alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 10, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JONATHAN GLEN JOHNSON, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00209-CR V.

NO. 14-14-00210-CR 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 State or CountryName of Subsidiary
    
    of Incorporation620 Eighth GP NYT (NY) LLC
    
    Delaware620 Eighth Lender NYT (NY) Limited Partnership
    
    Delaware620 Eighth NYT (NY) Limited Partnership
    
    DelawareBPLAST 17 Member (DE) LLC
    
    DelawareBPLAST Landlord (DE) LLC
    
    DelawareConduit B.V.
    
    NetherlandsCPA 17 International Holding and Financing LLC
    
    DelawareCPA 17 Pan-European Holding Cooperatif UA
    
    NetherlandsCPA:17 Limited Partnership
    
    DelawareCPA:17 Paying Agent LLC
    
    DelawareCrate (GER) QRS 16-142, Inc.
    
    DelawareFlex (NE) LLC
    
    DelawareFlex Member (NE) LLC
    
    DelawareFRO Man Member 17 (NC) LLC
    
    DelawareFRO Spin (NC) LLC
    
    DelawareGorzow Beaver 17-3 BV
    
    NetherlandsHF Landlord (SC) LLC
    
    DelawareKRO (IL) LLC
    
    DelawareLaurken (IL) LLC
    
    DelawareLT-FIT (AZ-MD) LLC
    
    DelawarePole Landlord (LA-TX) LLC
    
    DelawareTech (GER) 17-1 BV
    
    NetherlandsTech Landlord (GER) LLC
    
    DelawareWGN (GER) LLC
    
    Delaware
 CPA®:17
2008 10-K  85
#### State v. Tarleton

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 212P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-760)

Denied 06/27/07
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129142 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129142 

 COA: 252785 

Wayne CC: 01-012386

ANTHONY LEE WALKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 30, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
Exhibit 32.01   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 Anoteros, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Chachas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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/ George G. Chachas By: George G. Chachas Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: February 1, 2011  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21830-21831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10905]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,315]


Davis International, West Point, MS; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 19, 2009 in response to a 
worker

[[Page 21831]]

petition filed by workers of Davis International, West Point, 
Mississippi.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10905 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Second Department,

November, 2013

(November 4, 2013)

#### In the Matter of Peter J. Tripodi IV et al., Appellants, v Westchester County Board of Elections et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 347]

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the Westchester County Board of Elections to change the election district in which certain voters are registered, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the *587Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), dated October 31, 2013, as, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners, contending that certain voters are registered in the wrong election district, commenced this proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel the Westchester County Board of Elections to change the election district in which those voters are registered. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought pursuant to CPLR article 78.

The petitioners’ remaining contentions, pursuant to Election Law article 16, are without merit. Skelos, J.P, Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMMAD RAHMAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-72622

Agency No. A094-922-849

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Mohammad Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 20 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-72622 

1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. 

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for 

review.

In his opening brief, Rahman accepts the agency’s determination that he was 

not credible, but challenges the denial of CAT protection. Substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s denial of Rahman’s CAT claim, because it is based on the 

same testimony the agency found not credible, and Rahman does not point to any 

other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than 

not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official 

in Bangladesh. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). We 

reject Rahman’s contention that the agency ignored evidence or erred in its 

analysis.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

                                                                    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 Golf Rounds.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the
Company.

Dated: July 14, 2006                 /s/ Robert H. Donehew
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Robert H. Donehew
                                     President (Principal Executive Officer)
                                     and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
```
<PAGE>
                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Potlatch Corporation:

We consent to the use of our report dated September 10, 2004, with respect to
the balance sheets of the Oriented Strand Board Manufacturing Facilities of
Potlatch Corporation as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related
statements of operations, parent's equity and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, included herein, and to the
reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Portland, Oregon
October 18, 2004
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Max Weissengruber, President, and D. Brian
Robertson, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President of Sales, of
Freshwater Technologies, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-K of Freshwater
      Technologies, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2008 (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 Freshwater Technologies, Inc.                                                                 

Dated: April 13, 2009

/s/ Max Weissengruber Max
Weissengruber President and Director (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ D. Brian Robertson D.
Brian RobertsonTreasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Vice-President of
Sales and Director (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Freshwater
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Freshwater Technologies, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James King, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 230]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J), rendered May 22, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds (Penal Law § 220.44 [2]), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that reversal is required based on prosecutorial misconduct on summation *(see People v Green,*43 AD3d 1279, 1281 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1034 [2008]) and, in any event, that contention is without merit. We agree with defendant that it was improper for the prosecutor to remark that a witness was afraid of defendant inasmuch as that was not a fair comment on the evidence *(see People v Facciolo,*288 AD2d 392, 394 [2001]; *cf. People v Bahamonte,*89 AD3d 512, 512-513 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 881 [2012]). We further agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly used defendants past crimes of violence to suggest that the witness had “a reason to be afraid.” It is fundamental that the function of cross-examining a defendant about his or her prior criminal, vicious, or immoral acts “is solely to impeach [the defendant’s] cred*1346ibility as a witness” *(People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 376 [1974]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the prosecutor’s isolated remarks were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Miller,*104 AD3d 1223, 1223-1224 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1017 [2013]; *People v Scott,*60 AD3d 1483, 1484 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 859 [2009]), particularly considering that this was a bench trial *(see People v Dixon,*50 AD3d 1519, 1519-1520 [2008], lv *denied*10 NY3d 958 [2008]; *see generally People v Moreno,*70 NY2d 403, 406 [1987]). Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0173

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH PAUL DEWISE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 9, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 5 2021

05/05/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0173
|                          |   |                         |   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                          |   |                         |   |   |
|  May 15,      2009  |   | /s/      Michael Sweet       |   |   |
|                          |   |                         |   |   |
|                          |   | Michael      Sweet           |   |   |
|                          |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |
|                          |   |                         |   |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Gumbs, Also Known as Edward A. Gumbs, Appellant.

[961 NYS2d 796]

—Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), imposed May 25, 2011, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, the resentence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on May 18, 2001.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

*760Since the defendant had not yet completed his originally imposed sentence of imprisonment when he was resentenced, the resentencing to a term which included the statutorily required period of postrelease supervision did not subject him to double jeopardy or violate his right to due process of law *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]; *People v Louis,*90 AD3d 1075 [2011]; *People v Dawkins,*87 AD3d 550 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BERNARD BAGLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; STEVEN GOLDBERG,

Evans Correctional Institution

Classification; LINDA WILLIAMS,

No. 95-7966

Evans Correctional Institution

Classification; GENE BAKER, Evans

Correctional Institution Prison

Industry; SAMMIE BROWN, South

Carolina Department of Corrections

Classification; ROBERT WARD, Evans

Correctional Institution, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-3233-2-8AJ)

Submitted: February 27, 1997

Decided: March 12, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. The district court assessed a filing

fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981),

cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without

prejudice when Appellant failed to pay the fee within thirty days.

However, Appellant was given sixty days to pay the fee and prior to

dismissal he objected to the fee order. Because Appellant was given

sixty--not thirty--days to pay the fee and he objected within that

time, we grant Appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal, vacate the dismissal order, and remand with instructions to

address Appellant's objections and give him additional time to pay

the fee. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
#### Melissa B. O'Halloran, Respondent, v John V. O'Halloran, Appellant.

Decided April 7, 2009

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court' of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.J.G. and * From the 29th District Court

L.R.G., children, of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. C48678.

No. 11-19-00109-CV * April 11, 2019

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Avro Energy Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike P. Kurtanjek,
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:

     (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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of April, 2009.


/s/ Mike P. Kurtanjek
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer