alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS STATE OF MINNESOTA 

### OCT 0 2 2014 IN SUPREME COURT 

# FILED
A14-1551 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Timothy Joseph Klima, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 202885.
ORDER The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action seeking reciprocal discipline under Rule 12(d), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), based on a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court publicly reprimanding respondent Timothy Joseph Klima. See Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Klima, No. 13-1815, Order (Iowa filed Jan. 3, 2014). The Iowa public reprimand was based on respondent assisting another lawyer in his firm in violating the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct by helping him draft a will in which respondent received a substantial gift and failing to explain to the client the conflict inherent in including such a gift in a will drafted by a member of respondent's firm, the implications of the gift, and the need for independent counsel, in violation of Rules 32:1.4(a)(2) and (b) and 32:8.4(a) of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. The Director and respondent have entered into a stipulation in which respondent admits the allegations in the petition for disciplinary action and waives his rights under Rule 12(d), RLPR. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand.
1The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the jointly

recommended disposition. Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Timothy Joseph Klima is publicly reprimanded. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs and disbursements pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. Dated: October 2, 2014 BY THE COURT: 

# ( Alan C. Page Associate Justic

2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Boston Biomedica, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  “Report”), I, Kevin W. Quinlan, President, Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer ofBoston Biomedica, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), do herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code) that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2003 | */s/ Kevin W. Quinlan*                                                                                           |   |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           | Kevin W.  Quinlan                                                                                                |
|                           | President,  Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer  (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BostonBiomedica, Inc. and will be retained by Boston Biomedica, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JUN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                          79,220
<SECURITIES>                    4,139,049
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,000,000
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                11,908,628
<PP&E>                          77,160
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  12,085,723
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,735,945
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        2,020,538
<OTHER-SE>                      6,329,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    12,085,723
<SALES>                         435,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                435,599
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                653,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 2,949,416
<INCOME-TAX>                    388,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             2,560,916
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    2,560,916
<EPS-BASIC>                   .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .23



</TABLE>
# FY18_Q1

# FY18_Q2

# FY18_Q3

# FY18_Q4

# Serotypes - User Notes
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **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)**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Pressure BioSciences,
        Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September
        30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
        hereof
        (the  “Report”),  I, Edward H. Myles, Vice President of Finance &
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, 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) that:
  (1)          
        The  Report  of the Company 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.
  Dated:
                  June 20, 2006
              */s/
                  Edward H. Myles**Edward
                  H. Myles*Vice
                  President of Finance & Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                  Financial and Accounting Officer)
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Pressure BioSciences, Inc. and will be retained by Pressure BioSciences,
        Inc.
        and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
   1
2009-1686.

#### In re Broom.

In Habeas Corpus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus. Upon consideration of respondent’s motion to substitute a return of writ for the previously filed motion to dismiss,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted, and the October 6, 2009 order’s time for filing the return and a response to the return shall remain in effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          43,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         39,196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,101)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,103
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,976
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (132)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.73)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.73)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Net income per limited partner unit.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus PULLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4410.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 13, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2011.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Tobin W. Lathan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Pulley appeals the district court’s imposition of a twenty-four-month sentence following revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, Pulley contends that the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable sentence upon revocation, given the nature of his violations and the short time he had to receive drug treatment following his release from prison. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The district court has broad discretion to impose a sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. *United States v. Thompson,*595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir.2010). We will affirm unless the sentence is “plainly unreasonable” in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors. *United States v. Crudup,*461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir.2006).

Our first step is to “decide whether the sentence is unreasonable.” *Id.*at 438. In doing so, “we follow generally the procedural and substantive considerations” employed in reviewing original sentences. *Id.*A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court has considered the policy statements contained in Chapter 7 of the *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, *id.*at 439, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. *Thompson,*595 F.3d at 547. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. *Crudup,*461 F.3d at 440. If, after considering the above, we determine that the sentence is not unreasonable, we will affirm. *Id.*at 439.

Our review of the record on appeal leads us to conclude that the district court’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the *675judgment of the district court. 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.*
#### In Re: Claudia DeGENNARO, Anthony DeGennaro, Debtors. Claudia DeGennaro, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. Trustee Robert C. Furr, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-10956

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 24, 2009.

*818Claudia DeGennaro, Suwanee, GA, pro se.

Alan R. Crane, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Claudia DeGennaro, the debtor in this bankruptcy case, appeals the district court’s judgment affirming two orders of the bankruptcy court. Those orders approved the trustee’s Final Report; denied her motion for a hearing on the Final Report; denied her preliminary objection to the Final Report; awarded final fees and costs; and granted in part, and denied in part, her motion for reconsideration. DeGennaro raises multiple issues on appeal, many of which have been waived.

DeGennaro argues, generally, that the Final Report should not be approved because the trustee did not fully administer the estate and did not fully account for the estate’s assets. The bankruptcy court rejected these arguments, and the district court affirmed. In doing so, the district court ruled that — because a previous appeal had determined that the trustee did not err in administering the estate — De-Gennaro was precluded, under the law of the case doctrine, from relitigating any challenge to the estate’s administration. In her brief to this court, DeGennaro does not challenge this ruling.

DeGennaro identifies several alleged inaccuracies in the Final Report and argues that the Final Report should not have been approved because she was not provided notice of it. In addition, she contends that she was entitled to a jury trial on the question of whether the trustee acted negligently.

