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

No. 3D03-1481.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 30, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 2003.

Ronnie Fraley, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

*CONFESSION OF ERROR*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant is appealing the denial of his “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence” in the trial court below. He claims that his sentence of two consecutive life terms, with twenty-five year mandatory mínimums, for two counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer are illegal because the state failed to prove the essential elements of its case (i.e. that the police officers were engaged in the discharge of their duty, or that the crime was motivated by the victims’ status as law enforcement officers). He also contends that the jury was not instructed on, and therefore made no findings of, the same. This claim was previously appealed to, and affirmed by, this court. *See Fraley v. State,*795 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Since this issue has previously been reviewed, the defendant is not entitled to relitigate this claim. *See Raley v. State,*675 So.2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (defendant not entitled to successive review of specific issue already decided against him).

Defendant next contends, and the State correctly agrees, that pursuant to *Traylor v. State,*785 So.2d 1179 (Fla.2000), his enhanced sentence for attempted first degree murder is illegal. In that case, the court held that enhancing a sentence for use of a firearm is illegal where the use of that firearm in an essential element of the underlying felony. *Id.*at 1181. Here, it cannot be determined from the verdict whether the defendant was convicted for attempted felony murder or attempted premeditated murder, and the underlying felony which supports the attempted felony murder conviction involved a firearm. Thus, the enhanced sentence is illegal and the trial court erred in denying relief on this claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4637 

To require the sunset of certain Federal Government reporting requirements 

to Congress, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2014 

Ms. BONAMICI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require the sunset of certain Federal Government 

reporting requirements to Congress, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Government Reporting 

5 Efficiency Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SUNSET OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—On the date that is 5 years after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act (hereafter, ‘‘original 

9 sunset date’’), and every 5 years after the original sunset 

10 date (hereafter, ‘‘subsequent sunset date’’), any statutory 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4637 IH

1 requirement for an entity of the Federal Government to 

2 submit a report to Congress that is in effect on or after 

3 the original sunset date, or the subsequent sunset date, 

4 as applicable, shall have no force or effect if the require5 ment does not include the permanent exception sentence 

6 under subsection (b), except for any statutory requirement 

7 to submit a report to Congress that is enacted after the 

8 sunset date, or the subsequent sunset date, as applicable. 

9 (b) PERMANENT EXCEPTION TO AUTOMATIC SUN10 SET.—With respect to any statutory requirement to sub11 mit a report to Congress that is an exception under sub12 section (a), such requirement shall have no force or effect 

13 on the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment 

14 of such requirement, unless the requirement includes the 

15 following sentence: ‘‘This reporting requirement is a per16 manent exception under the Government Reporting Effi17 ciency Act of 2014.’’. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Samuel Eugene GEDDIE

No. COA18-332

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 16, 2018

NO ERROR IN PART. DISMISSED IN PART.
STATE of North Carolina v. Maurice L. STROUD

No. 118P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018.

Maurice L. Stroud, for Stroud, Maurice L.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of August 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg 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 24th of October 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2018 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2091

LINVAL A. BLAIR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COLONNAS SHIPYARD, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. William T. Prince, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-98-1360-2)

Submitted: November 16, 1999 Decided: January 4, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linval A. Blair, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Lucas, Ruth

Litvin, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Linval A. Blair appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to his former employer and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district

court. See Blair v. Colonnas Shipyard, Inc., No. CA-98-1360-2

(E.D. Va. July 7, 1999). 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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 99

                         CONSENT OF SOLOMON ASSOCIATES


We hereby consent to the use in the 1998 Form 10-K and Annual Report to
Shareholders of Conoco Inc., of our name in reference to ranking of the
performance of Conoco's European refineries which appear in such 1998 Form
10-K, to be filed on or about February 26, 1999 and Annual Report that will be
provided to shareholders prior to the Annual Stockholders' Meeting in May,
1999. We also consent to the reference to us under the headings "Downstream"
and "European-Refining" and reference to us as "an independent benchmarking
company."


