alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Federick KLEINSMITH.

No. 2003-KH-1442.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Kleinsmith, Federick;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 01CR080997.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the district court for its consideration of relator’s complaint concerning his outstanding charges in Washington Parish. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.
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 Atlas America Series 25-2004 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
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) 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      13, 2008
#### Ricardo F. VELÁSQUEZ, Susana D. Granados-Urizar, Eluvia R. Granados-Urizar, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 01-1741.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

June 9, 2003.

Randy Olen, Providence, RI, for Petitioner.

Anthony P. Nicastro, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Brenda M. O’Malley, Janice K. Redfern, Christopher C. Fuller, Washington, DC, Neil Cashman, Boston, MA, Kurt B. Larson, David V. Bernal, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, and McAULIFFE,1 District Judge.

1

. Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.

ORDER OF THE COURT

The Respondent’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is granted. The panel opinion of this court of December 30, 2002 is withdrawn and the judgment of this court of December 30, 2002 is vacated. The petitioners are invited to submit a brief within fourteen days to address the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to reinstate petitioners’ grant of voluntary departure. The Respondent will then have ten days in which to submit a reply brief. Briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages per side.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7499

ELLIS ERIC EVANS,
Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

M.L. RIVERA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (0:09-cv-01153-JFA)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellis Eric Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ellis Eric Evans, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Evans v. Rivera , No. 0:09-cv-01153-JFA
(D.S.C. July 23, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Joey Lee RABORN, Jr.

No. 226P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

Kathleen M. Joyce, Attorney at Law, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Raborn, Joey Lee (Jr.)

James Bernier, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of July 2018 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 24th of October 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: In the interest of H.D.

Appellate case number: 01-12-00007-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-52475

Trial court: 310th District Court of Harris County, Texas

A supplemental clerk’s record complying with our Order of Abatement has been filed in 

this Court. Therefore, we order the appeal reinstated.

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to enter William Thursland in the records of this 

Court as counsel for appellant R.R.D. Mr. Thursland is ORDERED to file a conforming notice 

of appeal on behalf of R.R.D. within 10 days of the date of this order.

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to enter Daniel Lemkuil in the records of this 

Court as counsel for appellant M.D.D.

The supplemental clerk’s record indicates that appellants were deemed indigent in the 

trial court and appointed attorneys ad litem. A parent who the court has determined is indigent 

for purposes of appointment of an attorney ad litem is presumed to remain indigent for the 

duration of the suit and subsequent appeal. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.013(e). 

Therefore, the Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to make an entry in this Court’s records 

that appellants are indigent and are allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of 

costs.

It is ORDERED that the District Clerk file with this Court, within 10 days of the date 

of this order and at no cost to appellants, a clerk’s record containing the items specified in Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(k) (indigent party entitled to free 

record on appeal); 35.1(b) (in accelerated appeal, record must be filed within 10 days after notice 

of appeal filed). 

It is further ORDERED that the Court Reporter file with this Court, within 10 days of 

the date of this order and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

20.1(k); 35.1(b). 
Due to the previous delays in this appeal, no extensions will be granted absent 

extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 14, 2012
# C_2022241EN.01000301.xml

| 24.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10765 – KKR / OTPP / HIGHWAYS TRUST)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 241/03)

On 15 June 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10765. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10765. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### Brandon C. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-1560.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 15, 2003.

Brandon Johnson, Raiford, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

*372PER CURIAM.

The order denying the defendant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is reversed and remanded for the attachment of portions of the record to support the denial. The defendant alleged a prima facie claim that he was improperly placed on drug offender probation. The trial court denied the motion on the merits but failed to attach portions of the record to support the denial order. Portions of the record supporting the denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion must be attached to the denial order if a prima facie case is made. *See Wright v. State,*830 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); *Bunch v. State,*622 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, C.J., PALMER and TORPY, J., concur.
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 18, 2018

Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors.

*386The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. to Not Require the Payment of Additional Pro Hac Vice Fees:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of July 2018."

Beasley, J. recused
CERTIFICATIONS
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT




Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**




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




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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Biofuels Corp., a Nevada
      corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
      Gustavo Goyzueta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
      1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:
                November 14, 2007/s/
                Gustavo GoyzuetaGustavo
                GoyzuetaChief
                Financial Officer







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Pure Biofuels Corp. and will be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
In the MATTER OF: E.B., R.B.

No. COA17-1384

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Merisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”),the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ Diana S. Ferguson   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Diana S. Ferguson       |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | August 10, 2007         |

 

1

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WPT Enterprises,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 1, 2007 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Steven Lipscomb, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 10, 2007 |   | /s/ Steven Lipscomb                    |
|-----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Steven Lipscomb                        |
|                  |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

----
In the MATTER OF: B.V., B.V., B.V.

