alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TERRANTE WARD, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3146

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Vivian T. Corvo, 

Judge. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Marty Allan LEWIS.

No. 408P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lewis, Marty Allan.

*481Zachary Padget, Associate Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of December 2015 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 28th of January 2016."
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00414-CR

IN RE Raymond DEBA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 3, 2019

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On June 19, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he contends he 

has asked for the cost to obtain the reporter’s records in his two criminal cases but neither reporter 

has responded to his request. Relator does not ask for specific relief from this court; therefore, we 

assume he is requesting that this court issue a writ compelling the court reporters to provide him 

with information about the cost of obtaining the records.

By statute, an appellate court has the power to issue a writ of mandamus against a district 

or county court judge. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b). An appellate court may also issue a 

writ of mandamus to enforce its jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a). This court does not have 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk or a court reporter unless such writ is 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2005CR0956 & 2005CR0716, styled The State of Texas v. Raymond Deba, 

pending in the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell presiding.
04-19-00414-CR

- 2 -

necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relator has not asserted that the order he is requesting 

is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, nor has he provided a record that would support such an 

argument. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (holding relator has burden of 

providing a sufficient record to establish right to mandamus relief). Accordingly, relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
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 on Form 10-QSB of Titan Technologies,
      Inc.
      (the "Company") for the period ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, the
      undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





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





Dated: June
      4, 2007




/s/
      Ronald L. Wilder


Ronald
      L.
      Wilder, President


(Chief
      Executive Officer)


(Chief
      Financial Officer)
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Providence Props Inc. :

:

v. : No. 933 C.D. 2018

:

Limerick Township Board of :

Supervisors, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

NOW, July 23, 2019, having considered Appellant’s application for 

reargument, the application is denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
# CE2004078EN.01044401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/444 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/444

---

(2004/C 78 E/0466)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Spanish National Hydrological Plan: the impact of the La Brena dam project on the Iberian lynx and protected raptors

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of the problems likely to be encountered by the Iberian lynx, the Spanish imperial eagle and other vulnerable species under the Spanish Government's National Hydrological Plan, in particular the La Brena dam project?

Can the Commission outline what plans it has to protect all the species under threat but in particular the Iberian lynx and the Spanish imperial eagle?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

(18 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the La Breña II dam project in the province of Cordoba, in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, in the South of Spain.

The Commission has opened an infringement procedure in relation to this project in order to ensure that the Community environmental law is properly applied.

The La Breña II dam project has been the subject of various exchanges of information and meetings between the Commission and the Spanish authorities. It should be noted that the Commission has received wide-ranging information in relation to this matter, from the Spanish authorities and different persons, associations and bodies, who have transmitted their points of view both in favour of and against this project.

It is important to note that, in the framework of this case, the Spanish authorities have asked the opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 6.4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). The Commission is currently examining this request. It is foreseen that the Commission will shortly deliver its opinion in relation to this project.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-7969-5] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal. 

# SUMMARY:

The charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App 2 Section 9(c). The purpose of the CHPAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues associated with development of regulations, guidance, and policies to address children's environmental health risks. 

It is determined that the CHPAC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inquiries may be directed to Joanne Rodman, Designated Federal Officer, CHPAC, U.S. EPA, Office of Children's Health Protection, Mail Code 1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

William Sanders, 

Acting Director, Office of Children's Health Protection. 

[FR Doc. 05-18347 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
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 Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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



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

May 11, 2009



|                                      |  |  |  |                                                                 
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dennis M. Oates                   |  |  |  | /s/ Richard M. Ubinger                                          
|Dennis M. Oates                       |  |  |  | Richard M. Ubinger                                              
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|(Principal Executive Officer)         |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board
of Directors


CKE
Restaurants, Inc.:







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-111284) on Form S-3, (No. 333-75880) on Form S-4, and (Nos. 333-126681,
333-104957, 333-83666, 333-76884, 333-41266, 333-83601, 333-12399, 2-86142-01,
33-31190-01, 33-53089-01, 33-56313, 33-55337, 333-144225 and 333-157699) on Form
S-8 of CKE Restaurants, Inc., of our reports dated March 25, 2009, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of January 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended January 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of January 31, 2009, which reports appear in the January
31, 2009, annual report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc.




Our report on the consolidated financial statements
refers to a change in the Company’s method of accounting for uncertainties in
income taxes in fiscal 2008 due to the adoption of a new accounting
pronouncement.











