alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6153

SALEEM NURIDDIN ABDULLAH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; NELSON J. BAKER,

Assistant Warden; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.,

Commissioner; MELANIE C. PEREIRA, Deputy

Commissioner; SECURITY CHIEF SMITH; THOMAS R.

CORCORAN, Warden; LEHRMAN W. DOTSON, Assistant

Warden; SAMUEL HAWKINS, Security Chief; CALVIN

VINCENT, CCMS II, Transfer Coordinator; TRANSPORTATION UNIT,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-

3565-AMD)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 4, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Saleem Nuriddin Abduallah, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant

Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

without prejudice his complaint in which he seeks injunctive relief

against various prison officials. A dismissal without prejudice is

not reviewable by the court unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could

cure its defects. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In the present

case, the district court properly found that Appellant failed to

show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief

was not granted. The appeal is therefore dismissed. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Network Dealer Services Holding Corp. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Joshua A. Griffin, President, and Paul D. Stevens, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Treasurer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:September 15, 2010By:/s/Joshua A. GriffinJoshua A. Griffin, President  and Director  Date:September 15, 2010By:/s/Paul D. StevensPaul D. Stevens Chief Financial Officer, Vice President,  Treasurer and Director
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         We, the undersigned directors of The Kroll-O'Gara Company (the
"Company") hereby appoint Nazzareno E. Paciotti and Abram S. Gordon or either of
them, with full power of substitution, our true and lawful attorneys and agents,
to do any and all acts and things in our names and on our behalf as directors of
the Company which said attorneys and agents, or either of them, may deem
necessary or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules, regulations and requirements of
the Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with the filing of the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2000, including, without limitation, signing for us, or any of us, in our names
as directors of the Company, such Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto,
and we hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents, or either
of them, shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder, this Power of Attorney has
been signed below by the following persons in the capacities indicated as of the
23rd day of April, 2001.


Signature                                           Title
---------                                           -----



/s/ Jules B. Kroll                                  Director
---------------------------------------
Jules B. Kroll



                                                    Director
---------------------------------------
Thomas M. O'Gara



/s/ Wilfred T. O'Gara                               Director
---------------------------------------
Wilfred T. O'Gara



/s/ Michael G. Cherkasky                            Director
---------------------------------------
Michael G. Cherkasky



/s/ Marshall S. Cogan                               Director
---------------------------------------
Marshall S. Cogan



/s/ Thomas E. Constance                             Director
---------------------------------------
Thomas E. Constance
<PAGE>   2


/s/ Raymond E. Mabus                                Director
---------------------------------------
Raymond E. Mabus



/s/ Hugh E. Price                                   Director
---------------------------------------
Hugh E. Price



/s/ William S. Sessions                             Director
---------------------------------------
William S. Sessions
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned J. Kernan Crotty appointed and incumbent officer of**TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), in connection with the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Fiscal Quarter ended February 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), does hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that to the best of his knowledge: 

 

****1. The Report is in full compliance with reportingrequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Corporation. 

 

April 14, 2003 

 

/s/    J. KernanCrotty

 

J. Kernan Crotty

President and Chief Financial Officer
01-14-00898-CR

In the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

Jose Cristino Hernandez, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

First Motion to Extend Time to File Brief

Jose Hernandez moves, under Rules 10.1 and 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, to extend the deadline for filing 

his brief.

The current deadline is January 20, 2015. This is Appellant’s 

first motion to extend time to file his brief.

Appellant’s counsel is still reviewing the record in this case, and 

has also been occupied with preparing briefs for Morgan v. 

State, 14-14-00607-CR, in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals; and 

Jimenez v. United States, 14-51332 in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Appellant prays that the Court grant the motion and extend the 

deadline for filing his brief for 30 days from today, to March 7, 

2015.

ACCEPTED

01-14-00898-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/6/2015 10:58:57 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/6/2015 10:58:57 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

Certificate of Compliance

The word-processing software used to write this motion reports 

its length as 203 words.

Certificate of Service

I provided this document to the State by electronic service to 

curry_alan@dao.hctx.net simultaneously with electronic filing.

Respectfully,

____________________

Bynum Law Office PLLC Franklin Bynum

2814 Hamilton Street Texas Bar Number 24069451

Houston, Texas 77004 fgb@lawfgb.com

(713) 343-8844
# Commission Decision of 30 October 2013 amending Decision 2007/742/EC in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria            for the award of the EU Ecolabel to electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps (notified under document            C(2013) 7154) (Text with EEA relevance) (2013/633/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Decision

# of 30 October 2013

# amending Decision 2007/742/EC in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel                        to electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps                     

# (notified under document C(2013) 7154)

# (Text with EEA relevance)

# (2013/633/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

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

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel(1), and in particular point (c) of Article 8(3) thereof,                        

After consulting the European Union Eco-Labelling Board,

Whereas:

(1)Commission Decision 2007/742/EC(2) expires on 31 December 2013.

(2)An assessment has been carried out to evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of the current ecological criteria, as well                              as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by this Decision. Given the stage of the revision                              process for this Decision, it is appropriate to prolong the period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related                              assessment and verification requirements which it sets out. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related                              assessment and verification requirements set out in Decision 2007/742/EC should be prolonged until 31 October 2014.

(3)Decision 2007/742/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 16 of Regulation                              (EC) No 66/2010,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Article 4 of Decision 2007/742/EC is replaced by the following:

# ‘Article 4

The ecological criteria for the product group “electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps”, as well as the                        related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 31 October 2014’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 October 2013.

