alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



     We have  issued  our report  dated  November  19,  1999,  accompanying  the
consolidated  financial  statements of Winton  Financial  Corporation  which are
incorporated  within the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September
30, 1999. We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference of said report in
Winton's Form S-8 (333-34177)  regarding the 1998 Stock Option Plan and Winton's
Form S-8 (333-42251) regarding Winton's 401(k) Plan.



/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP



Cincinnati, Ohio
December 31, 1999
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00273-CR

Lehi Barlow Jeffs aka Lehi Barlow Allred, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SCHLEICHER COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 1001, THE HONORABLE BARBARA L. WALTHER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Lehi Barlow Jeffs aka Lehi Barlow Allred pleaded no contest to

an indictment accusing him of bigamy. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.01 (West 2011). The

district court adjudicated him guilty and assessed punishment at eight years’ imprisonment, in

accordance with a plea bargain agreement. Appellant brings forward twenty-five points of error. 

The first twenty-one points assert that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion to suppress

evidence. The remaining four points complain about the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash

the indictment.

This appeal is a companion to appellant’s appeal of his sexual assault conviction in

Jeffs v. State, No. 03-10-00272-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 24, 2012, no pet. h.). The issues raised
and the arguments made are identical in both causes. For the reasons stated in our opinion in cause

number 03-10-00272-CR, we overrule appellant’s points of error and affirm the judgment

of conviction.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: February 24, 2012

Do Not Publish

2
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 20, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2562

Lower Tribunal No. 07-39482

________________

Willie Dumel,

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, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

Law Offices of Andrew Rier and Daniel Tibbitt, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jacob Addicott, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee. 

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.

LAGOA, J.

The appellant, Willie Dumel (“Dumel”) appeals the summary denial of his

motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.850. Because Dumel’s motion was not properly sworn, we reverse the trial

court’s denial and remand for further proceedings.

Dumel moved for postconviction relief under rule 3.850 based on newly

discovered evidence. The trial court addressed the merits of his claim and the

motion was summarily denied. The motion and reply to the State’s response,

however, both of which were filed by counsel, contained no oath. Although

Dumel’s attorney stated in the motion that he would “supplement this motion with

a sworn affidavit” from Dumel, the record before this Court shows no such

supplementary filing. 

A rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief “must be under oath.” Fla. R.

Crim. P. 3.850(c). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987, which sets forth the

model form for use in postconviction 3.850 motions, provides that the motion must

be signed by the defendant and contain one of two permissible versions of the oath,

both of which contain language that the defendant has read the motion and that the

facts stated in it are true. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.987(1). A defendant's failure to

comply with the oath requirement warrants dismissal of the motion without

prejudice. See Groover v. State, 703 So. 2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 1997); Welch v.

State, 946 So. 2d 649, 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The defendant, however, must be

given an opportunity to amend the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); Gisi

v. State, 135 So. 3d 493, 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

2
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for dismissal of

Dumel’s 3.850 motion without prejudice to Dumel timely filing a verified rule

3.850 motion.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

 

3
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OFTHE REGISTRANT,PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Dynamex Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Ray E. Schmitz, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of hisknowledge, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             Information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Ray E. Schmitz                         |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Ray  E. Schmitz                             |
| Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
| June 7,  2005                          |

 

 

Thiscertification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates 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 to the best of his knowledge:

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.

Date: November 14, 2005                    By: /s/ Joseph M. Cummins
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Joseph M. Cummins
                                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                                              and Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel NEI; Institutional Training Grant Applications.                    

*Date:*                         October 16, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jeanette M. Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, NEI/DEA/SRB, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2020,                         *jeanetteh@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 18, 2017.

Natasha M. Copeland,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-20178 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Annual Report of China Green Agriculture,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned, being principal officers of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: October 28, 2014



|/s/ Tao Li                                                     | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Tao Li                                                         | 
|Chief Executive Officer                                        | 
|(principal executive officer)                                  | 
|                                                               | 
|                                                               | 
|/s/ Ken Ren                                                    | 
|Ken Ren                                                        | 
|Chief Financial Officer                                        | 
|(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) |
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NO. WR-91, 878-01

EX P ART E LE STE R EARL ROB I NSON I I

, Appl icant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A WRIT OF HAB EA S CORP US

CAUSE NO. CR2018-143- 001 I N THE 207TH DI STRI CT COURT

F ROM COM AL COUNT Y

P er cur iam

.

O P I N I O N

A ppl i can t was co n v i ct ed o f en gagi

n g i n o rgan i zed cri

m i n al act i v i t y an d s en

t en ced t o s ev en

y ears ’ i m pri s o n m en t

. He f i l ed t h i s appl i cat i o n f

o r a wri t o f h ab eas co rpus i n t h e co un

t y o f co n v i ct i o n

,

an d t h e di s t ri ct cl erk f

o rwarded i

t t o t h i s Co urt

. See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art

. 11. 07.

