alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 410 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 9, 2020. 

Whereas the Korean Peninsula, with the Republic of Korea 

(in this resolution referred to as ‘‘South Korea’’) in the 

South and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (in 

this resolution referred to as ‘‘North Korea’’) in the 

North, remains divided following the signing of the Korean War Armistice Agreement on July 27, 1953; 

Whereas the division of the Korean Peninsula separated more 

than 10,000,000 Korean family members, including some 

who are now citizens of the United States; 

Whereas there have been 21 rounds of family reunions between South Koreans and North Koreans along the border since 2000; 

Whereas Congress signaled its support for family reunions 

between United States citizens and their relatives in 

North Korea in section 1265 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181), signed into law by President George W. Bush on 

January 28, 2008; 

Whereas most of the population of divided family members in 

the United States, initially estimated at 100,000 in 2001, 

has significantly dwindled as many of the individuals 

have passed away; 
2 

•HRES 410 EH 

Whereas the summit between North Korea and South Korea 

on April 27, 2018, has prioritized family reunions; 

Whereas the United States and North Korea have engaged 

in talks during 2 historic summits in June 2018 in 

Singapore and February 2019 in Hanoi; and 

Whereas many Korean Americans are waiting for a chance to 

meet their relatives in North Korea for the first time in 

more than 60 years: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) calls on the United States and North Korea to 

begin the process of reuniting Korean-American divided 

family members with their immediate relatives through 

ways such as— 

(A) identifying divided families in the United 

States and North Korea who are willing and able to 

participate in a pilot program for family reunions; 

(B) finding matches for members of such families through organizations such as the Red Cross; 

and 

(C) working with the Government of South 

Korea to include American citizens in inter-Korean 

video reunions; 

(2) reconfirms the institution of family as inalienable and, accordingly, urges the restoration of contact 

between divided families physically, literarily, or virtually; and 
3 

•HRES 410 EH 

(3) calls on the United States and North Korea to 

pursue reunions as a humanitarian priority of immediate 

concern. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### In the Matter of Antwone Lee S. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Tracye W., Also Known as Tracye S., Appellant; The Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 115]

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s failure, notwithstanding the petitioner’s diligent efforts, to learn to control her anger and complete all of the programs to which she was referred, and refusal to accept guidance on proper parenting *(see Matter of Alpacheta C.,*41 AD3d 285 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 812 [2007]; *Matter of Jah'lil Dale Emanuel McC.,*44 AD3d 547 [2007]). Termination of respondent’s parental rights is supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that the children, who have been in foster care virtually since birth, have bonded with a foster parent who provides for their special needs and desires to adopt, and that respondent continues to have problems controlling her anger and does not have suitable housing *(see Matter of Shaka Efion C.,*207 AD2d 740 [1994]). Concur-Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7650

TRAVIS J. MCFADDEN,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

REUBEN YOUNG,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:12-hc-02205-F)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis J. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis J. McFadden seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition and denying his motion to appoint counsel and the 

court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
^

Sr,(Lta

<^

>,6£u^io^|

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 16 2015

AbelAcoste,Clerk

^Co^HoM| ^^ _w Will"-w^vn+Jslu £oVbwi * ^W ro

on

>I tmb^- ^o - foR^ j£, x^(f wj| ^iW1&

^D.6.C.^I7^

12- )5

T-^-X aU 17VZ77

3viwk£ n/^yiii^ una
<>ufcf°f cRiwinfll flfpfcftls

of Tfc>ty&

flllJOi pcYifl ,

iRpf^yif/p^iWR.

Tta mk of Tfc/^

CI

'aj. 3^&3ioin 1

p^4ilioYi^S WioYi foR ja>teyiRjyi^ of 4Xk pWiff&

)4i4tti'flc+ion of ^R^^mi yi prpC^AjriaI yi&s&&$Mfcri4 of

WC^S4i+irtioWil ^ooviis ...+Xtt*(" Will tt<fcw4k(q ^YsRaS n

^a|4^CX_ iaI^XiII Will lAlCoRpoRRte NYWo+foyi T^

WifcYld tX£ f^jlioYi^S p^44)oY) foRy ^,SCte4i^^M teVi^N

^iiwVfcf^ ^ y.^.c.^ 17% (^>co-M onJ 7-1-IS.

