alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerry Lynn JONES, Appellant, v. Paul CASPARI, et al., Respondents.

No. 66347.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 14, 1995.

Jerry Lynn Jones, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stacy L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., John Mun-son Morris III, Jefferson City, for respondents.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, acting pro se, appeals the dismissal by the circuit court of his action for declaratory judgment. In his petition for declaratory judgment, Appellant challenges the calculation of his good time credits while at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center. Appellant also appeals the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum *399opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph ELAM, Appellant. Joseph ELAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63954, 67009.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 1, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stephen R. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals following his conviction by a jury of three counts of first degree robbery and three counts of armed criminal action. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentia-ry hearing. However, Defendant has abandoned that appeal by failing to brief any errors pertaining to the denial of post-conviction relief. With respect to Defendant’s direct appeal no error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion *296for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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 Fountain Healthy Aging, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Hunston, Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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; 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 May 29, 2009   /s/ Paul
Hunston Name: Paul
Hunston Title: Chief
Financial Officer Chief
Executive Officer
#### Derrick HUTCHINSON, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 63585.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 23, 1993.

John Klosterman, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 84.16(b).
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 Annual Report of Magal Security Systems Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacob Even Ezra, Chief Executive 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:

         (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.


/s/Jacob Even-Ezra *
--------------------
Jacob Even-Ezra
Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2004

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
#### In Re MARRIAGE OF Dorothy FITZPATRICK and Wallace Fitzpatrick, Dorothy Fitzpatrick, Petitioner-Appellant, and Wallace Fitzpatrick, Respondent.

No. 15751.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Dec. 27, 1988.

*544Michael T. Pivac, Miller & Sanford, Springfield, for petitioner-appellant.

David A. Fielder, Dorr, Baird and Light-ner, P.C., Springfield, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Dorothy Fitzpatrick appeals from a decree dissolving a marriage of twelve years. She complains of the trial court’s division of marital property, its failure to award her maintenance, and its failure to award her attorney’s fees.

An examination of the record reveals that no error of law appears and that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the complained of areas. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

All concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2010 of WMG Acquisition Corp. (the
Registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report.

Dated: August 24, 2010



/s/ EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR.Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Louis J. Bacchetta, Appellant, v William C. McCombs, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs *(see, Heritage v Van Patten,*59 NY2d 1017). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7164

MAHLE Behr USA, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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



I, Rick Wilson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.





|Date:    May 6, 2009 |                                          | By:/s/ Rick Wilson
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------
|                     | Rick Wilson, Principal Financial Officer
|                     |                                          |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          38,486
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             150
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   470
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    474,588
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         261,783
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           241,104
<LOANS>                                        702,443
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,575,724
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,109,377
<SHORT-TERM>                                   275,134
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,609
<LONG-TERM>                                     85,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,450
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,575,724
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,206
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,231
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    10
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                25,447
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,416
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,024
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,423
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      375
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (17)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    965
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,953
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,953
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.63
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,480
<LOANS-PAST>                                       583
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   103
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,582
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,002
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      404
<RECOVERIES>                                       106
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,079
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,079
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             78



</TABLE>
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices of meetings published under

the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.

L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

18881

Vol. 60, No. 71

Thursday, April 13, 1995

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, April 18, 1995

at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to

the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil

actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures or

matters affecting a particular employee.

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, April 20, 1995

at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the

public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

Advisory Opinions:

AOR 1995–02: Peter H. Rodgers on behalf

of New York Mercantile Exchange

(NYMEX) and NYMEX Political Action

Committee.

AOR 1995–08: Congressman Bart T.

Stupak, Stupak, for Congress, Inc.

AOR 1995–09: Matt Dorsey, Treasurer, on

behalf of NewtWatch PAC.

Audit:

Final Audit Report on Bennett for Senate.

Regulations:

Presidential Primary and General Election

Regulations: Draft Final Rules and

Explanation and Justification. Continued

from meeting of April 6, 1995.

Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer,

Telephone: (202) 219–4155.

Marjorie W. Emmons,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–9295 Filed 4–11–95; 3:39 pm

BILLING CODE 6715–01–M
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 2, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-1997

Lower Tribunal Nos. 13-29795, 13-29046

________________

Ronald Reid,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica Diaz, Judge.

Ronald Reid, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Nikole Hiciano, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

LAGOA, J.
Defendant, Ronald Reid (“Reid”), appeals from the trial court’s order

denying his motion for reduction or modification of sentence pursuant to Florida

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Because the appeal is taken from a nonappealable order, we dismiss.

On February 2, 2016, Reid entered into a negotiated global plea with the

State and was sentenced to 96.22 months as a habitual felony offender. On March

14, 2016, Reid filed a Rule 3.800(c) motion for reduction or modification of

sentence. On June 9, 2016, the trial court denied the motion and found:

[T]his Court does not have the legal authority to modify

or reduce a sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement

between the State of Florida and the Defendant. State v.

Gutierrez, 10 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The

Defendant’s sentence, imposed by this Court on February

2, 2016, was pursuant to an agreement entered by the

Defendant with the State of Florida. Defendant cannot

circumvent the plea bargain by filing a motion to

mitigate.

This timely appeal followed.

It is well-established that “[a]n order denying, on the merits, a motion for

reduction of sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) . . . is not

an appealable order.” Clewis v. State, 715 So. 2d 1129, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998);

see also, McKinzy v. State, 949 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Royal v. State,

736 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Lusskin v. State, 717 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th

2
DCA 1998); Bourjolly v. State, 623 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).1

 

Accordingly, because the order at issue is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal. 

Appeal dismissed.

1 In contrast, an order granting a Rule 3.800(c) motion that reduces a sentence

imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea constitutes an appealable order. As this

Court concluded in State v. Jordan, 783 So. 2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the

State, pursuant to section 924.07, Florida Statutes, is authorized “to appeal two

types of sentences: 1) a sentence that is illegal, and 2) a sentence imposed ‘below

the lowest permissible sentence established by the Criminal Punishment Code

under chapter 921.’” A reduced sentence granted by a trial court which constitutes

a downward departure sentence is appealable by the State under section

924.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes. See State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA

2000); cf. Jordan, 783 So. 2d at 1182.

3
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 Juma Technology, Corp. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Anthony
        M. Servidio, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman 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; 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/ Anthony
                  M. ServidioAnthony
                  M. Servidio
                Chief
                  Executive Officer and
                Chairman
  November
        13, 2008
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its Continuation at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting on June 10, 2021.

# PLACE:

1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (This Meeting Will be a Virtual Meeting).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

* * * * *

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Vicktoria J. Allen,

Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-11505 Filed 5-26-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19576-19577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9604]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-233-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

April 13, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 11, 1995, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, revised tariff sheets, as listed below, to be 
effective May 15, 1995.

Third Revised Sheet No. 35
Third Revised Sheet No. 36
Third Revised Sheet No. 57
Third Revised Sheet No. 58
Second Revised Sheet No. 69
First Revised Sheet No. 70
Third Revised Sheet No. 101
Third Revised Sheet No. 102
First Revised Sheet No. 123
Third Revised Sheet No. 127
Second Revised Sheet No. 128

    CIG states the purpose of this filing is to add a provision to 
CIG's tariff addressing situations where the nominating procedures 
required by an interconnecting pipeline are not compatible with CIG's 
nomination procedures. CIG further states anytime a minor change is 
necessary to CIG's nomination procedures at an interconnect with 
another natural gas pipeline, CIG will post the change on its 
electronic bulletin board and notify each affected Shipper.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the [[Page 19577]] Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 
385.211). All such petitions or protests should be filed on or before 
April 20, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the commission and are available for public inspection 
in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9604 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M