alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Harsh, 2022-Ohio-1206.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

ROBERT HARSH,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2021-10-099

D E C I S I O N

 4/11/2022

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. 21CR38095

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten A. Brandt, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Thomas G. Eagle Co., L.P.A., and Thomas G. Eagle, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Robert Harsh, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of 

proceedings and original papers from the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, and 

upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 
Warren CA2021-10-099

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous.

M. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

J. ROE BUCKLEY / CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation,
Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 06-A, L.P. (the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K, for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyName:

J. Roe BuckleyDate:

March 31, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

J. ROE BUCKLEY / EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, J. Roe Buckley, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of
Mewbourne Energy Partners 06-A, L.P. (the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K, for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyName: J. Roe BuckleyDate:   March 31, 2010
----

| (1) | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 of      FindEx.com, Inc. (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 FindEx.com,      Inc. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/      Steven Malone                                                           |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Steven      Malone                                                               |
|   |   | President      & Chief Executive Officer                                     |
|   |   |                                                                             |
|   | By:    | /s/      Kirk R. Rowland                                                         |
|   |   | Kirk      R. Rowland                                                             |
|   |   | Chief      Financial Officer (Principal Financial & Accounting      Officer) |
|   |   |                                                                             |

----
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2767 

To clarify the eligibility for participation of peer support specialists in the 

furnishing of behavioral health integration services under the Medicare 

program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2021 

Ms. CHU (for herself and Mr. SMITH of Nebraska) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 

addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To clarify the eligibility for participation of peer support 

specialists in the furnishing of behavioral health integration services under the Medicare program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting Effective 

5 and Empowering Recovery Services in Medicare Act of 

6 2021’’ or the ‘‘PEERS Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2767 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFYING THE ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION 

2 OF PEER SUPPORT SPECIALISTS IN THE FUR3 NISHING OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INTEGRA4 TION SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE PRO5 GRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in title XVIII of the So7 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) shall be con8 strued as prohibiting a peer support specialist (as defined 

9 in subsection (b)) from participating in the furnishing of 

10 behavioral health integration services under such title 

11 under the supervision of a physician or other entity billing 

12 for such services under such title. 

13 (b) PEER SUPPORT SPECIALIST DEFINED.—For pur14 poses of subsection (a), the term ‘‘peer support specialist’’ 

15 means an individual who— 

16 (1) is recovering from a mental health or sub17 stance use condition; and 

18 (2) is certified as qualified to furnish peer sup19 port services under a certification process consistent 

20 with the National Practice Guidelines for Peer Sup21 porters and inclusive of the Substance Abuse and 

22 Mental Health Services Administration Core Com23 petencies for Peer Workers in Behavioral Health 

24 Settings (as established by the State in which such 

25 individual furnishes such services or under such naVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:08 Jun 04, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2767.IH H2767

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2767 IH

1 tional certification process determined appropriate 

2 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1









Section 906 Certification by the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Each of Yahia Gawad, Chief Executive Officer,
and James Essex, Chief Financial Officer, of CardioGenics Holdings Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:



(1) The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended January 31, 2013 (“Form 10-Q”) 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 Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

|                                                         |  |                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         |  |                                                         
|                                                         |  |                                                         
|/s/ Yahia Gawad                                          |  | /s/ James Essex                                         
|                                                         |  |                                                         
|Name: Yahia Gawad
        Title: Chief Executive Officer |  | Name: James Essex
        Title: Chief Financial Officer
|                                                         |  |                                                         
|Date: March 18, 2013                                     |  |                                                         





23
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 51400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24062]



[[Page 51400]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF803


Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings; 
Cancellation

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has 
cancelled its 172nd meeting that was scheduled between 2 p.m. and 5 
p.m. (Hawaii Standard Time (HST)) and between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. 
(American Samoa Standard Time (ASST)) on Wednesday, November 15, 2017 
and between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. (Marianas Standard Time (MST)) on 
Thursday, November 16, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; 
telephone: (808) 522-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The initial notice for this public meeting 
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2017 (82 FR 50411). 
The purpose of the meeting was to consider amendments to the swordfish 
trip limit for the American Samoa longline fishery. This action will be 
rescheduled for a later regularly scheduled meeting and announced in 
the Federal Register.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 1, 2017.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-24062 Filed 11-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### Hercules Zuniga, Appellant, v Stam Realty et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 515]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1) from a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated August 22, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendant Stam Realty pursuant to CPLR 4404, made at the close of the plaintiffs case, for judgment in its favor as a matter of law on the issue of liability, and (2) as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the same court, entered November 4, 1996, upon the decision, which dismissed the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against Stam Realty.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed as no appeal lies from a decision *(see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Goldstein at the Supreme Court in the decision dated August 22,1996. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur. *[See,*169 Misc 2d 1004.]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Plain Language Guidelines, Plan, and Report","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tXFMhF2WWY\"><a href=\"\/about-the-fmc\/plain-language-guidelines-plan-and-report\/\">Plain Language Guidelines, Plan, and Report<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/about-the-fmc\/plain-language-guidelines-plan-and-report\/embed\/#?secret=tXFMhF2WWY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Plain Language Guidelines, Plan, and Report” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"tXFMhF2WWY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Unassociated Document


