alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alicia LATRAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D02-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 18, 2003.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 20, 2003.

*275Gustavo J. Garda-Montes, Miami, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Jill K. Traína, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, GODERICH, and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Alicia Latras, appeals from her convictions and sentences. We affirm.

While the defendant has raised numerous points on appeal, only two merit discussion. The defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress because the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. We disagree.

A review of the record indicates that the search warrant was supported by probable cause as established by the redacted affidavit. Under the “totality of the circumstances test,” the magistrate issuing the search warrant had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. *See Vazquez v. State,*491 So.2d 297, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(citing *Illinois v. Gates,*462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)).

The defendant also contends that the cumulative effect of errors during the State’s closing argument denied the defendant her right to a fair trial. We disagree.

> In order for the prosecutor’s comments to merit a new trial, the comments must be of such nature:

> (1) so as to deprive appellant of a fair and impartial trial;

> (2) materially contribute to his conviction;

> (3) be so harmful or fundamentally tainted so as to require a new trial; or

> (4) be so inflammatory that they might have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict than that which they would have reached otherwise.

*Lopez v. State,*555 So.2d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citations omitted). In the instant case, a careful review of the record shows that the State’s comments during closing argument were not so egregious as to constitute fundamental error, thus not rising to the level of warranting a new trial.

Affirmed.
# C_2010080EN.01002401.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/24

---

Judgment of the Court of 3 February 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — Hasbro (ENERCON)

(Case T-472/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENERCON - Earlier Community word mark TRANSFORMERS ENERGON - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 80/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm and V. Henke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court: Hasbro Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2007 (Case R 959/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Hasbro, Inc. and Enercon GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.1


                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 pertaining to the BCB
Financial Services Corporation 1988 Stock Option Plan, the BCB
Financial Services Corporation 1989 Stock Option Plan, the BCB
Financial Services Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan and the BCB
Financial Services Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan and Form S-
3 pertaining to the BCB Financial Services Corporation
Shareholder Automatic Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase
Plan, of our report dated January 31, 1997 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of BCB Financial Services
Corporation and subsidiary included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                              /s/ BEARD & COMPANY, INC.


Reading, Pennsylvania
March 25, 1997
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11736 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JULIO CESAR ZAVALA

- RODRIGUEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 80

- 2

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Julio Cesar Zavala

- Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Zavala

- Rodriguez has fi led a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Zavala

Rodriguez ’s claim of ine ffecti ve assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11736 Document: 00514121460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017No. 16

- 11736

2 consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Zavala

- Rodriguez ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 16-11736 Document: 00514121460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
COOPER v. BERGER, et al.

52PA17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 9, 2017

D. Martin Warf, Attorney at Law, Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Candace S. Friel, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Berger, Philip E.

Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Eric M. David, Attorney at Law, Daniel F.E. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Cooper, Roy A. (III).

Grayson Kelley, Chief Deputy.

Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Alexander McC. Peters, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

John R. Wester, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, J. Dickson Phillips, III, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, Adam K. Doerr, Attorney at Law, Kevin Crandall, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Hunt, James B., Jr., et al.

Andrew H. Erteschik, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, et al.

*700Allison J. Riggs, Attorney at Law, Anita S. Earls, Attorney at Law, Emily E. Seawell, Attorney at Law, for County Board Members.

Wendy R. Weiser, Attorney at Law, Daniel I. Weiner, Attorney at Law, Wilfred U. Codrington, III, Attorney at Law, Brent Ferguson, Attorney at Law, for Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of November 2017 by the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law and Democracy North Carolina for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of November 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
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 WCA Waste Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tom J. Fatjo, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerAugust 5, 2010







The foregoing certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jason CARMONA

No. 3P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Mr. Jason Carmona, for Carmona, Jason.

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Raleigh, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2018 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 4th of January 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Union County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2018 by Defendant to Withdraw Plea of Guilty:

*887"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
STATE v. Thomas Craig CAMPBELL

252PA14-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 16, 2018

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Campbell, Thomas Craig.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of February 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of February 2018."
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 4, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00452

- CR

Jose Guadalupe AGUIRRE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR7206

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On July 28, 2016, this court abated this cause to the trial court for findings of fact and

conclusions of law regarding the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress . On July

29 , 2016, five volumes of the reporter’s record were filed. Volume five contains the trial court’s

findings and conclusions.

