alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0246

_____________________________

TAVARIS KENYATTA KIRK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Stephen Sebastian Everett, Judge.

January 11, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Tyler Kemper Payne, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael L. Schaub, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 25, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00275

- CV

Georgia Clark , Appellant

v.

Fort Worth Independent School District , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JU STIC ES BAKER, TRIANA, AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on March 23, 2021

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
STATE v. Robert Lee JUDD.

No. 432P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of August 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
TS&B Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report),the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

| |  | TS&B Holdings, Inc.BY: /s/ James E. Jenkins
James E. Jenkins, Presidentand Chief Executive OfficerOctober 6, 2004
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardesty 

) 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(Oj 1947A 

ateat3/4 je,- 

was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's motion 

constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different 

from those raised in his previous petition. 2 See NRS 34.810(2). 

Appellant's motion was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of 

good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). 

Appellant did not attempt to provide cause for the delay. Moreover, 

appellant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice because "house arrest 

does not constitute time 'actually spent in confinement' for which the 

duration of a sentence may be credited." State v. Second Judicial Dist. 

Court (Jackson), 121 Nev. 413, 418-19, 116 P.3d 834, 837 (2005). 

Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

4-t 6„. 1 1 

Douglas 

J. 

Cherry 

2Suggs v. State, Docket No. 49775 (Order of Affirmance, June 9, 

2008). 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge 

Joe Suggs 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

0) 1947A ca
Exhibit 4.17      CONSENT OF CIRCE MALO-LALANDE   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2013 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I, Circe Malo-Lalande, staff member of Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd., participated in the preparation of the technical report entitled Technical Report and Recommendations, 2012 Exploration Program, Payne Bay Property, Québec, Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd.  Virginia Mines Inc. completed in March 2013 (the Report), concerning mineralized material in the Payne Bay property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings Item III  Description of the Business  3.7.4 Geological Setting; 3.7.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.7.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2013 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.   Very truly yours,


|                                      |  | 
|------------------------------------- |  | 
|/S/ Circe Malo-Lalande                |  | 
|Name:
Circe Malo-Lalande, M.Sc., Eng. |  | 

May 13, 2013
STATE v. Angela Deborah LEWIS.

No. 558PA04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 10, 2006.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of October 2006 by Defendant to Strike:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of October 2006."
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In  connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  January 31, 2005 (the Report) of SE Financial Corp. (the Company) as filed with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph  Sidebotham, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Controller and  interim President and CEO (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer and  interim acting Principal Executive Officer), hereby certify, pursuant to 18  U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that:





(1)          The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: March 10, 2005 | /s/ JOSEPH SIDEBOTHAM                                                                                                
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |                                                                                                                      
|                     | Joseph Sidebotham                                                                                                    
|                     | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial    Officer, Controller and Interim President and    Chief Executive Officer
|                     | (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer and    interim acting Principal Executive Officer)
STATE v. BROWN.

No. COA06-66.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 19, 2006.

Certification Date January 8, 2007.

Appeal from Cleveland (04CRS5412, 04CRS54120, 04CRS54121).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
First Department,

August, 2005

(August 4, 2005)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vance Morris, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 6]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), rendered July 24, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 16 counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender, in view of defendant’s very lengthy and serious criminal history, which is replete with violent and offensive acts against women *(compare People v Mason,*277 AD2d 170 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 785 [2001]; *with People v Rivera,*166 AD2d 367 [1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 842 [1991]). The fact that defendant had been offered a favorable plea bargain does not negate the validity of the sentence imposed under the circumstances of this case *(see People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, 411-412 [1980], *cert denied*449 US 1087 [1981]).

Defendant’s constitutional challenge under *Apprendi v New Jersey*(530 US 466 [2000]) to New York’s discretionary persistent felony offender sentencing scheme is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it, (see *People v Rivera,*5 NY3d 61 [2005]; *People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]).