*For the Commission*                            

Janez Potočnik                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

1

OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1.                           

2

Commission Decision 2007/742/EC of 9 November 2007 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label                              to electrically driven, gas driven or gas absorption heat pumps (OJ L 301, 20.11.2007, p. 14).
STATE of North Carolina v. Antoine Donyell MELTON.

No. 121A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Lisa Miles, for Antoine D. Melton.

Margaret A. Force, Assistant Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 625 S.E.2d 609.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 13th day of March 2006 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 29th day of June 2006."
#### Sammy Benzaken, Appellant, v Aretina Benzaken, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 579]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a resettled amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated July 8, 2004, as, after a nonjury trial, directed him to pay spousal maintenance in the sum of $350 per week for three years retroactive to August 8, 2003, to obtain a life insurance policy in order to secure the award of mainte*392nance, and to pay the wife an attorney’s fee in the sum of $4,000.

Ordered that the resettled amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the wife maintenance in the sum of $350 per week for a period of three years retroactive to August 8, 2003. “It is axiomatic that the amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and every case must be determined on its unique facts” *(Mazzone v Mazzone,*290 AD2d 495, 496 [2002]). “[O]ne of the purposes of an award of maintenance is to encourage economic independence” *(Ventimiglia v Ventimiglia,*307 AD2d 993, 995 [2003]). The Supreme Court properly evaluated the factors listed in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) in determining the maintenance award. The husband lives in a house owned by his mother and pays no rent. He also reported having $207,729.83 in assets and no liabilities. Moreover, he retained sole ownership of the family business pursuant to the resettled amended judgment. Although the wife has significant savings, she is unemployed and requires training to find employment. An award of maintenance for a period of three years is sufficient to enable the plaintiff to complete a course of training and obtain employment (see *Ventimiglia v Ventimiglia, supra; Unterreiner v Unterreiner,*288 AD2d 463 [2001]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the husband to procure a life insurance policy as security for his maintenance obligation (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [8] [a]; *Corless v Corless,*18 AD3d 493, 494 [2005]; *Comstock v Comstock,*1 AD3d 307, 308 [2003]).

“The evaluation of what constitutes reasonable counsel fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court” *(Lefkowitz v Van Ess,*166 AD2d 556, 556 [1990]; citing *DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). The trial court is in the best position to judge the factors integral to determining counsel fees, such as the time, effort, and skill required *(see Feldman v Feldman,*194 AD2d 207, 219 [1993]). “A court must consider the equities and circumstances of each particular case and [the parties’] respective financial positions in determining a counsel fee application” *(Palumbo v Palumbo,*10 AD3d 680, 682 [2004]). In light of the disparity between the economic circumstances of the parties, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the husband to pay the wife an attorney’s fee in the sum of $4,000. Prudenti, P.J., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 28/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 28/2013 of 15 January 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for turbot and brill in EU            waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 28/2013                     

# of 15 January 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for turbot and brill in EU waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international                              negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2012.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2012.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 15 January 2013.

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

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 25, 27.1.2012, p. 55.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HECTOR MARTINEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00363-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20100D00750)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
MONTGOMERY INS. COMPANIES v. THERMADOR CORP.

No. COA06-1289.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (05CVS17245).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# L_2013014EN.01001801.xml

| 18.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 14/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 14/18

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 20 December 2012

appointing four members of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(2013/33/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (1), and in particular Article 65(1) and (4) thereof,

Having regard to the list of candidates drawn up by the Commission on 8 August 2012,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Nikolaos DEDES, born on 15 December 1966, Christophe HUGNET, born on 1 February 1971, Wolf-Dieter LUDWIG, born on 31 January 1952, and Wim WIENTJES, born on 16 September 1937 shall be appointed as members of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency for a period of three years.

Article 2

The date on which the three-year period referred to in Article 1 will commence shall be determined by the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2012.

For the Council

The President

E. FLOURENTZOU

---

(1)  
  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

---
STATE v. Randy Lynn ATKINS.

No. 9A94-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 1, 2006.

Paul Green, Durham, Jonathan L. Megerian, Asheboro, for Randy Lynn Atkins.

Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of May 2006 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

*464"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of June 2006."
DAVID K. EVERSON AND PATRICIA M. EVERSON v. THE HONORABLE W. DOUGLAS ALBRIGHT, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE.

No. 264P06

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

**ORDER**

> "Plainitff-Petitiner's Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied pursuant to Rule 34 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure as a frivolous filing. Plaintiff-Petitioner is no longer allowed to file pro se in this civil matter before the Court. Any future filing in this matter by Plaintiff-Petitioner which is not accompanied by a certification signed by a licensed North Carolina attorney, who is in good standing with the North Carolina State Bar, verifying Plaintiff-Petitioner's claims are of merit and not frivolous, will not be processed.

> Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 34, we remand this matter to Rockingham County for a hearing to determine sanctions, if appropriate. By order of the Court in Conference this the 17th day of August 2006.
STATE v. PARKER.

No. COA05-1016.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. Dismissed.
STATE v. EDWARDS

No. COA06-12

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Buncombe (02CRS52454, 04CRS7945, 04CRS7946, 04CRS7947, 04CRS7948, 04CRS7949, 04CRS7950, 04CRS7951, 04CRS7952, 04CRS7953).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

| |  |                         |  | 
| |  | ----------------------- |  | 
| |  |                        
| |  | /s/ RICHARD L. PETEKA   |  | 
| |  | Name: Richard L. Peteka |  | 
| |  | Date: August 3, 2011    |  | 





57