alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHEN M. HLUBOKY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-618

[August 10, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott Suskauer, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 502015CF000541A.

Stephen M. Hluboky, South Bay, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 23.1







[Mitchell, Wiggins & Company, LLP]





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT









To Board of Directors

Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc., of our report dated February 2, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc., and subsidiary, as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders equity,
 and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004.





/s/ Mitchell, Wiggins & Company, LLP





Richmond, Virginia

February 2, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at March 31, 1997 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations
for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1997 (Unaudited) and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,647
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,919
<PP&E>                                       5,448,896
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,075,109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,556,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,989
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,549,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,556,706
<SALES>                                        377,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               378,193
<CGS>                                          205,701
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            112,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,468
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.25
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Cancer Institute Director's Consumer Liaison Group.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Director's Consumer 
Liaison Group.
    Date: January 22, 2001.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To follow up on the Survivorship Forums and receive 
reports from Working Groups.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 
Suite 300C, Room 3068 A, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Elaine Lee, Executive Secretary, Office of 
Liaison Activities, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer 
Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 300 C, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301/594-3194.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/dclg/delg.htm, where an agenda 
and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: December 14, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-31704 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABNER GEOVANNIE VEGA

- RIVERA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 411 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 99.1
                                                     ------------


                          Certification
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                       United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code) (the "Act"), each of the undersigned officers
of Novo Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2003 (the "Periodic Report") of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)) and information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



   /s/ Steven W. Caple
-------------------------
Steven W. Caple
President
(Principal Executive Officer)



   /s/ Susie C. Holliday
-------------------------
Susie C. Holliday
Senior Vice President
(Principal Accounting Officer)


Dated May 15, 2003



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section  906  of the Act and is not being filed as  part  of  the
Periodic Report or as a separate disclosure document.
2014-0661.

#### State ex rel. Berlingeri v. Corrigan.

In Mandamus. On motions to dismiss. Motions granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
JOHNNY MILLS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. 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. 1D 15

- 5818

___________ __________________/

Opinion filed April 5, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

.

Johnny Mills, pro se , Appellant.

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

PER CUR IAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

December 22, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 7, 2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Maxxim Rebuild Company, LLC,*Docket Nos. KENT 2013-566, et al.**(Issues include whether the Judge erred in ruling that the facility issubject to the jurisdiction of the Mine Safety and Health Administration.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
#### Ahmad Clarence GARLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edsel T. TAYLOR, Warden Mac C1, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections; Jon Ozmint, Director SCDC, Respondents.

No. 08-6342.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 30, 2008.

Ahmad Clarence Garland, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*248PER CURIAM:

Ahmad Clarence Garland seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*June 19, 2014*

[Cite as *06/19/2014 Case Announcements,*2014-Qhio-2635.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2013-0090.

#### State ex rel. Evans v. Marshall.

In Mandamus and Procedendo. This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of relator’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Civ.R. 52. It is ordered by the court that the request is denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Associated Materials Incorporated (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, D. Keith
LaVanway, Vice President  Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, 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. Date: April 1, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ D. Keith LaVanwayD. Keith LaVanway
Vice President  Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Justin LIVINGSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10051

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2010.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Charles M. Bleil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Justin Livingston pleaded guilty to one count of possessing counterfeit obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 and one count of conspiracy to manufacture counterfeit obligations of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 471. On direct appeal, he argued that the amount of loss for which he was held accountable, $232,300, was incorrect. This court determined that before the district court could properly calculate the amount of loss attributable to Livingston, it had to determine whether Livingston engaged in an undertaking of criminal activity with individuals other than his co-defendants and, if so, what was the scope of the criminal activity. *See United States v. Livingston,*344 Fed.Appx. 86 (5th Cir.2009).

On remand, the district court found that Livingston engaged in an undertaking of criminal activity in the Dallas-Fort Worth area with individuals other than his co-defendants. The district court then determined that the amount of loss attributable to Livingston was $163,000.

Before Livingston was resentenced, he objected, as he did at his initial sentencing, to the applicability of § 3Bl.l(a)’s organizer and leader enhancement, which increased his base offense level four levels. The district court again overruled Livingston’s objection.

On appeal, Livingston does not challenge the district court’s finding that $163,000 is an accurate accounting of the amount of loss attributable to him. He does, however, challenge the imposition of the four-level organizer and leader enhancement. In response, the Government contends that Livingston may not raise this enhancement issue on appeal.

The Government is correct. Although Livingston objected at his initial sentencing to the organizer and leader enhancement, he did not challenge the enhancement in his initial appeal. Accordingly, under the mandate rule, Livingston waived litigation or relitigation of this issue. *See United States v. Lee,*358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir.2004). Additionally, the application of this enhancement was not within the scope of this court’s mandate. *See Livingston,*344 Fed.Appx. at 87-90; *United States v. Matthews,*312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.2002). Moreover, Livingston has not shown that his challenge to the en*834hancement falls within any of the exceptions to the mandate rule. *Matthews,*312 F.3d at 657; *Lee,*358 F.3d at 320.

Accordingly, Livingston’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
|   | (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 operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                             |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Date:  November      10, 2008 | /s/      Thomas B. Akin          |
|                                    | Thomas      B. Akin              |
|                                    | Principal      Executive Officer |
|                                    |                             |
|                                    |                             |
| Date:  November      10, 2008 | /s/      Stephen J. Benedetti    |
|                                    | Stephen      J. Benedetti        |
|                                    | Principal      Financial Officer |
Exhibit 32



I, Timothy S. Durham, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Obsidian Enterprises, Inc., certify that (i) Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Obsidian Enterprises, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods set forth therein.





| | /s/ Timothy S. Durham
Timothy S. Durham
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
September 20, 2005
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







I, Rick D. Snow, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Obsidian Enterprises, Inc., certify that (i) Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Obsidian Enterprises, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods set forth therein.





| | /s/ Rick D. Snow
Rick D. Snow
Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
September 20, 2005
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-40,307]

                    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was                           ( print page 113)                        initiated on October 29, 2001 in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Universal Furniture Limited, Goldsboro, North Carolina.                

As active certification covering the petitioning group of workers is already in effect (TA-W-38,811A, as amended). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 12th day of December, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-32211  Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### Brian Richard CHAPMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.F. WALLACE, Warden; Virginia Department of Corrections; Lunenburg Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-7335.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 29, 2010.

Brian Richard Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Richard Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*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 district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chapman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*