*819A litigant waives her right to present an argument on appeal when she fails to present that argument before the bankruptcy court or district court. *See First Ala. Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Ins. Co., Inc.,*899 F.2d 1045, 1060 n. 8 (11th Cir.1990).1 DeGennaro did not present her objections to the Final Report to the bankruptcy court or the district court; nor did she argue that she was denied notice of, or access to, the Final Report, or that she was entitled to a jury trial. Accordingly, these arguments have been waived.

DeGennaro contends that the bankruptcy court erred by refusing to surcharge the trustee, insisting that he committed wrongdoing when administering the estate. She identifies the fees and expenses paid to the trustee and his firm, but does so only in support of her argument that he erred in administering the estate. To the extent that she argues that the trustee should be surcharged because he committed wrongdoing when administering the estate, her argument fails, for, as stated above, she is precluded from relit-igating challenges to the administration of the estate.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Although we have recognized exceptions to this general waiver rule, none of them are applicable here. *See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co.,*385 F.3d 1324, 1332 (11th Cir.2004).
Motion GRANTED AND Order filed September 15, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00577-CV

____________

IN RE FLUID POWER EQUIPMENT, INC., PEERLESS ENTERPRISES, 

AND ROBERT N. SHELL, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-67171

ORDER

On August 20, 2020, relators Fluid Power Equipment, Inc., Peerless 

Enterprises, and Robert N. Shell filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. 

Relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Tanya Garrison, presiding judge of 

the 157th District Court of Harris County, to vacate her June 25, 2020 order
2

granting the motion to enforce judgment of the real party-in-interest, Deborah P. 

Wilson, as Independent Executrix for the Estate of John W. Wilson.

On September 14, 2020, relators filed a motion for temporary relief, asking 

our court to stay a turnover order that Respondent signed on September 3, 2020,

which requires relators to convey title and possession of certain real property (the 

“turnover order”). Relators also ask us to stay all execution, attachment and 

collection proceedings relating to the property pending a decision on the petition 

for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relators’

request for relief requires further consideration and that relators will be prejudiced 

unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s 

motion for temporary relief and issue the following order:

We ORDER the turnover order and all execution, attachment and collection 

proceedings relating to the property that is the subject of the turnover order 

STAYED until a final decision by this court on relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus, or until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Zimmerer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,707,185
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  427,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,134,795
<PP&E>                                       5,791,702
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,166,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,911,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          256,293
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,655,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,911,692
<SALES>                                        843,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,109,560
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               943,347
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                166,213
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            166,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   166,213
<EPS-BASIC>                                     6.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     6.68


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 American Tax Credit Properties L.P.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 29, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of Richman Tax Credit Properties Inc.,
general partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P., general partner of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Registrant.



/s/ David Salzman
------------------------------------------
David Salzman
Chief Executive Officer of Richman Tax
Credit Properties Inc., general partner of
Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P.,
general partner of the Registrant
August 13, 2003
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-186823) and related Prospectus of Enersis S.A. of our reportsdated April 30, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Enersis S.A. and subsidiaries and the related financial statement schedule of Enersis S.A.’s condensed unconsolidated financial information, and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting of Enersis S.A. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2014. 

/s/ EY Ltda. 

EY Ltda. 

Santiago, Chile 

April 30, 2015
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JACK C. SMITH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1693

[ August 24, 2017 ]

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

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard Bober , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 07012264CF10A

.

Jack C. Smith, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

C ONNER

, F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 8.1

List of Significant Subsidiaries



|                                                       |  |              |  |                  
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------ |  | -----------------
|Subsidiaries                                           |  | Jurisdiction |  | Usual Name       
|                                                       |  |             
|Ampla Energia e Serviços S.A.                          |  | Brazil       |  | Ampla            
|Centrais Elétricas Cachoeira Dourada S.A.              |  | Brazil       |  | Cachoeira Dourada
|Central Dock Sud S.A.                                  |  | Argentina    |  | Dock Sud         
|Central Geradora Termelétrica Fortaleza S.A.           |  | Brazil       |  | Endesa Fortaleza 
|Chilectra S.A.                                         |  | Chile        |  | Chilectra        
|Codensa S.A. E.S.P.                                    |  | Colombia     |  | Codensa          
|Companhia de Interconexão Energética S.A.              |  | Brazil       |  | CIEN             
|Compañía Eléctrica Tarapacá S.A.                       |  | Chile        |  | Celta            
|Companhía Energética de Ceará S.A.                     |  | Brazil       |  | Coelce           
|Edegel S.A.A.                                          |  | Peru         |  | Edegel           
|Emgesa S.A. E.S.P.                                     |  | Colombia     |  | Emgesa           
|Empresa Distribuidora Sur S.A.                         |  | Argentina    |  | Edesur           
|Empresa Eléctrica Pehuenche S.A.                       |  | Chile        |  | Pehuenche        
|Empresa Eléctrica de Piura S.A.                        |  | Peru         |  | EEPSA            
|Empresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A.                  |  | Chile        |  | Endesa Chile     
|Endesa Brasil S.A.                                     |  | Brazil       |  | Endesa Brasil    
|Endesa Costanera S.A.                                  |  | Argentina    |  | Endesa Costanera 
|Hidroeléctrica El Chocón S.A.                          |  | Argentina    |  | El Chocón        
|Empresa de Distribución Eléctrica de Lima Norte S.A.A. |  | Peru         |  | Edelnor