alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company II, LLC (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary L. Whitlock,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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.








/s/
      Gary L. WhitlockGary
      L. WhitlockPresident
      and Manager(Principal
      Executive Officer)August
      13, 2008
**Exhibit 9.3**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-85168, 333-09292, 333-74321, 333-124983 and 333-124997) and on Form F-3 and Form F-3/A (File No. 333-86288) of Acergy S.A. (formerly Stolt Offshore S.A., a Luxembourgcompany) and its subsidiaries (the Company) of our report dated June 10, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of NKT Flexibles I/S as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, prepared in accordance with the Danish FinancialStatements Act, as presented on pages 4-22 of NKT Flexibles I/S’ Annual Report and note 14 to the financial statements of NKT Flexibles I/S, which report appears in this annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year endedNovember 30, 2005. 

 

Copenhagen, May 8,2006 

**KPMG C.Jespersen**

Statsautoriseret Revisionsinteressentskab 

 

/s/ Lars Andersen 

Lars Andersen 

State Authorised Public Accountant
#### Harold SUMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41925.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 6, 1990.

Lew Kollias, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Harold Suman appeals the denial of an untimely-filed Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The state has filed no respondent’s brief, electing to stand on its motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to *State v. Simmons,*660 S.W.2d 319, 320 (Mo.App.1983).

The appeal is dismissed.

Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted first degree robbery, second degree assault, and resisting arrest. On November 18, 1987, he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling fifteen years. Appellant sought postconviction relief in a Rule 24.035 motion filed on July 5, 1988. Denying the motion without an evi-dentiary hearing, the motion court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Although appellant’s points relied on relate to the denial of his substantive claims, he admits in a footnote that his Rule 24.035 motion was untimely filed in violation of Rule 24.035(Z) which requires persons, such as appellant, who were sentenced before 1988 to file on or before June 30, 1988. Appellant submits, however, that the waiver provision of Rule 24.035 should not apply to him because neither the state nor the motion court requested or granted dismissal on that ground. Appellant further argues that the time limitations imposed by Rule 24.035 violate the right to due process *526and suspend the right of habeas corpus. Finally, he points out that criminal defendants sentenced after 1988 receive notice of the filing requirements pursuant to Rule 29.07(b)(4), while those sentenced before 1988, as himself, are entitled to no such notice.

*Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), upheld the time limitations on filing contained in Rule 24.035 as valid and mandatory. Appellant’s failure to timely comply with those filing requirements constitutes a complete waiver of any right to proceed under Rule 24.035. *King v. State,*772 S.W.2d 18, 19 (Mo.App.1989).

Appellant’s challenges to the constitutionality and the fairness of the time constraints were never presented to the motion court and cannot be considered on appeal. *Kunkel v. State,*775 S.W.2d 579, 580-581 (Mo.App.1989). However, similar arguments have been rejected in other cases. *White v. State,*779 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo. banc 1989); *Hodges v. State,*779 S.W.2d 646, 647 (Mo.App.1989).

Because appellant waived his right to avail himself of Rule 24.035 by his untimely filing, the motion court improvidently entertained the merits of his motion which should have been dismissed. *King v. State, supra,*772 S.W.2d at 19. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
SC PW

- 23

- 0000 056

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

CAMERON NICE and MARTHA NICE , Petitioners ,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RANDAL VALENCIANO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit,
State of Hawai ʻ i, Respondent

.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ( 5CCV

- 22

- 0000027 )

ORDER DENYING PETITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the January 28, 2023 letter from

Cameron and Martha Nice and its supporting documents which, on

February 3, 2023, was filed with this court as a petition for a

writ of mandamus, we construe the portion of the Nices’ petition

directed to this court as a request for interlocutory review of

the underlying litigation in Mark Malagodi, etc. v. Cameron E.

Nice, et al. , 5CCV

- 22

- 0000027 and conclude that the Petitioners

have failed to demonstrate a right to such review

. We further

conclude that the record does not support the conclusion that Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-23-0000056 10-FEB-2023 11:34 AM Dkt. 16 ODDP2 the Respondent Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction, has

committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has

refused to act on a subject properly before the court in which

t he judge is subject to a legal duty to act. See State ex rel

.

Kaneshiro v. Huddy , 82 Hawai ʼ i 188, 193, 921 P.2d 108, 113

(1996). Finally, in such litigation, an alternate remedy

exists, of appellate review

. Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi ,

81 Hawai ʻ i 410, 414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996). Therefore,

It is ordered that the petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, February 10 , 202 3

.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7141** 

JULIO ZELAYA SORTO , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.
PHILLIP STOVER; JOSEPH LIGHTSEY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:14

- ct

- 03130

- FL )

Submitted : January 23, 2017 Decided: January 25, 2017

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Julio Zelaya Sorto, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Nathan Douglas Childs, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Julio Zelaya Sorto appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, w e affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Sorto v. Stover , No. 5:14

- ct

- 03130

- FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 11,
2016) . We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pr esented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10301]



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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking 
company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the 
nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC 
Act, including whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices'' (12 U.S.C.      1843). Any request for a 
hearing must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal. Unless 
otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the 
United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 20, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice 
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101:
    1. Security Banc Corporation, Springfield, Ohio; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of CitNat Bancorp, Inc., Urbana, Ohio, and 
thereby indirectly acquire Citizens National Bank of Urbana, Urbana, 
Ohio.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 22, 
1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-10301 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

PATRICK KEVIN MCKINNON, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 69967 

FILED 

MAY 0 3 2016 

TRACIE K. UNDEMAN 

ClERK OF S RREME COURT 

BY S • 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction. Second 

Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Lynne K. Simons, Judge. 

Appellant's counsel has filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal of this 

appeal. Counsel advises this court that he has informed appellant of the 

legal effects and consequences of voluntarily withdrawing this appeal, 

including that appellant cannot hereafter seek to reinstate this appeal, 

and that any issues that were or could have been brought in this appeal 

are forever waived. Having been so informed, appellant consents to a 

voluntary dismissal of this appeal. Cause appearing, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.' 

Saitta 

,freadst, 

Hardesty 

'Because no remittitur will issue in this matter, see NRAP 42(b), the 

one-year period for filing a post-conviction habeas corpus petition under 

NRS 34.726(1) shall commence to run from the date of this order. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 1387 
cc: Hon. Lynne K. Simons, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

Patrick Kevin McKinnon 

, SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) I947A
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00805

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF L.M.

From the Probate Court No

. 1

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023MH02104

Honorable Oscar J. Kazen , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED . It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because app ellant qualifies as indigent under Rule 20 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20. T he clerk of the court shall issue the mandate instanter. See id . at R. 18.1(c).

SIGNED October 4, 2023.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00670-CV

Mary E. Allen, Appellant

v.

Wells Branch Self Storage, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-14-007235, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant Mary E. Allen filed a motion challenging the trial court’s ordersustaining

a contest to her affidavit of indigence. Having reviewed the motion and the record from the hearing 1

on the contest, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. As such, we deny 2

appellant’s motion.3

It is ordered on December 10, 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

 See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(1).

1

See Scarbrough v. Purser, No. 03-13-00025-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2446, at *1-2 2

(Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 27, 2013, order) (per curiam) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard

to review of trial court’s order sustaining indigence contest); Kastner v. Texas Bd. of Law Exam’rs,

No. 03-08-00515-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 6381, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 12, 2009,

no pet.) (mem. op.) (same).

 See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(4).

3
#### Marion C. DEATON, et al, Respondent, v. Corazon G. ANTONIO, Appellant. Marion C. DEATON, et al, Appellant, v. Corazon G. ANTONIO, Respondent.

Nos. WD 47727, WD 47776.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 29, 1994.

Frank P. Barker, II, Kansas City, for appellant.

J.C. Hambrick, Jr., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting a photostatic copy of documents without sufficient foundation in violation of the Best Evidence Rule. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcos Bermudez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.), rendered on November 18, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree and sentencing defendant to a prison term of from 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

*214We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *Iv denied 72*NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milenas and Rubin, JJ.
PartsBase, Inc.                                                 Exhibit 3.6

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             Olympus Staffing, Inc.
                  ---------------------------------------
                                 (present name)
                                  PO1000094605
                  ---------------------------------------
                        (Document Number of Corporation)

     Pursuant to the  provisions  of section  607.1006,  Florida  statues,  this
Florida  profit  corporation  adopts the following  articles of amendment to its
articles of incorporation

FIRST: amendments adopted:
     Article I is hereby  amended to read that the name of the  Corporation  has
been changed from: Olympus Staffing, Inc. to: RNpartners, Inc.

     Article  III is hereby  amended to read:  The  maximum  number of shares of
stock of this Corporation  which it is authorized to have outstanding at any one
time is 30,000,000 (Thirty million) shares of common stock at $0.001 par value.

     Article VI is hereby  amended to read that " the  initial  director of this
Corporation  was MARK J.  WEICHER  and that as a result of a Board of  Directors
meeting of the Corporation on November 6, 2001, the new director,  President and
Secretary of the  Corporation  is Robert A. Hammond,  621 NW 53rd Street,  Suite
700, Boca Raton, Florida 33487".

SECOND:  If  an  amendment  provides  for  an  exchange,   reclassification   or
cancellation of issued shares,  provisions for implementing the amendment if not
contained in the amendment itself, are as follows:

                                 NOT APPLICABLE

THIRD: The date of each amendment's adoption: November 6, 2001.

FOURTH: Adoption of Amendments:

The  amendments  were  approved by the board of  directors  without  shareholder
action and shareholder action was not required.

Signed this 7th day of November 2001.

Signature: /S/ Robert Hammond
                  (Director)

           Robert Hammond
      (Typed or printed name)



                                       1
<PAGE>
#### FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent, v. Robert S. JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. WD 42203.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 6, 1990.

George A. Spencer, Columbia, for appellant.

Douglas S. Evans, Springfield, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and SHANGLER and CLARK, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from court tried case in favor of plaintiff-respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

Yamil Luciano
, * From the 318 th District Court of Midland County, Trial Court No. FM56956

.
Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00280

- CV * December 21 , 2017

Faith Alanna Luciano, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey
, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )
This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t here is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in acc ordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Yamil Luciano

.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18409-18410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10264]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium 
for Toxicology Testing of HFA-227 (IPACT-II)

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 25, 1995, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The International 
Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium for Toxicology Testing of HFA-227 
(``IPACT-II'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) a 
Restated IPACT-II Formation Agreement and (2) the addition of a new 
member. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically,

[[Page 18410]]

the following has become a member of IPACT-II: Northern Healthcare 
Limited Harlow, Essex, England. The Restated Formation Agreement become 
effective on May 8, 1995, and supersedes the prior agreement under 
which the Consortium operated. The only significant change in IPACT-II 
created by the new Agreement is that membership in IPACT-II is now open 
to any party that (1) has a commercial interest in pharmaceutical 
aerosols and (2) undertakes to pay its share of IPACT-II costs.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of IPACT-II. Membership in this group research project is 
open, and IPACT-II intends to file additional written notification 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 21, 1991, IPACT-II filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on April 2, 1991 (56 13489).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 14, 
1993. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 27, 1993 (58 FR 25657).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-10264 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Order entered October 29, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00408-CR

JOSHUA SEAN MUEGGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-82053-2012

ORDER

The reporter’s record was originally due in this appeal on July 9, 2013. On July 10, 

2013, the Court granted court reporter LaTresta Ginyard a thirty-day extension of time to file the 

record and on September 23, 2013, the Court granted Ms. Ginyard a second thirty-day extension 

of time to file the record. On October 18, 2013, Ms. Ginyard filed a third extension request 

seeking an additional ten days to file the record. However, rather than tendering the record by 

October 28, 2013, on that date, Ms. Ginyard filed a fourth extension request seeking an 

additional five days to file the reporter’s record. We DENY Ms. Ginyard’s October 18 and 28, 

2013 third and fourth extension requests.

We ORDER court reporter LaTresta Ginyard to file the reporter’s record by 

NOVEMBER 4, 2013. No further extensions will be granted. If the record is not filed by the 
date specified, the Court will order that LaTresta Ginyard not sit as a court reporter until she files 

the record in this appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Benjamin Smith, Presiding Judge, 380th Judicial District Court; court reporter 

LaTresta Ginyard; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE