alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00538-CR

Elias Anthony TAYLOR,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-602-CR

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2022

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by both Appellant 

and his attorney. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We, therefore, grant the motion and dismiss this 

appeal. See id.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
STATE v. BOOTH.

No. COA06-712.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Wayne (04CRS61172).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Billy Ray MORRISON.

No. 400P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Billy Ray Morrison, Pro Se.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st day of August 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and *188is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st day of August 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
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 Apollo Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2016 (the “Report”), I, James C. Zelter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory W. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


|   |                                                                                                                                       
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | To my knowledge, 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/ JAMES C. ZELTERJames C. ZelterChief Executive OfficerAugust 5, 2016


/s/ GREGORY W. HUNTGregory W. HuntChief Financial Officer and TreasurerAugust 5, 2016
Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report
on Form 20-F of Minco Gold Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I hereby 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                      
|2. | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.







Date:	March 28, 2014





/s/ Ellen Wei

Ellen Wei, Chief Financial Officer
VIGNOLA v. APOGEE CONST. CO.

No. COA06-559.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Carteret (03CVS1328).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32(i)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

OF ATMOSPHERIC GLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Atmospheric Glow Technologies, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 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: June 29, 2005 |  |                                           
|                    |  | /s/ Thomas W. Reddoch                     
|                    |  | Thomas W. Reddoch, Chairman and Chief     
|                    |  | Executive Officer                         
|Date: June 29, 2005 |  |                                           
|                    |  | /s/ Sharon L. Draper                      
|                    |  | Sharon L. Draper, Chief Accounting Officer



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. This certificate is being furnished solely for
purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5556 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain individuals 

who have attained age 50 and who are unemployed to receive distributions from qualified retirement plans without incurring a 10 percent 

additional tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2008 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain individuals who have attained age 50 and who are 

unemployed to receive distributions from qualified retirement plans without incurring a 10 percent additional 

tax. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5556 IH

1 SECTION 1. NO ADDITIONAL TAX ON DISTRIBUTIONS FROM 

2 QUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLANS TO CERTAIN 

3 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED AGE 50 

4 AND WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 72(t) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to subsection 

7 not to apply to certain distributions) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(H) DISTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN INDI10 VIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED AGE 50 AND

11 WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED.— 

12 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Distributions to 

13 an individual after separation from em14 ployment if— 

15 ‘‘(I) as of the date of such dis16 tribution, such individual has attained 

17 age 50, 

18 ‘‘(II) such individual has received 

19 unemployment compensation for 12 

20 consecutive weeks under any Federal 

21 or State unemployment compensation 

22 law by reason of such separation, and 

23 ‘‘(III) such distribution is made 

24 during any taxable year during which 

25 such unemployment compensation is 

26 paid or any succeeding taxable year. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5556 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) REEMPLOYMENT AND SELF-EM2 PLOYMENT.—Rules similar to the rules of 

3 clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (D) 

4 shall apply for purposes of this subpara5 graph.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall apply to distributions made after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
STATE v. VELAZQUEZ

No. COA06-219

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS61159, 04CRS61160).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Roy P. SHEARIN.

No. 338P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Russell J. Hollers, III, Durham, for Roy P. Shearin.

Gerald K. Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney General, William Graham, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 21st day of June 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of June 2005 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 3rd day of November 2005."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 108/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 108/2013 of 5 February 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 108/2013                     

# of 5 February 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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 February 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 567 

To ensure Pell Grant eligibility for any student whose parent or guardian 

died as a result of performing military service in Iraq or Afghanistan 

after September 11, 2001. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2007 

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, 

Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. MCCARTHY of 

New York, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. LEE, Ms. 

HIRONO, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. HARE, Mr. POMEROY, Mrs. 

CAPITO, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. 

COHEN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. MCCAUL of 

Texas, Mr. HINOJOSA, and Mr. BISHOP of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To ensure Pell Grant eligibility for any student whose parent 

or guardian died as a result of performing military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Children of Fallen Sol5 diers Pell Grant Act of 2007’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 567 IH

1 SEC. 2. CALCULATION OF FEDERAL PELL GRANT ELIGI2 BILITY. 

3 Section 401(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(f)) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or any 

7 other provision of this section, the expected family 

8 contribution of each student described in subpara9 graph (B) shall be deemed to be zero for the period 

10 during which each such student is eligible to receive 

11 a Federal Pell Grant under subsection (c). 

12 ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A) shall apply to any stu13 dent at an institution of higher education— 

14 ‘‘(i) whose parent or guardian was a mem15 ber of the Armed Forces of the United States 

16 who died as a result of performing military 

17 service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 

18 11, 2001; and 

19 ‘‘(ii) who was 18 years or less, or was en20 rolled as a full-time or part-time student at an 

21 institution of higher education, as of the time 

22 of the parent or guardian’s death.’’. 

23 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

24 The amendment made by section 2 of this Act shall 

25 apply with respect to Federal Pell Grants awarded for acaVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:54 Jan 20, 2007 Jkt 059196 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H567.IH H567

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 567 IH

1 demic year 2008–2009, and each succeeding academic 

2 year. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
IN RE M.B.B.

No. COA06-1155

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Beaufort (05JB85).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed in part; dismissed in part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VINCENT CLAY ROBERTSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:12-cr-00018-SGW-RSB-1; 7:13-cv-80634-SGW-RSB)

Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Clay Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Ashley Brooke Neese, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Clay Robertson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 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 Robertson 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
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 57 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.57

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
To repeal certain sections of the Act of May 26, 1936, pertaining to the 
                             Virgin Islands.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN LAWS PERTAINING TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
    (a) Repeal.--Sections 1 through 6 of the Act of May 26, 1936 
(Chapter 450; 49 Stat. 1372-1373; 48 U.S.C. 1401-1401e) are repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall be deemed to have taken 
effect on July 22, 1954.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 203/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 203/2013 of 8 March 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 203/2013                     

# of 8 March 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 8 March 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 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 Annual Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Voelk, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:



|/s/ROBERT L. VOELKRobert L. Voelk Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 28, 2008 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
STATE v. DUBOIS.

No. COA06-280.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Alamance (04CRS54963)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.