alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Coleman, Koontz and Willis Argued at Salem, Virginia

SANDY LEON BROWN v. Record No. 0263-94-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. CITY OF DANVILLE MAY 9, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE Kenneth M. Covington, Judge Designate Mark T. Williams (Williams, Stilwell, Morrison, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellant. Robert L. Adams, Jr., Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney (William H. Fuller, III, Commonwealth's Attorney, on brief), for appellee.

The Danville City Ordinance, under which Sandy Leon Brown was prosecuted and convicted, was valid as to the charge against him. However, because Brown was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge against him.

I. Brown was charged with a violation of Danville City Ordinance § 21-49.3 which prohibited operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He contends that the ordinance was invalid because it failed to incorporate the enhanced penalty provisions contained in the July 1, 1993 amendment to Code § 18.2-270 and thus did not satisfy the

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - requirements of Code § 15.1-132. The July 1, 1993 amendment to Code § 18.2-270 set forth an enhanced penalty in circumstances not involved in Brown's case. The ordinance in effect at the time of his arrest conformed with general law insofar as the circumstances of his case were concerned. He cannot assert invalidity of an aspect of the ordinance that has no application to his case. See Sos v. Commonwealth , 14 Va. App. 862, 865, 419 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1992).

II. When the police stop a motor vehicle and detain an occupant, this constitutes a "seizure" of the person for Fourth Amendment purposes, even though the function of the stop is limited and the detention is brief. . . . [A] person may be detained briefly for questioning by an officer who has "'a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity.'" The totality of the circumstances must be considered in determining whether the facts authorize the police to stop a person. The detaining officer "'must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.'"

Zimmerman v. Commonwealth , 234 Va. 609, 611-12, 363 S.E.2d 708, 709 (1988) (citations omitted). See also Castaneda v. Commonwealth , 7 Va. App. 574, 376 S.E.2d 82 (1989) ( en banc ). The arresting officer testified that a city employee had reported that Brown had given him "a problem about where he wanted to park his vehicle." The officer testified that he stopped Brown "to see what was wrong." He articulated no- 3 - suspicion of any particular criminal conduct. He described no circumstances supporting a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Thus, in stopping Brown's vehicle and detaining Brown, the officer effected a seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the charge against Brown is ordered dismissed. Reversed and dismissed

.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES PENN,

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 4:11cv181-SPM/WCS

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

__________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 7) which recommends that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. Petitioner has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections. No objections were filed. Upon consideration, I

have determined that the Report and Recommendation is accurate and should

be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 7) is

adopted and incorporated by reference into this order; and

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) is denied.

3. A Certificate of Appealability is denied.

Case 4:11-cv-00181-SPM-WCS Document 9 Filed 10/18/11 Page 1 of 2
DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2011.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

2

Case 4:11-cv-00181-SPM-WCS Document 9 Filed 10/18/11 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Annual Report of Olympic Cascade  Financial  Corporation
(the  "Company") on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended  September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Robert H. Daskal,  Acting Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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,  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.


                                                  /s/ Robert H. Daskal
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Robert H. Daskal
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                                  December 29, 2003
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No s . 06 - 13 - 00173 - CR , 06 - 13 - 00174 - CR, 06 - 13 - 00175 - CR, 06 - 13 - 00176 - CR DENNIS EUGENE ALLEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No s . CR01912 , CR01914, CR01915, CR01916 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O RDER Court reporter Terry Spangler recorded the trial court proceedings in our cause numbers 06 - 13 - 00173 - CR through 06 - 13 - 00176 - CR, styled Dennis Eugene Allen v. The State of Texas , trial court cause numbers CR01912 and CR01914

– CR0 1916 in the 6th Judicial District Court of Red River County, Texas. The reporter’s record was due in these cases on September 10, 2013. The record is now fifteen days past due. In response to a September 23 inquiry from our clerk’s office regarding the whereabouts of the record, Spangle r indicated that she would file a motion for extension of time by facsimile on that date. We have received nothing from Spangler since that time. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible fo r ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3(c). The Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the timely filing of the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibi lities established by the Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure that the reporter’s record is filed in these cases. We, therefore, order Terry Spangler to file the reporter’s record in cause numbers 06 - 13 - 00173 - CR through 06 - 13 - 00176 - CR, Dennis Euge ne Allen v. The State of Texas , trial court cause numbers CR01912 and CR01914

