alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2022

- 142 5

_____________________________
J EFFERY K ENON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Francis J. Allman , Judge

. April 24, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice Kaye Brower, Regional Conflict Counsel, and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/936,992 entitled “Non-Contact Respiration Monitor,” filed September 9, 2004. Foreign rights are also available (PCT/US02/29563). The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in this invention.

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This invention relates to non-contact monitoring devices, and more particularly, non-contact respiration monitoring devices. According to the invention there is provided a monitoring device having a body defining an air monitoring channel between an air inlet and an air outlet. Disposed in monitoring channel is a respiration detection means, such as a flap-valve, which operates with associated logic circuitry to report the presence or absence of respiration via visual and audible displays. The device may be configured to attached, or be integrally connected to, the air input orifice of an air filter canister of a gas mask or the like. Alternatively, the device may be associated with the air output orifices or valves of a gas mask or the like.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-21067 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135411 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135411 

 COA: 280804 

Livingston CC: 06-015655-FH

DANNY WILLIAM GOULD,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 2, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration, as on leave granted, of whether the trial court erred in scoring both offense 

variables 9 and 12 in connection with the defendant's conviction for resisting and 

obstructing a police officer. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we 

are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this 

Court. 

l0317 

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

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

March 24, 2008 

 Clerk
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 SRKP 1, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
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.

         /s/ Richard Rappaport
-----------------------------------------------
         Richard Rappaport
         President (Principal Executive Officer)

         /s/ Glenn Krinsky
-----------------------------------------------
         /s/ Glenn Krinsky
         Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

November 10, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SRKP 1, Inc. and will be retained by SRKP 1, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       21
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61623-61624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the National Center for Environmental 
Health (NCEH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
announces the following committee meeting: Correction.
    Name: Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention 
(ACCLPP).
    Summary: The Department of Health and Human Services, CDC published 
a document in the Federal Register of September 20, 2005, concerning 
the ACCLPP.
    Correction: In the Federal Register of September 20, 2005, (Volume 
70, Number 1811) [Notices] Page 55132 ``Place: The Hubert Humphrey 
Federal Building, 200 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20021'' 
Should read: 330 Independence Avenue, Room 5051, Snow Room Cohen 
Building, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-619-0814.
    Contact Person For More Information: Claudine Johnson, Lead 
Poisoning Prevention Branch, Division of Emergency and Environmental 
Health Services, NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE., M/S F-40, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30341. Telephone: (770) 488-3300, fax: (770) 488-3635.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for 
both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.


[[Page 61624]]


    Dated: October 19, 2005.
Alvin Hall,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-21259 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Jack Chen and Klaus Shen, jointly and severally,
as his attorneys-in-fact, each with the power of substitution, for him in any
and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this Report on Form 10-Q/A2 and to
file the same, with exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that each of said attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, this Form 10-Q/A2
has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates
indicated:


      Signature                          Title                         Date

    /s/ Jack Chen        Chief Executive Officer and Director   January 21, 2009
--------------------
      Jack Chen

   /s/ Gary Li                  Chief Financial Officer         January 21, 2009
--------------------
       Gary Li
STATE of North Carolina v. Hector Tepox MALDONADO

No. 342P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Amalia Mercedes Restucha-Klem, Attorney at Law, Alexandra Gruber, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

M. Gordan Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Maldonado, Hector Tepox.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of October 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 *628was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
[Cite as State v. Winn , 2014-Ohio-3347.]

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 1, 2014

Joseph T. Deters , Hamilton County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams

, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Michael Trapp , for Defendant-Appellant.

Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar



### . 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. SHANAE WINN, Defendant-Appellant. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C-130800 TRIAL NO. B-1305338-B

O P I N I O N.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

2 

### D E 

### W INE 

### , Judge. 

### {¶1} This is an appeal from a judgment entry of two convictions for burglary.

Shanae Winn claims that the court erred when it indicated on its judgment that she had pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2). The record is clear that Ms. Winn pleaded guilty to and was convicted of fourth-degree burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(B), so we remand the case so that the trial court can correct its judgment entry. 

### {¶2} Ms. Winn was indicted for two counts of second-degree burglary for her part in driving her boyfriend to homes of two of his uncles so that he could break into the homes and steal property. As a result of a plea bargain, Ms. Winn agreed to plead guilty to amended charges that lowered the degree of the offenses to fourth-degree burglary. During the plea hearing, the court acknowledged that Ms. Winn was pleading guilty to two counts of fourth-degree burglary. The court reiterated its understanding during the sentencing hearing, and senten ced Ms. Winn accordingly. But in both hearings, while correctly stating that Ms. Winn was pleading to fourth-degree felonies, the court referred to the statute sections to which Ms. Winn pleaded guilty as R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) rather than R.C. 2911.12(B). The judgment entry repeated the mistake, incorrectly stating that Ms. Winn had plea ded guilty to two counts of “BURGLARY (AMENDED) 2911-12A2/ORCN, F4.” 

### {¶3} In her sole assignment of error, Ms. Winn asserts that the court erred in stating on the judgment entry that she had b een convicted of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2). The state concedes the error. We conclude that the error is a clerical one, correctible under Crim.R. 36. See State v. Lattimore, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C010488, 2002-Ohio-723. We therefore sustain the assignment of error, and remand theO HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

3 case for the trial court to correct the error in its judgment entry. The judgment of the

trial court is otherwise affirmed. Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

H ILDEBRANDT , P.J., and F ISCHER , J., concur.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

December 30, 2020

s1229 

# Order

Clerk December 30, 2020

161930 & (48)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 161930

COA: 345215

Calhoun CC: 2018

- 000228

- FC

ROBERT DESHAWN AMERSON,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave t o appeal the August 6, 2020

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The emergency

motion for appeal bond is DENIED.
Exhibit 31.1
                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Paritosh K. Choksi, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K of ATEL Cash  Distribution
Fund VIII, LLC;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within
     those entities,  particularly during the period in which this annual report
     is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
     procedures  as of December 31, 2003 (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the  registrant's  ability to record,
     process,  summarize and report  financial data and have  identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
     employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in  the  registrant's  internal
     controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:        6/1/2004

/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi
-------------------------
Paritosh K. Choksi
Principal financial officer of registrant, Executive
Vice President of Managing Member
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 15

- 00300

- CR Jose Miguel ROMO , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 11, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 469039 The Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2015
DISMISSED AS MOOT Appellant pled nolo contendere to the offense of indecent exp osure. After he filed a pro se notice of appeal, his counsel timely filed a motion for new trial. In the motion, counsel claimed appellant did not understand the nature of his plea or its consequences. Accordingly, counsel asked the trial court to grant a new trial. On June 1, 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed in this court. In that supplemental clerk’s record is an order signed by the trial court granting appellant’s
motion for new trial. In light of the trial court’s order, we ordered ap pellant to file a response showing cause as to why we should not dismiss the appeal as moot. We advised appellant that if04

- 15

- 00300

- CR

- 2

- he did not file a timely, satisfactory response, we would dismiss the appeal as moot. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 43.2(f). Appellant did no t file a response.
Pursuant to Rule 21.1, a “ new trial ” is defined as the rehearing of a criminal action after the trial court has, on the defendant ’ s motion, set aside a finding or verdict of guilt. T EX

. R .A PP

. P. 21.1 (a)

. The granting of a motion for new trial restores a case to its position before the original
trial and , therefore, renders any appeal moot. See id. R. 21.9(b). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Id. R. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
#### Laurel M. NOWICKI, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Robert A. NOWICKI, Respondent/Appellant.

No. ED 81413.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 20, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 24, 2003.

James Jay Knappenberger, Clayton, MO, for Appellant.

W. Scott Pollard, Florissant, MO, for Respondent.

Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J, and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Robert A. Nowieki (Husband) appeals from the Judgment and Decree of Dissolution (Decree) entered by the trial court dissolving his marriage to Laurel M. Now-icki (Wife). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence. *McGowan v. McGowan,*43 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. .We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE BAILEY, JR.

No. 7526SC541

(Filed 5 November 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Falls, Judge.*Judgment entered 8 April 1975 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 October 1975.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Conrad O. Pearson, for the State.*

*William J. Eaker for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, VAUGHN and ARNOLD, Judges.

No error.
#### STATE ex rel. Samuel MEYERS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2114.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Meyers, Samuel;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 98-4518; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-564.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:



1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2005 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 Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                                                                  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Leigh Ginter                                                 
|                        |  | Leigh Ginter  Chief Financial Officer (Chief
Accounting Officer)



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