"tf-V-YHlRfei OYiit 3'
J.-W**-FtotoWfS U£»l nd'°Tn °f\ Jj^Ulir^

-\HB-V YM\ flte^lfttelii &o^RjU Wo^iom To VtlCKl-te. ^T'fl^fc

0K-CoKR^4 ^ $hvtaflCfc-.. i^vWi^H vJill JAiCoKpoRYfe "

I.
jt««&&iH<^jTKi»ly#mV£500^^

JLW-J0.W1: '

JWt»Rl»KrtR*-

ISWjfriR^K'f-32.

Ts^JttU- K-^ •f•si,Jil^

ffSWjJffl-R-CW-f-Cl
*">! PW $£><\ MXoWiia W^TOQte X367

^ "' J^ ^^^i^^^^U oaI.. 1|oIS.

w vUo\ m $<o<\ M.

T^.d^.Ao.\7^17

PjcMW^pRoSE

i\*\ m 3#\ a.

J^^^ .tJin

•!UU J

t.&.c*.mo.11^277 ^ 4w-oi^a ^: -7. io •is

FfcH^sR^ PR? & .

£M FW 36<\ A.

•XoVllft pflRk.TSX^ 76141

3.
J* 1.

X-

>*&*?..

taMW&¥^$* pfe&ifoJi,

H*n*)Wfc1^A: fRpii^

<f

^^RifiBbT^O^^,^; m

r>hflRft!)kT-3vJ& P^SiJiVj^T
il., cm.*

'cM $ cm\m\ tyysxW

of TfeXH&.

Cjl.lflllo|: ^,41.3^-oj

5i^u^'|on

'ink )\hofM\Hk Ma wilted WiV'-0

' pbiin+iff'S wo-Jjon fog. j^|i£^ f£oYn -fl

T.d.c'-3. (Jo. 1110^11

"%YisS V- Ylteb Hfl'n ^ I. ' v '
.* of TSXftS of TROdS I

v» - ... .3-7

fern » ^teniEurt mda oRteR.

PI

w*-jis*jtimiH*-jM'-joW
tanhi «_ -j «

$l^vlMlf-JSv)CvRU^,l$4mV-J pn4ifcoi\*R!$w-J r^*-Jtovi-J^1Co^I4\)^oT\||1Im«- IfWdW^*?'IflRiR^TRitifj.

-pi*!
s Ji«i6^TR'*il'|owu^oAs3-^pw»-yiAifwcr-jV(^Pi^^£vr|&«1,^),t«i..

•lTt\HK)MEtCi*-jaovl/l»ll-. '

IMS.«-JfRo^«RB^6»R.7/$U\mt*\.. finr-JS*!H'"-$<^W^^WWWMKIL*•

&SJ*iJ.eXrWtte gRBVo '; 70'e S.W.ea IM . »3 rTry teiivi fe* i«4* #

3.
JiW-jHoSroks V. fanX . 31Z f-si 124 .1/3 nt* lip - iL

PWJfflillER-EI ^CotkRpil _S31 \).i.-5U. 336. )<;<) L.JE.J i\ 4*1 t* <fr

js»:jrw(«oai»So >i. utii^as+b-(es .26$ r.3^-m.m%-,»c,R?lfV ^

J&WiJJIWk, 341 u.S.Jb+3 Wl- Xi.
JCoRpv)$> on 3HJ^jT^R-CR-p.^ •

^^^-R.CR.p-5ej&»jjd«&iii^ v- p^op)^5>; /^ u.s. 3^ .^ pwlj.

p£Hf,oM£K; pKo ^

Zn\£& i. WlRJ^ V)Y>H

2V>\ FW 3£A aI.

"Xo^lft f^Rk/P£Xtt£> 76367

^ 5>l•$Mftqm*W v)Y\teR otrtH^

R*ty£tf4^ &)M4W:

"31TC& V- MRjsd v>KV«4

&W TW 36<\ Al.
£V>\ FW- 36<\ a1.

"&Yfl\ piftRk .Texas, 76367

.\«

J^ £>(iJcaddficufe ofs^i^

3lRW£& >/. wij^ \)YVii

2>\ FW 34<\ a1.

I°VM\ flR^k .TSXftS 76367

jn ^.t-ii^^^i^ oi -\.\0. \<>

1H-1 ^^ Coor4 of cRimmyii iRpp^|s-77

": JrtwnWn ya.W kwii^ few nx^W ^ oKto^wy

fcxfc^okJ o/J)

^r^Iti)^F^siii^
;, ^Opfl^sia+^l^c^i-ji^OppoR^ y &upp0^m^-Jp^HioritR's^

J°M^lf-f^Jf^,0^^ ^RoWflTo*'jM^U'^

f-,Ai0RaER*iTo*-jRs^&s"'-Jsiiti6,LKoNfSMryi£ri-lBiii5,swl/t)Mim

l6m''"J^wsE^''-|ai3"'|Tlo^-Iao^Isow-|'fi^^^TsucK"Lli5»'•^«l»v .

£»^>^i^oiR^

f *««Rtista -^ #aiR5t+ipPPtw,fi viJifc^-.^JS |oM"* toc+>t>r«)l

1Th-h>»c)Iweyi+7b7-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6291

BRINSTON WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

D. L. HOBBS, Warden of Federal Correctional

Institution-Jesup; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-00-3864-6-20-AK)

Submitted: July 10, 2001 Decided: September 11, 2001

Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brinston Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Brinston Wilson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Wilson v. Hobbs, No. CA-00-3864-6-20-AK (D.S.C.

filed Jan. 29, 2001; entered Jan. 31, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Franklin Hughes, Appellant.

Submitted September 10, 2012;

decided September 13, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Michael A. Fiechter, Esq., PO Box 1107, Bellmore, New York 11710 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00128-CR

AARON CUMMINGS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1362455D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

----------

Appellant Aaron Cummings attempts to appeal from his conviction for 

aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age. Cummings

pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain, and in accordance with the plea 

bargain, the trial court convicted Cummings of the offense and sentenced him to 

twenty years’ confinement. The trial court’s certification of his right to appeal 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

states that this case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of 

appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

On April 22, 2015, we notified Cummings that this appeal may be 

dismissed based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party desiring to 

continue the appeal filed a response on or before May 4, 2015, showing grounds 

for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. Cummings’s 

responses do not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

In accordance with the trial court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

/s/ Sue Walker

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 16, 2015
#### In the Matter of Melvin Lee, Appellant, v Erie County District Attorney’s Office, Respondent.

Submitted February 11, 2013;

decided March 26, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1064 

TP 10-00450 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF TOMMY HERRIN, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND D.S.A. 

BULSON, HEARING OFFICER, MID-STATE CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, RESPONDENTS. 

 

TOMMY HERRIN, PETITIONER PRO SE. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARTIN A. HOTVET OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Samuel D.

Hester, J.], entered January 4, 2010) to review a determination of

respondents. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### Rony Zodkevitch, M.D., Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Igal Feibush et al., Defendants, and Steven Spiegel, Esq., Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[854 NYS2d 373]

*425Supreme Court erred in directing appellant to place into an escrow account the funds he allegedly misappropriated since plaintiffs failed to make a clear showing that they would suffer irreparable injury unless that relief were granted, a necessary element on a motion for a preliminary injunction *(see*CPLR 6301; *Matter of Non-Emergency Transporters of N.Y. v Hammons,*249 AD2d 124, 127 [1998]). Specifically, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that an award of monetary damages would not adequately compensate them *(see US. Re Cos., Inc. v Scheerer,*41 AD3d 152, 155 [2007]; *ERS Enters. v Empire Holdings,*286 AD2d 206, 207-208 [2001]; *Non-Emergency Transporters of N.Y., supra; cf. Sirius Satellite Radio v Chinatown Apts.,*303 AD2d 261, 261-262 [2003]). At bottom, plaintiffs seek security for a potential money judgment against appellant, relief that should be sought under CPLR 6201 (attachment). In light of our conclusion that plaintiffs failed to make a clear showing that they would suffer irreparable injury unless appellant were directed to place the funds in escrow, we need not and do not pass on whether plaintiffs established a likelihood of success on the merits and a balancing of the equities in their favor.

With respect to the directive to turn over files, we reject appellant’s arguments that the court’s prohibition against him holding himself out as the entities’ attorney created a retaining lien over the files that did not previously exist and thus could not have been asserted on the original motion. In any event, appellant has turned over copies of his complete legal file to plaintiffs, losing whatever leverage a retaining lien affords a *426discharged attorney. Concur-Andrias, J.E, Nardelli, Williams, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 20, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 20, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0158. JOHN LONGO v. CITY OF DUNWOODY.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV8013
#### Louis H. GRANADE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 6, 1965.

*212Parnell J. T. Callahan, New York City, for plaintiff.

J. Charles Kruse, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Dawnald R. Henderson, Asst. U. S. Atty., S. D. New York, of counsel, for the United States.

PALMIERI, District Judge.

This is a motion by the Government for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

On September 13, 1962, the plaintiff was a prisoner at the Federal House of Detention in New York City. On that day, he was injured while engaged in the performance of duties assigned to him. He instituted this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq., the Federal Tort Claims Act.

It is undisputed that the plaintiff’s injury is compensable under 18 U.S.C. § 4126, which provides in part:

> “The corporation [Federal Prison Industries, Inc.] * * * is authorized to employ the fund, and any earnings that may accrue to the corporation, as operating capital in performing the duties imposed by this chapter; * * * in paying, under rules and regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, * * * [the] *compensation to inmates*or their dependents *for infuries suffered in any industry or in any work activity in connection with the maintenance or operation of the institution where confined.*In no event shall compensation be paid in a greater amount than that provided in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.” (Emphasis added.)

The only question is whether this section provides the plaintiff’s sole remedy. If it does, the plaintiff cannot maintain his suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act and summary j'udgment should be granted.

The entire statutory scheme of remedies against the Government is based on the principle that where there is a remedy available in the form of a compensation system, there is no concurrent right to sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act. E. g., Patterson v. United States, 359 U.S. 495, 496, 79 S.Ct. 936, 3 L.Ed.2d 971 (1959); Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 439, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051 (1951); Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950); Balancio v. United States, 267 F.2d 135 (2d Cir.1959); Aubrey v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 254 F.2d 768 (D.C.Cir.1958); Nobles v. Federal Prison Industries, 213 F.Supp. 731 (N.D.Ga.1963).

The plaintiff relies on United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 83 S.Ct. 1850, 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963), for the proposition that he may maintain this action. That case, however, does not support him. The sole issue presented by that case was whether an inmate in a federal penitentiary could maintain a suit against the United States for negligent inj'ury under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Supreme Court held such a suit was permissible. No compensation act was involved nor was there any question with respect to the exclusiveness of remedies.

It follows from what has been said that the plaintiff may not maintain this action.

The defendant’s motion for summary j'udgment is granted.

Submit order on notice.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4590

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMIE MICHELLE BOOMER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-33-FO) Submitted: February 13, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Christine W. Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jamie Michelle Boomer appeals her conviction, in the wake of her guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). The only issue Boomer raises on appeal is that § 841 is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a claim previously considered and rejected by this Court in United States v. McAllister , 272 F.3d 228, 231-33 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we affirm Boomer’s conviction and sentence and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
WILLIAM N. TAYLOR, JR. M.D.,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3316

Opinion filed September 29, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

William N. Taylor, Jr. M.D., pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Discharge CourtAppointed Counsel for Negligence and Willful Misrepresentation” is treated as a 

petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and is DENIED on the 

merits.

LEWIS, C.J., PADOVANO and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Quentin T. Kelly certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of WorldWater & Power Corp. on Form 10-KSB for theannual period ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSBfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperation of WorldWater & Power Corp.
| By:    |   | s/ QUENTIN T. KELLY                 |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------|
| NAME:  |   | QUENTIN T. KELLY                    |
| Title: |   | *Chairman, Chief Executive Officer* |

 

Dated: April 9, 2007

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSBpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.

----