Appellant’s brief is due August 29, 2016

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of August, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1385

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Ulises Alvarado lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western

____________ Submitted: June 23, 2021 Filed: June 29, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Ulises Alvarado was convicted in 2020 of failing to register as a sex offender and was subject to supervised release after completing his sentence. His first term of supervised release was revoked because he failed to comply with a residential reentry center’s rules, and he was sentenced to four months in prison with supervised release to follow. This court affirmed the revocation. United States v. Alvarado, No.20-2750, 2021 WL 2102595, at *1-2 (8th Cir. May 25, 2021) (per curiam). Alvarado

now appeals the nine-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after his supervised release was revoked for the second time, based on his failure to follow his probation officer’s directives and the residential reentry center’s rules. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that the sentence is unreasonable, particularly due to the technical nature of the violations and Alvarado’s physical injuries. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its wide discretion in revoking Alvarado’s supervised release and sentencing him. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The district court did not make a “reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations,” given its reasoned finding that Alvarado exhibited a continued unwillingness to comply with rules and directives. See United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 2012) (reiterating that actions indicating “a persistent and ‘pervasive unwillingness’ to comply with court orders and the orders of a reentry center are not technical violations and may warrant the revocation of a supervised release”). The record also reflects that the district court sufficiently considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors, including Alvarado’s alleged physical injuries, and did not give significant weight to an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment when imposing a sentence below the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), (e)(3); Miller, 557 F.3d at 915-18; United States v. Keating, 579 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the district court is presumed to have considered factors on which it heard argument). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation in the Northern District of Iowa. -2-
# Official Journal C 175/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.175.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 175 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5415 June 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.175.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 175

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5415 June 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2011/C 175/01 | Council conclusions on the contribution of culture to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy | 1 |
| 2011/C 175/02 | Council conclusions on mobility information services for artists and for culture professionals | 5 |
| 2011/C 175/03 | Council conclusions on early childhood education and care: providing all our children with the best start for the world of tomorrow | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2011/C 175/01

Council conclusions on the contribution of culture to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy

1

2011/C 175/02

Council conclusions on mobility information services for artists and for culture professionals

5

2011/C 175/03

Council conclusions on early childhood education and care: providing all our children with the best start for the world of tomorrow

8

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Exhibit 31.3**
I, Mark Smith, Chairman of Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., certifythat:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Town SportsInternational Holdings, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(a) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and wehave:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared; and
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;
     5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the designor operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting;
Date: November 10, 2004   By: /s/ Mark Smith   Mark Smith *Chairman*
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31968D0361

**68/361/EEC: Council Decision of 15 October 1968 setting up a Standing Veterinary Committee***Official Journal L 255 , 18/10/1968 P. 0023 - 0023 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 2 P. 0160  Danish special edition: Series I Chapter 1968(II) P. 0465  Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 2 P. 0160  English special edition: Series I Chapter 1968(II) P. 0473  Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 4 P. 0045  Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 3 P. 0041  Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 3 P. 0041*

COUNCIL DECISION of 15 October 1968 setting up a Standing Veterinary Committee (68/361/EEC)

  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 

 Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; 

 Having regard to the draft decision submitted by the Commission; 

 Whereas it is desirable that, for cases where the Council delegates powers to the Commission in the veterinary field, a Committee should be set up, consisting of experts from the Member States, for the purpose of ensuring close co-operation between Member States and the Commission and enabling the latter to consult experts; 

 Whereas it is furthermore desirable that such co-operation extend to all fields covered by Community rules on these matters; whereas that Committee should accordingly be empowered to consider any question relating to such fields; 

 HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

   Article 1

 A Standing Veterinary Committee (hereinafter called the "Committee") is hereby set up and shall consist of representatives of the Member States with a representative of the Commission as Chairman. 

 Article 2

 The Committee shall, in the cases and under the conditions provided for therein, carry out the duties devolving upon it under the instruments adopted by the Council in the veterinary field. 

 It may, moreover, consider any other question arising under such instruments and referred to it by the Chairman either on his own initiative or at the request of a Member State. 

 Article 3

 The Committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.

   Done at Luxembourg, 15 October 1968. 

 For the Council 

 The President 

 G. SEDATI
EXHIBIT 10.2



KITTY HAWK, INC.

TERM SHEET



STEVEN E. MARKHOFF, ESQ.

OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT

June 1, 2003-Rev 4



|                  | 
|----------------- | 
|Position:         | 
|                  | 
|Responsibilities: | 
|                  | 
|                  | 
|                  | 
|                  | 
|                  | 
|Commitment:       | 
|                  | 
|Reporting to:     | 





---

|                                   | 
|---------------------------------- | 
|Location:                          | 
|                                   | 
|Term/Termination:                  | 
|                                   | 
|                                   | 
|                                   | 
|                                   | 
|                                   | 
|                                   | 
|                                   | 
|Base Salary:                       | 
|                                   | 
|Incentive Comp.:(cash and options) | 
|                                   | 
|Temporary Living:                  | 





---

|                 | 
|---------------- | 
|Moving Expenses: | 
|                 | 
|                 | 
|                 | 
|Benefits:        | 
|                 | 
|Start Date:      | 
|                 | 
|Conditions:      | 
|                 | 
|                 | 
|                 | 
|                 | 
|                 | 
|                 | 





---

|                                                   |  |  |  |     
|-------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----
|                                                   |  | 
|                                                   |  |  |  |     
|                                                   |  |  | 
|Kitty Hawk, Inc. by Robert Zoller, President & CEO |  |  |  | Date



|
|

|                  |  |  |  |             
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------------
|                  |  | 
|[GRAPHIC]         |  |  |  | June 1, 2003
|                  |  |  |  |             
|Steven E Markhoff |  |  |  | Date