The court properly denied defendant’s request for substitution of counsel prior to his persistent felony offender hearing. Defendant supported his request with nothing more than his *252unjustified hostility toward and lack of confidence in his attorney (see *People v Sawyer,*57 NY2d 12, 19 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 1178 [1983]; *People v Medina,*44 NY2d 199, 207-209 [1978]). Defendant’s attacks on counsel’s competence were entirely conclusory. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe and Nardelli, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4436 JOHN WESLEY BROOKS, a/k/a Tucker, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-320) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 24, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Cameron G. Chandler, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: John Wesley Brooks appeals from his criminal sentence, and weaffirm. Brooks alleges that the Government breached his plea agreement by failing to polygraph his co-defendants, whose testimony was used to fix the amount of drugs for which Brooks was responsible. Brooks also contends that his erroneous belief that the Government would polygraph his co-defendants, if he himself was polygraphed, constituted a material mistake justifying specific enforcement of the agreement. The Government informed Brooks that it was not going to move for a downward departure for substantial assistance because it believed that Brooks had not been completely truthful. Brooks theninsisted on a polygraph evaluation, which he failed. A revised presentence report was prepared attributing Brooks with more drugs thandiscussed in the plea agreement. The factual basis for the new quantity was statements by co-defendants who had not been polygraphed. Our review of the record reveals that the Government did not breach the plea agreement. The agreement clearly states that Brooks's unsatisfactory performance on a polygraph test would relieve theGovernment of all obligations under the agreement. The plea agreement neither discussed nor provided for polygraph examinations of co-defendants or anyone else other than Brooks. Thus, we find that Brooks failed to prove the Government's breach. See United States v. Conner , 930 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir. 1991). In addition, we find thatany subjective understanding Brooks had regarding a duty to polygraph his co-defendants was unreasonable in the face of the unambiguous agreement and, therefore, does not entitle Brooks to specific performance of the agreement. Accordingly, we affirm Brooks's sentence. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OEPRATIONS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,761
<SECURITIES>                                        48
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,914
<INVENTORY>                                      8,734
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,889
<PP&E>                                          22,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,526
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,289
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           126
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,234
<SALES>                                         41,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,807
<CGS>                                           34,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,687
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,898)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,792)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.4 
  
 Non-Employee Director Compensation 
  
 Based on its annual review of director compensation, on June 10, 2005, Chesapeake Energy Corporation’s Board of
Directors approved the annual compensation of its non-employee directors effective July 1, 2005 as follows: (1) $25,000 annual retainer to be paid in quarterly installments on the first business day of each calendar quarter; (2) $10,000 and $2,500
payable for each board meeting attended in person and telephonically, respectively, not to exceed $60,000 per year for board meetings attended; and (3) 12,500 restricted shares of Chesapeake’s common stock to be issued on the first business day
in July of each year. One-quarter (1/4) of each restricted stock award will vest immediately upon award with the remaining three-quarters (3/4) of the award to vest ratably over the next three years following the date of the award.
REMINGTON ARMS CO., INC. v. HERITAGE GRAPHICS, LLC.

No. COA05-1064.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 20, 2006.

Certification Date July 10, 2006.

Appeal from Rockingham (04CVS2102).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 568 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 568

    To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to remove the 
limitation on the number of reverse mortgages that may be insured under 
         the FHA mortgage insurance program for such mortgages.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2007

Mr. Matheson (for himself, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Frank 
of Massachusetts, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Ms. Waters, Mrs. Biggert, and 
Mr. Gary G. Miller of California) introduced the following bill; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to remove the 
limitation on the number of reverse mortgages that may be insured under 
         the FHA mortgage insurance program for such mortgages.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reverse Mortgages to Help America's 
Seniors Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON NUMBER OF MORTGAGES INSURED.

    Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (g), by striking the first sentence; and
            (2) in subsection (i)(1)(C), by striking ``limitations'' 
        and inserting ``limitation''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITEM 8 TO THE RESURGENCE  PROPERTIES INC. 1998 FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         638,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               638,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,932,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      4,436,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          300,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,307,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,932,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN RE J.S.H.

No. COA06-713.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Buncombe (04J268).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 364/2013Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 364/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011            concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 364/2013                     

# of 22 April 2013

# implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation                           in Libya(1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.

(2)The Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person on the list set out in Annex III to Regulation                              (EU) No 204/2011.

(3)Annex III of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should be updated accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 shall be amended as set out 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 Luxembourg, 22 April 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

C. Ashton                            

## ANNEXU.K.

The entry for the person below shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011:

ASHKAL, Al-Barrani

1

OJ L 58, 3.3.2011, p. 1.