– CR0 1916, to be received by this Court no later than Monday , October 2 8 , 2013. IT IS SO ORDERED. BY THE COURT Date: September 2 6 , 2013
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES MICHAEL MANNING, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv224-WS

SHERIFF WENDELL HALL,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 13)

docketed July 13, 2011. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff's complaint

be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff has filed no objections to the

magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

The court has reviewed the record and has determined that the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 13) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The plaintiff's complaint, and this action, are hereby DISMISSED for failure

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Case 3:11-cv-00224-WS-EMT Document 15 Filed 08/15/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are DISMISSED with

prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of August , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00224-WS-EMT Document 15 Filed 08/15/11 Page 2 of 2
AMENDMENT TO INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT

      This is an Amendment to the Investment Advisory Agreement made and entered
into between INVESCO Bond Funds,  Inc., a Maryland  corporation  (the "Company")
and INVESCO Funds Group, Inc., a Delaware  corporation  ("IFG"),  as of the 28th
day of February, 1997 (the "Agreement").

      WHEREAS,  the  Company  desires to have IFG perform  investment  advisory,
statistical,  research,  and certain  administrative  and clerical services with
respect to  management  of the assets of the  Company  allocable  to the INVESCO
Tax-Free Bond Fund (formerly,  INVESCO Tax-Free Long-Term Bond Fund), and IFG is
willing and able to perform such services on the terms and  conditions set forth
in the Agreement;

      NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the premises and mutual  covenants
contained in the  Agreement,  it is agreed that the terms and  conditions of the
Agreement shall be applicable to the Company's  assets  allocable to the INVESCO
Tax-Free Bond Fund, to the same extent as if the INVESCO  Tax-Free Bond Fund was
to be added to the definition of "Funds" as utilized in the Agreement,  and that
INVESCO Tax-Free Bond Fund shall pay IFG a fee for services  provided to them by
IFG under the  Agreement  as  follows:  0.55% on the first  $300  million of the
Fund's average net assets,  0.45% of the next $200 million of the Fund's average
net assets and 0.35% of the Fund's average net assets over $500 million.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this Agreement on this 13th
day of August, 1999.
                              INVESCO BOND FUNDS, INC.


                              By:  /s/ Mark H. Williamson
                                   -----------------------
                                     Mark H. Williamson
                                     President
ATTEST:

/s/ Glen A. Payne
-----------------------
Glen A. Payne, Secretary
                              INVESCO FUNDS GROUP, INC.


                              By:  /s/ Ronald L. Grooms
                                   -----------------------
                                     Ronald L. Grooms
                                     Senior Vice President

ATTEST:

/s/ Glen A. Payne
-----------------------
Glen A. Payne, Secretary
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

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

I, Thomas Morrow, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Home School Holdings, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify to my knowledge that:



|(1) | The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           |  |                                                                
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|HOME SCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. |  | /s/ Thomas Morrow                                              
|(Registrant)               |  | Thomas Morrow                                                  
|                           |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                           
|                           |  | (Principal Authorized Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

Dated: August 13, 2009
# EUR-Lex - - EN

*|*

#

**Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6185 — Flabeg/Schott/SBPS/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance **

*
Official Journal C 243 , 20/08/2011 P. 0021 - 0021 *

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6185 — Flabeg/Schott/SBPS/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 243/11

1. On 16 August 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] by which the undertakings Flabeg Holding GmbH ("Flabeg", Germany), ultimately controlled by IK Invest B.V., Schott Solar CSP GbmH ("Schott", Germany), belonging to the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung, and SBP Sonne GmbH ("SBPS", Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)b of the Merger Regulation joint control by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture ("JV").

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for undertaking Flabeg: specialty glass for automotive, technical and solar applications,

- for undertaking Schott: receivers for concentrated solar power plants,

- for undertaking SBPS: engineering; and,

- for undertaking JV: development and distribution of concepts, systems and components which convert concentrated sunlight into heat for use in concentrated solar power plants, as well as related engineering.

3. On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation [2] it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4. The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6185 — Flabeg/Schott/SBPS/JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the "EC Merger Regulation").

[2] OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 ("Notice on a simplified procedure").

--------------------------------------------------
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 22

- 2338

___________________________
United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
Daejon Putman

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________
Submitted: November 30 , 2022 Filed: December 5 , 2022 [Unpublished]

____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY , and STRAS , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

The district court 1 sent Daejon Putman back to prison after he committed three supervised

- release violations . He disputes two of them , claiming that one rested on improperly admitted hearsay and that he lacked the intent to commit the other.

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.-2- Neither challenge succeeds. The admission of hearsay was harmless because
Putman’s own admissions confirmed the relevant facts

. See United States v. Black
Bear , 542 F.3d 249, 255

– 56 (8th Cir. 2008). And it was not clearly erroneous for
the district court to infer that he intended to permanently destroy a cell phone when
he t hrew it onto a concrete parking lot from a second

- floor balcony. See State v. Schminkey , 597 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 1999) (stating that theft under Iowa law requires “an intent to permanently deprive the owner of [her] property”) ; see also
United States v. Petersen , 848 F.3d 1153, 1156 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing the factual findings underlying the decision to revoke supervised release for clear error). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
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 Laufer Bridge Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joel Stohlman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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.  /s/ Joel Stohlman Joel Stohlman Title: Chief Executive Officer   February 16, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 73852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6208]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Clinical Center; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the NIH Advisory Board for Clinical Research.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be closed to 
the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 
552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended to discuss personnel matters, 
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion 
of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIH Advisory Board for Clinical Research
    Date: January 28, 2008.
    Open: 10 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.
    Agenda: To review the 2008 Clinical Center Operating Plan and 
provide updates on selected organizational initiatives.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 10 Center 
Drive, CRC Medical Board Room 4-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Closed: 1:15 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personnel matters.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 10 Center 
Drive, CRC Medical Board Room 4-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Maureen E Gormley, Executive Secretary, Mark O. 
Hatfield Clinical Research Center, National Institutes of Health, 
Building 10, Room 6-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-2897.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 
including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected 
before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 
form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, 
driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 
visit.

    Dated: December 18, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-6208 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2011099EN.01003001.xml

| 31.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/30

---

SPECIFIC CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EAC/16/11

Erasmus University Charter 2012

2011/C 99/05

1.   Objectives and description

Objectives and description

The Erasmus University Charter provides the general framework for the European cooperation activities a higher education institution (HEI) may carry out within the Erasmus programme as part of the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP). The Erasmus University Charter must be awarded as a prerequisite for HEI to organise student mobility and teaching and other staff mobility, to carry out Erasmus intensive language courses and intensive programmes, and to apply for multilateral projects, networks, accompanying measures and to organise preparatory visits. The Erasmus University Charter is based on the LLP Decision (1) which covers the 2007 to 2013 period. The specific objectives of the LLP are listed in Article 1.3 of the Decision.

1

2.   Eligible applicants

Eligible applicants

The Erasmus University Charter applies to all Higher Education Institutions defined in Article 2.10 of the Decision.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 27 Member States of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 27 Member States of the European Union,

| — | the EFTA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland,

| — | the candidate countries: Turkey, Croatia. |
| --- | --- |

—

the candidate countries: Turkey, Croatia.

3.   Deadline for the submission of applications

Deadline for the submission of applications

The deadline for submitting applications for the Erasmus University Charter is 25 May 2011.

25 May 2011

4.   Full details

Full details

The information about the Erasmus programme and the Erasmus University Charter can be found at the following internet address:

http://ec.europa.eu/llp

Applications must be submitted according to the guidelines provided by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency and available at the address:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/index_en.htm

---

(1)  Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning. See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:327:0045:0068:EN:PDF

1

---