A ppl i can t co n t en ds t h at h e was den i ed h i s ri gh t t o an appea l t h

ro ugh n o f

aul t o f h i s o wn

. T h e

t ri al co urt h as en

t ered f i n di n gs an d reco m

m en ds

, wi

t h t h e St at e’ s agreem e nt

, t h at a l at e appea l b e

gran t ed. T h e f i n di n gs an d reco m

m en dat i o n are s uppo rt ed b y t h e r eco rd an d appl i cab l e l aw.

Re l i ef i s gran

t ed. E x parte A xel

, 757 S. W

. 2d 369 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 1988); Jones v. State

,

98 S. W

. 3d 700 (T ex

. Cri

m

. A pp. 2003). A

ppl i can t m ay f i l e an o ut -o f

-t i m e appea l o f h i s co n

v i ct i o n

i n caus e n um b er CR 2018-143 f

ro m t h e 207t h Di s t ri ct Co urt o f Co m al Co un t y

. W i t h i n t en day s f

ro m2

t h e dat e o f t h i s Co urt ’ s m an dat e, t h e t ri al co urt s h al l d e t e r m i n e wh et h er A ppl i can t i s i n di gen t

. If

A ppl i can t i s i n di gen t an d wan t s t o b e repr es en

t ed b y co un s el

, t h e t ri al co urt s h al l appo i n t co un s el t o

repr es en t h i m o n di rect appea l

. A l l deadl i

n es s h al l b e cal cul at ed as i f A ppl i can t was s en t en ced o n t h e

dat e o f t h i s C o u r t ’s m a nd a t e. Sh o ul d A ppl i can t deci de t o appea l

, h e m

us t f i l e a wri t t en n o t i ce o f

appea l i n t h e t ri al co urt wi

t h i n t h i rt y day s f ro m t h e dat e o f t h i s Co urt ’ s m an dat e.

Co pi es o f t h i s o pi

n i o n s h al l b e s en

t t o t h e T ex as Depa

rt m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce–C o rr ect i o n al

In s t i t ut i o n s Di v i s i o n an d t h e Bo ard o f Pardo n s an d Paro l es

.

Del i v ered: Dec em

b er 9, 2020

Do n o t pub l i s h
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4102

___________ Eric Lynn Self, *

Plaintiff/Appellant, *
v. * District Court for the Auburn Steel Company, Inc.; * Sumitomo Corporation of America; * [UNPUBLISHED] SC Steel Investment, Inc.; Yamato * Kogyo (U.S.A.) Corporation, doing * business as Arkansas Steel * Associates, an association of * partners, *

Defendants/Appellee. *
* Appeal from the United States
* Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

___________ Submitted: May 22, 1997 Filed: June 6, 1997

___________ Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eric Sel f sued his employer, Auburn Steel Company, in January 199 6 on the theory that certain employment actions affecting him were i n retaliation for his father's participation in a 1991 lawsuit against the company under the Age Discrimination in

## The Honorable William R. Wilson, Unite d States District Judge for the District 1 

## of Eastern Arkansas. -2- Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1997). The dist rict court 1 granted summary judgment for Auburn Steel, and we affirm. Self’s complaint alleged a violation of the retaliation provision of Title VII. Title VII makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, or religion, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and it prohibits an employer from retaliating against a n employee on the basis that he ha s opposed any practice made an unlawful employmen t practice by [Title VII], or because he has made a charge , te stified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a n investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII]. 42 U .S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (1997). Self made no factual allegations an d produced no evidence related to a case alleging discrimination on the basi s of race, sex, color, religion or national origin. The district court was therefore correct in dismissing this claim. Someti me after his complaint was filed Self moved to amend it t o include a cause of action for retaliation under the ADEA. The ADE A prohibits an employer from discriminating agains t an employee or applicant for employment who has opposed any practice made unlawful by [the ADEA], o r because such individual . . . has made a charge, testified , assist ed, or participated in any manner in an investigation , proceeding, or litigation under [the ADEA].

## Self indicated in his notice of appeal that he was not appealing that portion of 2 

## the court's order which denied his motion to amend. -3- 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (1 997). The district court denied the motion to amend without prejudice, bu t went on to consider his claim as if he had brought it under the ADEA. 2 Assuming the ADEA retaliation claim is properly before us, w e conclude that the dis trict court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Auburn Steel because Self failed to produce evidence sufficien t to show a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 623(d). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT
31.3



CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Brent Willis, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of New Age Beverages Corporation; and



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.



Date:
April 28, 2020



| | /s/
    Brent Willis             
| | ---------------------------------
| | Brent
    Willis                 
| | Title:Chief
    Executive Officer
| | (Principal
    Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20257]



[[Page 44397]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2471-000]


ORNI 43 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate 
Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
ORNI 43 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an 
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 5, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#266063746569484a4f484375535656495452664043544508414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eaacafb8a9a5848683848fb99f9a9a85989eaa8c8f9889c48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 15, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20257 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>