that relief be

granted because of a “breakdown in the system” and that any error was without fault to counsel.

However, counsel states in his affidavit that he “neglected to inform Mr. Desilets after [the appeal]

was affirmed that he had thirty days to file a petition for discretionary review.” The record reflects

that Applicant is entitled to relief, but not due to any breakdown in the system. Ex parte Wilson, 956

S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity

to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Ninth Court of Appeals

in Cause No. 09-09-00375-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 08-12-11262-CR from the

359th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County. Applicant shall file his petition for

discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: February 1, 2012

Do not publish
Stephan J. WILLEN and Elizabeth F. Willen v. Susannah L. HEWSON.

No. 11P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Lawrence J. Goldman, Charlotte, for Susannah L. Hewson.

A. Todd Capitano, A. Ward McKeithen, Charlotte, for Stephen J. and Elizabeth Willen.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of January 2006 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 6th day of April 2006."