alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CHARLES A. COPPLE v. DUNCAN TALMADGE WARNER, JR. and JERRY WAYNE WEST.

(Filed 19 December 1963.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Latham, Special Judge,*July 1963 Regular Session of Alamance.

In plaintiff’s action to recover damages from defendants, jointly and severally, for personal injuries ¡and .property damage he allegedly sustained on account of their j oint and concurrent negligence, the court, ini separate orders, sustained the separate demurrer of each defendant *732to the complaiaifc and as to such dcfendaut dismissed the action. Plaintiff excepted to■ each ¡order and appealed.

*Harold T. Dodge for plaintiff appellant.*

‘ *Sanders <& Holt for defendant appellee Warner.*

*Thomas D. Cooper for defendant appellee*West..

Pee Cukiam.

Reference is made to the opinion filed simultaneously herewith in the separate action by Mittie Mae Copp-le, wife of the present plaintiff, against the same defendants, *ante,*727.

The allegations on which plaintiff ¡seeks to recover ¡herein and .those on which this wife seeks to recover in her said separate action .are identical. Too, the ¡demurrers filed .and the orders entered in each of the two actions are ¡identical. Hence, the orders ¡herein sustaining the demurrers ¡and dismissing .the action are vacated; and the cause is remanded ifior the entry ¡of orders as 'directed in our opinion in- the *Mittie Mae Copple*case.

As we construe ¡his complaint, plaintiff seeks to recover solely for personal injuries *and*damage to his ear pnoximately caused by the second collision. Plaintiff -alleges West ¡drove his car across -the center line ¡and ¡collided with the Coppl-e and Warner ¡oars, “injuring the plaintiff -and damaging his automobile ¡ais ¡hereinafter set forth.” Whether plaintiff has a separate cause of .action against Warner for damages, if any, proxiimately caused by the first collision, is not presented.

Error and remanded.
# C_2009239EN.01002701.xml

| 6.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/27

---

Corrigendum to notices concerning the European Economic Area

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 138 of 18 June 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 138 of 18 June 2009

2009/C 239/07

On page 2 of the cover and page 5 of the text, main headings for documents 2009/C 138/07 and 2009/C 138/08:

for:

read:

on page 2 of the cover and page 8 of the text, delete main headings for document 2009/C 138/09.

---
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-40669 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Javier Escalera, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:20-CR-1654-1 

______________________________ 

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

 Javier Escalera, Jr., appeals his 60-month prison terms for conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and 

possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. He 

challenges the district court’s determination that he was ineligible for the 

safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) because he has a prior offense that 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 4, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40669 Document: 00516738879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-40669 

2 

received three criminal history points. Escalera contends that, under 

§ 3553(f)(1), a defendant’s criminal history precludes relief only if he has 

more than four criminal history points (not counting one-point offenses), a 

prior three-point offense, and a prior two-point violent offense. However, he 

concedes that the issue is foreclosed by our holding in United States v. 

Palomares, 52 F.4th 640, 642, 647 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed (U.S. 

Dec. 21, 2022) (No. 22-340), that a defendant is ineligible for the safety valve 

if his criminal history satisfies just one of those conditions. 

 Because the sole issue is foreclosed and “there can be no substantial 

question as to the outcome of the case,” the Government’s motion for 

summary affirmance is GRANTED, Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 

F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of 

time to file its appellate brief is DENIED. Escalera’s motion to hold the 

appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulsifer v. 

United States, 39 F.4th 1018 (8th Cir. 2022), cert. granted (U.S. Feb. 27, 2023) 

(No. 21-1609), is DENIED. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 

804, 808 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Case: 22-40669 Document: 00516738879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6070

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

COREY MICHAEL LEFTWICH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-37-1H; 4-04-cv-10-H)

Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 5, 2006

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Michael Leftwich, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Corey Michael Leftwich seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as

untimely filed and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Leftwich has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit
99.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Plata
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dexter R.
Caliso, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
 
   
 DEXTER R. CALISO
 Dexter R.
Caliso
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 President
and Director
 
 
 -1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

LARRY D. LANCASTER,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 8:09-cv-1612-T-33TBM

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 

O R D E R

This cause is before Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus which was

transferred to this Court by the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Florida. 

The transfer order reads, in part:

This cause is before the court upon petitioner filing a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1). Petitioner is

currently incarcerated at Okaloosa Correctional Institution in Crestview,

Florida. He challenges his 1973 criminal conviction entered by the Circuit

Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, as well as his 1980 conviction entered

by the Circuit Court of Polk County, Florida. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d),

the court considers it to be in the interest of justice to transfer this case to the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which is the

district within which the state courts were held which convicted and

sentenced petitioner. 

Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED: 

The clerk shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Florida.
1

 Lancaster has already challenged his 1980 Polk County conviction in case number 8:97-cv-1426-T23MAP. That petition was denied on April 28, 2000. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 

2

Most respectfully, the transfer order appears to be incorrect. Petitioner is not

challenging his 1973 and 1980 convictions in the petition that was transferred to this Court.1

Instead, Petitioner is challenging the manner in which his sentence is being carried out.

This Court notes that if Petitioner were challenging his 1973 conviction, the petition would

be time-barred, and if he were challenging his 1980 conviction, the petition would be

successive. 

Because Petitioner is challenging the manner in which the sentence is being carried

out, the proper jurisdiction is in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Florida. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), this case is transferred to the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for all further proceedings, and the

Clerk shall immediately forward the file to that District. 

ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 31, 2009.

Marvin D. Lancaster
# C_2009033EN.01002001.xml

| 10.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/20

---

Call for proposals for modal shift, catalyst, motorways of the sea, traffic avoidance and common learning actions under the second Marco Polo Programme

(Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council — OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council — OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 1)

(2009/C 33/05)

The European Commission is hereby launching a call for proposals for the selection procedure 2009 under the second Marco Polo Programme. The call is closing on 8 May 2009.

8 May 2009

Information on the modalities of the call and guidance to proposers on how to submit projects, is available at the following website:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/calls/2009_en.htm

The helpdesk of the Marco Polo Programme can be reached via e-mail eaci-marco-polo-helpdesk@ec.europa.eu and fax (32-2) 297 95 06.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         252,266
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    164,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               508,698
<PP&E>                                          78,988
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,779)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,624,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          584,424
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,832
<OTHER-SE>                                     972,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,624,500
<SALES>                                        891,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,021,361
<CGS>                                          448,699
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,525,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (956,984)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (956,984)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (956,984)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to the Requirements set forth
in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U. S. C. §
1350, as adopted, the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) Chen-Qing Luo, the Chief Financial
Officerof Jade Art
Group Inc. hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





(1) The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, to
which this Certification is attached (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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





Dated:
August 13, 2010




/S/
      Chen-Qing LuoChen-Qing
      LuoChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)








This
certification accompanies and is being furnished with this Periodic Report,
shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability
under that Section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filings of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
date of this Periodic report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
# C_2010056EN.01000502.xml

| 6.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5773 — Qatar Petroleum/General Electric Company/PII Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 56/03

On 2 March 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5773. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5773. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 32.1

18 U.S. Section 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of SaVi Media Group, Inc. (the?
"Company"?) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Mario Procopio and Kathy Procopio, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, each certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

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

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

Date: April 13, 2005

/s/ Mario Procopio
Mario Procopio, Chief Executive Officer



Date: April 13, 2005

/s/ Kathy Procopio
Kathy Procopio, Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 April 14, 2017

Order 

Clerk

April 14, 2017

155263(57)

JOHN LAUVE,

Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 155263

v COA: 329985

Ct of Claims: 15-000118-MM

GOVERNOR,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on April 3, 2017, is accepted for 

filing.
# C_2009050EN.01000901.xml

| 3.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 March 2009

(2009/C 50/08)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2596 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,52 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4512 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89330 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,5755 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4809 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0280 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,291 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,03 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7500 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3028 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1752 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9869 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6229 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7701 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,5511 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9587 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 993,95 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,0664 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6230 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3759 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 215,97 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6958 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,740 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,5782 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,661 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0409 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,3739 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,3540 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2596

JPY

Japanese yen

122,52

DKK

Danish krone

7,4512

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89330

SEK

Swedish krona

11,5755

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4809

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0280

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

28,291

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,03

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7500

RON

Romanian leu

4,3028

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1752

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9869

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6229

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7701

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,5511

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9587

KRW

South Korean won

1 993,95

ZAR

South African rand

13,0664

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6230

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3759

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 215,97

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6958

PHP

Philippine peso

61,740

RUB

Russian rouble

45,5782

THB

Thai baht

45,661

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0409

MXN

Mexican peso

19,3739

INR

Indian rupee

65,3540

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ERNEST LEE GATLING,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv172/MCR/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on July 22, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after reviewing

objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 24) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2010.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### Frank D’Angelo et al., Respondents, *v.*1482 Broadway Corporation, Appellant.

Reported below, 184 App. Div. 881.

(Argued September 30, 1918;

decided October 8, 1918.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 11, 1918, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of a certain lease.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous; that the defendant was not aggrieved by the modification; that permission to appeal had not been obtained, and that the appeal was frivolous and taken solely for purpose of delay.

*601
      *Gustav Lange, Jr.,*for motion.

*Charles A. Winter*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements.
# C_2009039EN.01003101.xml

| 18.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/31

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/158/09

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2009/C 39/09)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competition EPSO/AD/158/09 to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD7) with Swedish as their main language.

The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 39 A of 18 February 2009 in Swedish only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---