    
      


      PROMISSORY
        NOTE

      TO

      MRS.
        PHYLLIS L. BELL

      


      


      
        	
                $35,000.00

              	
                February
                  22, 2005

              


      

      


      


      For
        value
        received, STAF*TEK SERVICES, INC., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, (herein referred to
        as
‘maker’) promises to pay to the order of PHYLLIS L. BELL, (herein referred to as
        ‘payee’) on or before March 1, 2005, the principal sum of Thirty Five Thousand
        and No/100 Dollars ($35,000.00), plus $100.00.

      


      Payment
        of this note shall be as follows: One lump sum payment of $35,000.00 plus
        $100.00 interest.

      


      Maker
        may
        prepay this note in whole or in part without penalty or surcharge at any
        time
        prior to the maturity date.

      


      The
        maker
        hereby severally waives presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
        and notice to protest, and aggress that extensions of the time for payment
        may
        be granted without notice. In case of legal proceedings to collect this note,
        maker agrees to pay all court costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees to
        payee as prevailing parties in the suit.

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is signed the 22nd
        day of
        February, 2005.

      


      


      


      
        	 	 	
                /s/
                  John H. Simmons

              
	 	 	
                John
                  H. Simmons, President, C.E.O.

              
	 	 	
                Staf*Tek
                  Services, Inc.

              
	 	 	
                4870
                  S. Lewis St., Ste. 250

              
	 	 	
                Tulsa,
                  Oklahoma 74105

              
	 	 	 
	
                [notary
                  stamp]

              	 	 
	
                /s/
                  Shelia Hobens

              	 	 
	
                2/22/05
Opinion filed May 6, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-20-00262-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.O.G.A., J.A.G.A., D.O.G., AND R.G.,

CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 118th District Court

Howard County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 53660

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

This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the 

parental rights of the mother ofJ.O.G.A., J.A.G.A., D.O.G., and R.G. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2020). The mother filed a notice of appeal. We 

affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

supporting brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the 

record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and presents no 

issues of arguable merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
2

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In light of a holding by the 

Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature”

if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In 

re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed 

counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the 

standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. 

Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and the 

motion to withdraw. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the record in this 

cause and informed Appellant of her right to review the record and file a pro se

response to counsel’s brief. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his

duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 

We note that Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is 

frivolous. However, in light of P.M., we must deny the motion to withdraw that was 

filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. 

Accordingly, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial 

court’s order of termination. 

PER CURIAM

May 6, 2021

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6233** 

DEON CARTER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr ict of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 00121

- HEH )

Submitted : July 23, 2010 Decided: August 1 1 , 2010

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Deon Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Deon Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 225 4 (20 06 ) petition
. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the d istrict 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 motion 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 Carter 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 argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NO TF O R P UB LICATIO N IN W E ST' S HAWAII REP ORTS O R TH E P ACIF IC REP O RTER

NO. CAAP-18-0000613
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
STEPHEN KEAWE ROY and REBECCA ROY, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO., G EICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendants-Appellants and TIMOTHY DAYTON, RICHARD DWYER, and JOHN DORNAN,

Defendants-Appellees,

and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 13-1-2053-07 (KKH))

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Ginoza, C.J., and Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon consideration of "Defendants-Appellants Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration of the Intermediate Court of Appeals Opinion, Filed January 23, 2023 [DKT 143]" ( Motion for Reconsideration ), filed on February 2, 2023, it appears that:

(1) Defendants-Appellants move for reconsideration of the Opinion of the Court filed on January 23, 2023;

(2) The motion for reconsideration presents no point of law or fact that this court overlooked or misapprehended. See Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(b). Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000613 27-FEB-2023 08:29 AM Dkt. 152 ODMRNO TF O R P UB LICATIO N IN W E ST' S HAWAII REP ORTS O R TH E P ACIF IC REP O RTER Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 27, 2023.
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

2