alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER DOUGAN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-173-MMP-AK

WALTER MCNEIL,

Respondent.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 6, Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma

pauperis, by Christopher Dougan. Petitioner has not submitted a financial certificate which has

been completed by a prison official. Petitioner will therefore be required to file an amended

motion for IFP in this case, which includes the necessary financial certification. Accordingly, it

is ORDERED: 

That the Clerk shall forward to Petitioner an application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis;

Petitioner shall have until November 10, 2009, to file an amended application for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis which includes his inmate account information, clearly designated

as an “amended” application, or pay the $5.00 filing fee;

Failure to respond to this order as instructed will result in a recommendation of

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of this

court.

 DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2009.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
<TABLE>
                                  Exhibit 21.1
                                  Subsidiaries


<CAPTION>
NAME                                                 JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION

<S>                                                  <C>
FCN Holding, Inc.                                    Delaware
Fox Children's Network, Inc.                         Delaware
Fox Family Management, LLC                           Delaware
Fox Family Properties, Inc.                          Delaware
Fox Kids Europe Limited                              United Kingdom
Fox Kids Holdings, LLC                               Delaware
Fox Kids Worldwide, LLC                              Delaware
International Family Entertainment, Inc.             Delaware
MTM Enterprises, Inc.                                California
Saban Entertainment, Inc.                            Delaware
Saban International N.V.                             Netherlands, Antilles
Saban Merchandising, Inc.                            California
</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1



List of Subsidiaries



|Name of Subsidiary                     |  | Date of Incorporation |  | Place of Incorporation
|-------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Centra Software Europe Limited         |  | June 25, 1999         |  | United Kingdom        
|                                      
|Centra Software Securities Corporation |  | December 30, 1999     |  | Massachusetts         
|                                      
|Centra Software Southern Europe SAS    |  | March 16, 2001        |  | France                
|                                      
|Centra RTP, Inc.                       |  | April 9, 2001         |  | Delaware              
|                                      
|Centra Software Nordic ApS             |  | September 26, 2001    |  | Denmark               
|                                      
|Centra Software Australia Pty Ltd      |  | September 25, 2002    |  | Australia
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certifications pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Novagen Solar
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Micheal Nugent, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) 	The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) 	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

August 20, 2012



|By | /s/ Micheal Nugent                   
|-- | -------------------------------------
|   | Micheal Nugent                       
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer
Filed 7/21/23 P. v. Hodges CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ODELL D. HODGES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B323794

(Super. Ct. No. BA203416)

(Los Angeles County)

Odell D. Hodges appeals the trial court’s order denying his 

petition for resentencing pursuant to former Penal Code1 section 

1170.95.2

FACTS

Hodges and a friend, who was wearing a blue cap, walked 

by three people, including Desmond Alexander, affiliated with 

the Bloods street gang. Alexander wanted to know why Hodges’ 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code

unless otherwise indicated.

2 Former section 1170.95 has been renumbered section 

1172.6.
2

friend was wearing a blue cap in a Bloods neighborhood. A fist 

fight broke out. After about five minutes, Hodges and his friend 

retreated.

Shortly thereafter, a van drove by and stopped near 

Alexander. The driver got out with a shotgun. Hodges got out 

with a handgun. They chased Alexander to the back of a house. 

A witness heard gunshots. The men returned to the van and 

drove away. Alexander was found dead with a gunshot wound to 

his back.

A jury found Hodges guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, 

subd. (a)) and found true that Hodges personally used and 

discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The trial court 

sentenced Hodges to 45 years to life.

The trial court denied Hodges’ petition to be resentenced 

under section 1170.95 on the ground that the jury was not 

instructed on any theory of imputed malice.

APPEAL

We appointed counsel to represent Hodges on appeal. 

Counsel filed a brief raising no issues. (People v. Delgadillo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.) On June 12, 2023, we notified Hodges 

that his counsel filed a brief raising no issues and that he may 

submit a supplementary brief within 30 days. Hodges filed a 

timely supplemental brief. In Hodges’ brief he claims the jury 

was instructed on imputed malice. The jury was not. The jury 

was instructed on direct aiding and abetting: that the defendant 

must act with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the 

perpetrator and with the intent of committing, encouraging, or 

instigating the crime. (CALJIC No. 3.01.)
3

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

BALTODANO, J.

CODY, J.
Norman J. Shapiro, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 27, 2015

NO. 03-12-00247-CV

Roland Oil Company, Appellant

v.

Railroad Commission of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on March 28, 2012. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the district court’s judgment. We therefore grant the Railroad Commission’s motion for 

rehearing; dismiss as moot its motion for en banc reconsideration; withdraw our opinion and 

judgment dated August 29, 2014; and affirm the district court’s judgment. The appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 222 (Monday, November 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 65021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5717]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to Congress.
    Time and Place: Tuesday, December 6, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 12 
p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 
1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Agenda items include a briefing of the Advisory Committee 
members on challenges for 2008, their roles and responsibilities and an 
ethics briefing.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a 
photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance 
process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be 
placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such 
as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please 
contact, prior to November 29, 2007, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice (202) 565-3232 or TDD 
(202) 565-3377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Susan 
Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 
565-3232.

Howard A. Schweitzer,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 07-5717 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-32/RS-CJK

FAYE JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UAMAMENDED ORDER

From the pleadings, it appears that common questions of law or fact are involved 

in the five trademark infringement suits filed in this Court: Slep-Tone Entertainment 

Corp. v. David Morgan, et al., Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Kara-O-King Inc., et 

al., Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Faye Johnson, et al., Slep-Tone Entertainment 

Corp. v. Arther Allen, et al., and Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Tequila Mexico of 

Pensacola Inc., et al. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a) (2), and with the consent of Chief 

Judge Casey Rodgers and Senior Judge Stephan Mickle, the five cases shall be 

consolidated and assigned to me. In addition, pursuant to Fla. N.D. Loc. R. 3.1(C), the 

venue for the Pensacola and Gainesville cases shall be transferred to the Panama City 

division. 

Case 5:10-cv-00071-RS-CJK Document 73 Filed 08/29/11 Page 1 of 2
IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Clerk shall consolidate cases 1:10cv207-SPM/GRJ, 5:10cv71-RS/CJK, 

5:11cv32-RS/CJK, 5:11cv69-RS/EMT, and 3:11cv191-MCR/EMT. 

2. The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in each of these cases. 

3. All future pleadings should be filed only in case 5:11cv32-RS/CJK. 

4. The Motion to Set Aside the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29) in 5:11cv69 is 

GRANTED. A new scheduling order will be forthcoming for the consolidated 

cases. 

ORDERED on August 29, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00071-RS-CJK Document 73 Filed 08/29/11 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SEAN REILLY

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 4:10-CV-310-SPM/GRJ

LARRY CAMPBELL,

Respondent.

___________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 43). Petitioner has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). Petitioner filed objections (doc. 45). Pursuant to Title 28, United

States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have conducted a de novo review of the

sections of the report to which objections have been made. I find that the Report

and Recommendation is correct and should be adopted.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas

corpus stating that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. The Report and

Recommendation states, and this Court agrees, that because Petitioner was not

in custody pursuant to the sentence for the misdemeanor which led to his

Case 4:10-cv-00310-RH-GRJ Document 46 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 2
petition, this Court does not have jurisdiction. In Petitioner’s objections he

argues that when the actual innocence exception is invoked, the “in custody”

requirement becomes a moot issue. To show actual innocence, Petitioner must,

“with new reliable evidence - whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence,

trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence,” demonstrate that

“it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” 

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324, 327 (1995). Petitioner has failed to make the

requisite showing so no additional inquiry is necessary. Therefore, this Court

finds that it lacks jurisdiction in this matter.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 43) is

adopted and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The Motion to Dismiss Petition (doc. 31) is granted and this case is

dismissed with prejudice.

3. A certificate of appealability is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2011.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

2

Case 4:10-cv-00310-RH-GRJ Document 46 Filed 09/12/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2009176EN.01000401.xml

| 29.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 July 2009

2009/C 176/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4229 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,53 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86220 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5850 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5224 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7660 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,501 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 267,55 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7012 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1765 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2050 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0992 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7138 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5378 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0287 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1531 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0497 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 762,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,1131 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7197 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3330 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 121,19 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9937 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,334 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,8914 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,300 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6697 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,8641 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,6050 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4229

JPY

Japanese yen

134,53

DKK

Danish krone

7,4453

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86220

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5850

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5224

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7660

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,501

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

267,55

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7012

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1765

RON

Romanian leu

4,2050

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0992

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7138

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5378

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0287

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1531

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0497

KRW

South Korean won

1 762,97

ZAR

South African rand

11,1131

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7197

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3330

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 121,19

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9937

PHP

Philippine peso

68,334

RUB

Russian rouble

43,8914

THB

Thai baht

48,300

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6697

MXN

Mexican peso

18,8641

INR

Indian rupee

68,6050

---

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

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ALICE FRAME,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-142-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion To Remand. (Doc. 21.)

Defendant requests that the Court remand this case to the Commissioner for further

proceedings. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), counsel for Defendant represents that he

has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff and Plaintiff does not object to the relief

requested.

 Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides in relevant part that:

The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of

the record, a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause

for a rehearing. 

The Commissioner advises that agency counsel requested the Appeals Council

of the Social Security Administration to reconsider the Commissioner’s decision. After

reviewing the Commissioner’s decision the Appeals Council determined that remand

was appropriate for further consideration of Plaintiff’s claim. 

It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion To Remand (Doc.
Page 2 of 2

21) be GRANTED, and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner. On remand the

administrative law judge should further evaluate Plaintiff’s mental functioning and

specifically determine whether her condition meets or equals any listed impairment at

Step Three of the sequential evaluation process. It is also RECOMMENDED that the

Clerk be directed to enter final judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions,

and close the file.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 18 day of April, 2011. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a

copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 1:10-cv-142-MP-GRJ
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 on Form 10-Q of Trevenex Resources, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Raymond Kuh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Company.





|                          |                        
|------------------------- | -----------------------
|Dated:  February 13, 2009 | By: /s/ Raymond Kuh    
|                          | Raymond Kuh            
|                          | Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. RIDDLE

No. 124 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 239.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 June 1977.
#### RDC, INC. v. BROOKLEIGH BUILDERS

No. 64PA83.

Case below: 60 N.C. App. 375.

Petition by defendant Foster & Hailey, Inc. for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 8 March 1983.
#### IN RE HAYES

No. 132 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 515.

Petition by LeRoy Glenn Hayes for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 February 1980.
Exhibit
32.01








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION




In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Macrovision Solutions Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Alfred J. Amoroso
certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted), that to the best of his knowledge:





(a) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), and





(b) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
hereunto signed this Certification as of May 6, 2009.






By:
              /s/ Alfred
      J. AmorosoAlfred
      J. AmorosoChief
      Executive Officer
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:01cr41LAC

SHAWN D. MOXAM

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MAY 28, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 5/22/2008 Doc.# 165

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 30

th day of

May, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED. MOOT.

(b) Sentence has been reduced on the Court’s motion. (See Doc 164) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:01-cr-00041-LC-MD Document 166 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 1