No. COA18-84

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE ex rel. Christopher BROCKEL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2178.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Brockel, Christopher; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial *622District Court Div. E, No. 96-0683; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02 KH 814.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

283 KA 10-01962 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ETHAN MILLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TERRENCE BAXTER, BATH, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN C. TUNNEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH, FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered April 28, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree (two counts) and falsifying business records in the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, two counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2], [9]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), and affording the appropriate deference to the jury’s credibility determinations ( see People v Hill , 74 AD3d 1782, 1782-1783, lv denied 15 NY3d 805), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). Contrary to defendant’s contention, scalding hot water constitutes a “dangerous instrument” (§ 120.05 [2]; see People v Mableton , 17 AD3d 383, 383, lv denied 4 NY3d 888; People v Cruz , 257 AD2d 664; People v Holden , 188 AD2d 757, 760, lv denied 81 NY2d 887), and the People were not required to establish the precise temperature of the water or the length of exposure that caused second degree immersion burns to the feet and ankles of the child victim.

Defendant further contends that County Court violated his constitutional right to present a defense when it precluded him from offering hearsay testimony regarding the fact that children of the victim’s mother were previously removed from her custody and placed in foster care ( see generally Chambers v Mississippi , 410 US 284, 302). That contention is not preserved for our review ( see People v Gonzalez , 54 NY2d 729, 730; People v Simmons , 283 AD2d 306, 306, lv denied 96 NY2d 924) and, in any event, it is without merit inasmuch as-2- 283 KA 10-01962

defendant made no effort to establish such fact by a means other than inadmissible hearsay.

Entered: March 23, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2623

STUART HILL; VICKI HILL,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

STEVEN DUNN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99-

89-AMD)

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 14, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stuart Hill, Vicki Hill, Appellant Pro Se. William Davidson Evans,

Jr., Senior Assistant County Attorney, Annapolis, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Stuart and Vicki Hill appeal the district court's orders

granting summary judgment to the appellee on their 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint alleging malicious prosecution

and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and orders and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Hill v. Dunn, No. CA-99-89-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 8

& 22, 1999). We deny Dunn’s motion to strike the appellants’

informal brief. 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.

AFFIRMED
STOKES v. STOKES

82A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 15, 2018

Rebecca K. Watts, Attorney at Law, for Stokes, Bree Rushing.

Kristen Shearin, Attorney at Law, Brione B. Pattison, Attorney at Law, for Stokes, William Corey (II).

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 13th of June 2018 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of June 2018."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 16th day of July 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Gary R. BLOCK, Respondent.

No. 839 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 19, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2003, there having been filed with this Court by Gary R. Block his verified Statement of Resignation dated March 26, 2003, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

*662ORDERED that the resignation of Gary R. Block be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is farther ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Mr. Justice LAMB did not participate in this matter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Milton Bennett, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 281]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered March 3, 1998, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s request to charge the defense of justification. A court need not charge the defense of justification if, considering the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supports it *(see, People v Maher,*79 NY2d 978, 982; *People v Reynoso,*73 NY2d 816; *People v Watson,*231 AD2d 751; *People v Rhoden,*191 AD2d 722). The defendant’s statement to the police indicated that his wife threatened him with a knife, but that he was able to wrest it from her. At that point, the defendant’s wife was no longer armed and, therefore, the defendant was no longer facing the imminent use of deadly physical force against him *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15 [2]; *see also, People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299; *People v Pagan,*210 AD2d 435).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS, ERNST &YOUNG**
We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-79225and 333-51034) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc.Amended and Restated 1998 Performance Award Plan and(Form S-8 No. 333-51032) pertaining to the CorinthianColleges, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report datedAugust 13, 2003 (except for Notes 5 and 12, as towhich the date is September 3, 2003), with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report(Form 10-K/A) for the year ended June 30, 2003.
Our audits also included the information as ofJune 30, 2003 and 2002, and for each of the two years inthe period ended June 30, 2003 included in the financialstatement schedule of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and subsidiarieslisted in Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibilityof the Company’s management. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, thefinancial statement schedule referred to above, when consideredin relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,presents fairly in all material respects the information setforth therein.
 /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP    
Orange County, CaliforniaSeptember 24, 2003
88
CITY OF HICKORY, Plaintiff, v. Willie James GRIMES, National Casualty Company, Travelers Indemnity Company, North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association, Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company, Twin City Fire Insurance Company and TIG Insurance Company, Defendants.

No. COA17-441

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

REVERSED. REMANDED.