/s/ M. D. HANNAN
----------------
M. D. Hannan
President


Solomon Associates, Inc.
February 3, 1999
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **FERMAVIR
        PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**
 **FORM
        10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2005**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**
 **PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I
        am the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of FermaVir
        Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering
        this certificate in connection with the Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
        quarter ended October 31, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission ("Form 10-QSB").
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
        the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        Section
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
        in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 December
        20, 2005
  /s/ Geoffrey
                W. HensonGeoffrey
                  W. Henson
                Chief
                  Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                  Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Sylvester Ray ANDREWS, Jr. and Trayvon Markel Powell Moody

No. 62P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Andrews, Sylvester Ray (Jr.).

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, Attorney at Law, for Moody, Trayvon Markel Powell.

Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of February 2018 by Defendant (Sylvester Ray Andrews, Jr.) 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 9th of May 2018."
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 22, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 22, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0283. RICHARD A. COSDEN v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 1394929
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. (the‘‘Company’’) for the quarterly period endedMarch  31,  2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), Doug W. Naidus, as Chairmanand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of theCompany.

|        |  |        |  |                                                              |  |        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|--------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | By:    |  | /s/DOUG W.NAIDUS                                             |  |   |
|   |  |   |  | DougW. Naidus Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerMay 9,2006 |  |   |
|        |

This certification accompanies theReport pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff uponrequest.

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4651 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

601 West Baker Road in Baytown, Texas, as the ‘‘Specialist Keith 

Erin Grace, Jr. Memorial Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2014 

Mr. STOCKMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 601 West Baker Road in Baytown, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Specialist Keith Erin Grace, Jr. Memorial Post 

Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST KEITH ERIN GRACE, JR. MEMO4 RIAL POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 601 West Baker Road in Bay7 town, Texas, shall be known as the ‘‘Specialist Keith Erin 

8 Grace, Jr. Memorial Post Office’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4651 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referenced to subsection (a) shall be 

4 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Keith Erin 

5 Grace, Jr. Memorial Post Office’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.2****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Scott A. Pomeroy, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dex Media, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors or (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 10, 2005 /s/ Scott A. Pomeroy   Scott A. Pomeroy   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 DSA Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Steven R. Doll, Chief Financial 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, to my 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.


                                       /s/ Steven R. Doll
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Steven R. Doll
                                       Chief Financial Officer

Date: February 14, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DSA Financial Corporation and will be retained by DSA Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
SCWC

- 1 9

- 0000 441

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I , Respondent /Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

vs.

FRANCIS HUNT , Petitioner /Defendant

- Appell ant

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 1 9

- 0000 441; CASE NO. 1DTC

- 18

- 033737 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ. )

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant’s Application for Writ

of Certiorari, filed on July 2 , 2021 , is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, Augus t 6, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-19-0000441 06-AUG-2021 10:42 AM Dkt. 9 ODAC
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No. COMP/M.3456- Goldman Sachs/ Titan)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 141/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

(2)OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32; Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4360 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4360

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Forest Service for the 
Grandfather Ranger District located at 109 Lawing Drive in Nebo, North 
       Carolina, as the ``Jason Crisp Forest Service Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JASON CRISP FOREST SERVICE BUILDING, NEBO, 
              NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the Grandfather Ranger District 
of the United States Forest Service located at 109 Lawing Drive in 
Nebo, North Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ``Jason 
Crisp Forest Service Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jason 
Crisp Forest Service Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4360

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Forest Service for the 
Grandfather Ranger District located at 109 Lawing Drive in Nebo, North 
       Carolina, as the ``Jason Crisp Forest Service Building''.
```
Danny HOPPER, Employee v. LAKESIDE MILLS, INC., Employer, Penn Millers Insurance Company, Carrier

No. 156P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018.

Kathleen G. Sumner, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, David P. Stewart, Attorney at Law, for Hopper, Danny.

Dawn Raynor, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Jefferson Whisenant, Attorney at Law, for Lakeside Mills, Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of May 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 20th of September 2018."
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Scott Anthony ROUSSELLE.

No. 2002-KO-2757.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Rousselle, Scott Anthony;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 225-*1022786; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Cir-euit, No. 2002-KA-0013.

Denied.