alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official pa per version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 

### CITY OF RIO RANCHO, 7 

### Plaintiff-Appellee, 8



### v. NO. 29,442 9 

### MICHAEL THOMAS CRISCUOLO, 10 

### Defendant-Appellant. 11 

### APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 12 

### John F. Davis, District Judge 13 

### Gina R. Manfredi, Assistant City Attorney 14 

### Rio Rancho, NM 15 

### for Appellee 16 

### Michael T. Criscuolo 17 

### Los Lunas, NM 18 

### Pro Se Appellant 19 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 

### VIGIL, Judge. 21 

### Defendant, pro se, appeals from the district court judgment and sentence 22 

### finding him guilty of the charge of no seatbelt, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 66-7- 232 

### 372 (2001). This Court’s first notice proposed summary affirmance. Defendant 1 

### filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition. We are not 2 

### persuaded by Defendant’s arguments, and affirm. 3 

### Defendant continues to assert that Section 66-7-372 does not apply because 4 

### the driving laws are established for driv ers, not passengers. [MIO 33] Defendant 5 

### also questions why he should be charged with a driving infraction when public 6 

### transportation provides no safety restraints and passengers are not issued traffic 7 

### citations for no seatbelts. [MIO 33] Section 66-7-372 is contained in the “Safety 8 

### Belt Use Act,” NMSA 1978, §§ 66-7-370 to -373 (1985, as amended through 9 

### 2001). Section 66-7-372(A) provides that “each occupant” shall wear a safety belt. 10 

### The traffic laws are created for traffic sa fety of all occupants of a motor vehicle, 11 

### and there is no distinction between driver s and passengers in the statute. Because 12 

### the statute applies to all occupants of a mo tor vehicle, we affirm the district court 13 

### judgment and sentence. 14 

### For these reasons, and those stated in the first notice of proposed disposition, 15 

### we affirm the district court. 16 

### IT IS SO ORDERED. 17
18 19 

### MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 203 

### WE CONCUR: 1

2 

### CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 3

4 

### CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 5
#### Leon STOKES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D03-1292.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 18, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 6, 2003.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Leon Stokes challenges the summary denial of his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.

Stokes was arrested on April 21, 2000, and posted bond on April 25, 2000. On February 19, 2001, he pleaded guilty to two drug offenses and was sentenced to fifty-seven months in prison on each count to run concurrently. On January 11, 2002, Stokes was resentenced to 43.05 months in prison on each count to run concurrently.

In his motion, Stokes claims that he is entitled to 116 days’ jail credit for time he spent in the county jail. The record reflects that he was in the county jail from April 21, 2000, until April 25, 2000, and on February 19, 2001. This is a total of six days. The record reflects that he received the six days’ credit to which he is entitled.

Stokes also makes several claims for jail credit for days after his sentencing date of February 19, 2001. The relief he seeks regarding jail time spent after sentencing must be sought through administrative proceedings with the Department of Corrections. *See Monroe v. State,*842 So.2d 265, 265 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); *Knight v. State,*681 So.2d 772, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, the trial court was correct in denying Stokes’ motion.

Affirmed.

FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6166

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGINALD BOONE, a/k/a Reggie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (2:92-cr-00113-2)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Boone, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Boone appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction 

in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2010). We conclude that the district court 

properly determined that Boone was ineligible for a sentence 

reduction because his sentencing range was determined by his 

career offender designation, not a calculation of the drug 

quantity attributable to Boone, and thus was not impacted by 

Amendment 750. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 

(4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See United States v. Boone, No. 2:92-cr00113-2 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 5, 2012 & entered Jan. 9, 2012). 

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
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.2


                            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  Mondial  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies 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.


Date:  June 21, 2006


/s/ Joe Alvaro
---------------------------------------
Joe Alvaro, Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20214]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 05-2498, MB Docket No. 04-248, RM-10990]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Big Pine Key, FL

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, petition for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document grants the Petition for Reconsideration filed by 
Call Communications Group directed to the Report and Order in this 
proceeding by reserving Channel 239A at Big Pine Key, Florida for 
noncommercial educational use. See 70 FR 12832, published March 16, 
2005. The reference coordinates for Channel *239A at Big Pine Key, 
Florida are 24-40-00 NL and 81-21-00 WL.

DATES: Effective November 10, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, MB Docket No. 04-248 adopted September 23, 2005, and 
released September 26, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054, telephone 1-
800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will send a copy 
of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding in a report to 
be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

0
Accordingly, FCC amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec.  73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Florida, is 
amended by removing Channel 239A and by adding Channel *239A at Big 
Pine Key.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05-20214 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jeremy JONES.

No. 2002-KO-3117.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Jones, Jeremy; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 419-861; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-0431.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 18.1

March 30, 2005

Board of Directors
theglobe.com, Inc.
110 East Broward Blvd, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida   33301

Dear Sirs/Madams:


We have  audited the  consolidated  balance  sheet of  theglobe.com,  Inc. as of
December  31,  2004  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the year
then ended,  included on Form 10-KSB as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission,  and have issued our report thereon dated March 23, 2005, except for
Note 2, as to which  the date is March  25,  2005.  Note 1 to such  consolidated
financial  statements  contains a  description  of your  change in the method of
accounting for  subscription  agency fees from presenting  these fees as a sales
and marketing expense to reporting them as a reduction of magazine  subscription
sales revenue  during the year ended  December 31, 2004.  In our judgment,  such
change  is to an  alternative  accounting  method  that  is in  accordance  with
generally  accepted  industry  practice and  therefore is  preferable  under the
circumstances.

Yours truly,


RACHLIN COHEN & HOLTZ LLP
# C_2021495EN.01000101.xml

| 9.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 495/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 495/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

8 December 2021

(2021/C 495/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1299 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,57 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4362 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85603 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2513 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0432 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 147,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0960 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,475 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 368,13 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5962 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9488 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,4796 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5841 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4281 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8088 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6659 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5415 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 328,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,8168 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1726 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5250 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 205,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7733 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,784 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 83,3019 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,829 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3350 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,6365 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,2345 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1299

JPY

Japanese yen

128,57

DKK

Danish krone

7,4362

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85603

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2513

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0432

ISK

Iceland króna

147,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0960

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,475

HUF

Hungarian forint

368,13

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5962

RON

Romanian leu

4,9488

TRY

Turkish lira

15,4796

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5841

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4281

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8088

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6659

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5415

KRW

South Korean won

1 328,25

ZAR

South African rand

17,8168

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1726

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5250

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 205,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7733

PHP

Philippine peso

56,784

RUB

Russian rouble

83,3019

THB

Thai baht

37,829

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3350

MXN

Mexican peso

23,6365

INR

Indian rupee

85,2345

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
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 Form 10-Q of
Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. (the “Company")
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Alex KamAlex
      KamChief
      Executive Officer and President(principal
      executive officer)Date:
      November 03, 2010/s/ Pan-Rong LiuPan-Rong
      LiuChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer and principal accounting officer)Date:
      November 03, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Madison Avenue Holdings,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
   /s/ Curt Hecker

Curt Hecker
    
    
    
    /s/ Doug Wright

Doug WrightChief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Chief Financial Officer
On appellant’s and respondent’s stipulated motion for confession of error and remand filed December 9, 2002,

reversed and remanded May 1, 2003

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Patricia Kay DEBOER, *Respondent, and*Ralph William DEBOER, *Appellant.*

93 CV 082; A118296

67 P3d 996

Steve P. Chez and Annetta L. Spicer for motion.

Before Brewer, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Wollheim, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*460PER CURIAM

Father appeals from a judgment that modified the custody of the parties’ child. At the modification hearing, the trial court took testimony from the child and did not allow any other witnesses to testify. The parties jointly move to reverse and remand the modification of custody judgment for a full evidentiary hearing. The motion is granted.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT 99.17
 
 
 CONSENT OF EXPERT
 
 
 We hereby consent to the use of and reference to our name, Snowden Mining Industry Consultants and report, Resource estimate for the Maverick Springs Project dated April 13, 2004, (the “Report”) and the information contained in our Report, as described or incorporated by reference in: (i) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012, and (ii) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-185498), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 Dated this 15th day of March, 2013.
 
 Very truly yours,
 
 Snowden Mining Industry Consultants
 
 
 
 Per:  /s/ Snowden Mining Industry Consultants
STATE of North Carolina v. Melvin Lee WHITE, Jr.

No. 505P96-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Ms. Kristin D. Parks, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for White, Melvin Lee, Jr.

Mr. Richard McNeil, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for White, Melvin Lee, Jr.

Mr. L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 19th of July 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Craven County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
Exhibit 32.2
 
 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 annual report on Form 10-K of Spine Pain Management, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, William F. Donovan, M.D., Interim Principal Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:
 
 The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of this 28th day of March, 2011.
  /s/ William F. Donovan, M.D.
 By: William F. Donovan, M.D., Interim Principal Financial Officer
  Date: March 30, 2011
Order filed August 2, 2022.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00109

- CR

____________ TYLER GALE WILLBANKS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2

Brazoria County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 249917



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. art. 38.22 6; Urias v. State , 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate

the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions.
See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State , 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. C rim. App. 1987).
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the c lerk of this
Court on or before September 1, 2022.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are f iled in this Court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Chief Justice Christopher and Justice Wise and Jewell.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING v. REAVES

75P17-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Margaret W. Reaves, for Reaves, Margaret Ann.

G. Benjamin Milam, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of June 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
Latonya A. TAYLOR, Individually, and as the Administratrix of the Estates of Sylvester Taylor and Angela Taylor; and as Guardian Ad Litem of J.T., N.H. and A.H., minor children v. WAKE COUNTY, d/b/a The Division of Social Services

No. 93P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

Harvey L. Kennedy, Harold L. Kennedy, III, Winston-Salem, Donna M. Taylor, Attorneys at Law, Pilot Mountain, for Taylor, LaTonya A.

Roger A. Askew, Senior Deputy County Attorney, Jennifer M. Jones, Senior Assistant County Attorney, for Wake County, d/b/a the Division of Social Services.

*395***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 27th of March 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of March 2018 by Plaintiff 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."
In the MATTER OF: C.R.R. and E.K.R.

No. COA18-11

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

AFFIRMED.
#### Fred Germany, Trustee, L. Maxcy, Pineapple Orange Company, a Corporation, and H. M. Hampton, as Executor of the Estate of J. R. Williams, and Standard Growers’ Exchange, a Corporation, Formerly Known as H. C. Schrader Company, *Appellants,*v. Como D. Massey, *Appellee.*

Division A.

Decision Filed March 9, 1928.

*E. G. Baxter*and *S. L. Scruggs,*for Appellants;

*Hampton & Hampton,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause haying heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being, now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises; it seems to the Court that there is no errordn the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.