Costa
Mesa, California


March 25,
2009
1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr ., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-4029

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Eddie W. Smith, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 2008 Filed: August 14, 2008

___________ Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eddie Smith pleaded guilty to knowi ngly possessing ammunition after having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). The district court 1 found that his five prior drug c onvictions – which included sales of controlled substances to an undercover officeron three different dates within a fortyday time period – totaled at least three serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), and the court imposed a 180-month prison sentence on October 6, 2006. Smith appeals, arguing th e government did not prove that his prior-2- narcotics convictions were district criminal episodes rather than one prolonged transaction constituting a single criminal episode. We agree with the district court thatSmith’s prior drug convictions amount to at least three qualifying convictions for purposes of the ACCA. See United States v. Mason , 440 F.3d 1056, 1057 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review; criminal episodes underlying convictions trigger application of ACCA, not date of convictions or number of trials or pleas); United States v. Speakman , 330 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 2003) (3 drug sales to same undercove r officer on 3 separate dates within 1 month, although consolidated into single sentence, were properly treated as 3 convictions for purposes of ACCA ); United States v. Cardenas , 217 F.3d 491, 491-92 (7th Cir. 2000) (2 drug sales to same individuals within 45 minutes constituted separate and distinct episodes under § 924(e )(1); defendant had time to change his mind, to cease and desist, and to refuse to sell to informants during time lapse). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd Bailey, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 572]

*384Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered January 13, 2004, convicting him of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested, after the police stopped the sports utility vehicle (hereinafter SUV) he was driving and obtained information that the license plates on the SUV were stolen. He was subsequently charged, inter alia, with criminal possession of stolen property in the third and fourth degrees and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the second degree. After trial, he was acquitted of the criminal possession charges, but convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the second degree.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly admitted evidence of the facts underlying his 1995 conviction for grand larceny to show his knowledge that the SUV was stolen and his intent *(see People v Molineux,*168 NY 264 [1901]). Since knowledge and intent could not be easily inferred from mere possession of the SU\( and the facts of the prior crime were similar to the instant case, the evidence was more probative than prejudicial and was properly admitted with appropriate limiting instructions *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233 [1987]; *Matter of Brandon,*55 NY2d 206 [1982]; *People v Polizzi,*150 AD2d 616 [1989]).

The trial court also properly admitted evidence that the SUV had stolen license plates. This evidence was necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant’s arrest *(see People v Tosca,*98 NY2d 660 [2002]; *People v Henry,*166 AD2d 720 [1990]; *compare People v Resek,*3 NY3d 385 [2004]). H. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Filed 1/19/05 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2005 ND 5

Scott Howard Miller, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

David A. Sprynczynatyk, 

Commissioner, North Dakota 

Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20040273

Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Lee A. Christofferson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Douglas L. Broden, Broden Law Office, P.O. Box 686, Devils Lake, N.D. 58301-0686, for petitioner and appellant.

Douglas B. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 500 North 9th Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4509, for respondent and appellee.

Miller v. Sprynczynatyk

No. 20040273

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Scott Howard Miller appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative agency decision suspending his driving privileges.  The judgment is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).  Erickson v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 507 N.W.2d 537 (N.D. 1993).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136762 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136762 

 COA: 272728 

Oakland CC: 2006-206293-FH 

STEVEN LESLIE BOYT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Celeritek, Inc. of our report dated April 24, 1998 included in the 1998
Annual Report to Shareholders of Celeritek, Inc.

Our audits also include the financial statement schedule of Celeritek, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Forms S-8 No. 333-2886 and S-8 No. 333-52037) pertaining to the 1985 Stock
Incentive Program, 1994 Stock Option Plan, Outside Directors' Stock Option Plan
and Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan of Celeritek, Inc. of our report
dated April 24, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Celeritek, Inc. incorporated herein by reference in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1998.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
June 5, 1998
# C_2009019EN.01002602.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-278/06) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Butter - Check of the quantity of product obtained - On-the-spot checks - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97)

(2009/C 19/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: E. O'Neill and subsequently by I. Rao, Agents, and by H. Mercer, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenses incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the sector of concentrated butter in the food industry.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
Charles Alonzo TUNSTALL v. Frank W. BALLANCE, etal.

No. 323A92-10.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Charles Alonzo Tunstall, for Tunstall, Charles Alonzo.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 14th of August 2015 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 24th of September 2015."
# CE2004070EN.01017102.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/171

---

(2004/C 70 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3004/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Commission communication on immigration, integration and employment — franchise for immigrants

Subject:

Communication COM(2003) 336 repeatedly calls for immigrants in Europe to be granted ‘political rights’. ‘From the point of view of integration, it is obvious that local franchise should derive from permanent residence, rather than from nationality. The Commission believes that granting long-term resident immigrants political rights is important for the integration process and that the Treaty should provide the basis for so doing’ (p. 24).

The issue of whether or not to grant immigrants the right to vote is a very controversial one for which there is virtually no democratic support in most Member States: public opinion is set against such a move.

Does the Commission take the view that the democratic legitimacy of the European Union would be strengthened by using the Treaty to impose the right to vote for immigrants in countries where there is strong public opposition to such a move?

In practical terms, what does the Commission understand by ‘political rights’: only local franchise, or franchise at other levels (district, provincial, national, European) as well?

As things stand, how does the Commission assess the likelihood that the Treaty will provide a legal basis for granting immigrants the right to vote?

What is the basis for the suggestion that granting immigrants the right to vote will foster integration? In fact, the reverse is likely to be true if certain rights (right to vote, nationality) are granted automatically, or quasi-automatically, to the individuals concerned with no reciprocal concessions required. A practical incentive to integrate will disappear if the willingness to integrate no longer has any bearing on the award of such rights.

---