alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Acencion MEDRANO, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Harry K. Singletary, Robert Butterworth, Lonworth Butler, Jr., Respondents.

No. 98-2371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 9, 1998.

*16Aceneion Medrano, South Bay, pro se.

No response required for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a pro se sworn petition for writ of habeas corpus where petitioner requests that he be permitted to file a belated rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, based on the ineffective assistance of privately-retained post-conviction counsel in failing to file a rule 3.850 motion on petitioner’s behalf, although hired to do so. Petitioner believes that he is now barred by the two-year time limitation in rule 3.850(b) from pursuing his motion in the trial court because mandate issued in the direct appeal on March 13,1995. Since petitioner has not yet filed a rule 3.850 motion with the trial court and had it denied as untimely, the petition before this court is premature.

Had petitioner filed a rule 3.850 motion with the trial court, it would likely have denied any claims which do not fall within one of the exceptions to the two-year time limit because our supreme court has stated that “claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel do not present a valid basis for relief’ under rule 3.850. *Lambrix v. State,*698 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, we deny the petition for habeas relief without prejudice for petitioner to file in the circuit court a rule 3.850 motion, raising such claims as are not time-barred, since there is a possibility that petitioner may raise one or more grounds which fall within one of the exceptions to the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b).

Yet, as highlighted by the Fifth District’s comprehensive discussion of the issue in *Steele v. Kehoe,*23 Fla. L. Weekly D771, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 121499 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar.20, 1998)(Sharp, J., concurring special-lyXGriffin, C.J., dissenting), it is not entirely clear that the opinion in *Lambrix*actually stands for the proposition that a petitioner may not, by alleging ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, obtain relief by way of permission to file a belated rule 3.850 motion where privately-retained counsel fails to timely file the motion as requested and hired to do. Because of the importance of this issue, we certify the following question to the supreme court, which is substantially similar to the question certified in *Steele:*

> *Is a petitioner entitled to file a belated rule 3.850 motion for collateral relief if he can prove that privately-retained counsel agreed to file a timely rule 3.850 motion for collateral relief but failed to do so?*

Lastly, the instant petition also seeks this court’s aid in compelling petitioner’s former counsel to provide him with some of his legal “files” in order to prepare a proper defense. We dismiss this “mandamus” ground of the petition without prejudice for petitioner to file a petition for documents in the circuit court.

STONE, C.J., and FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
#### Albert AVENAL, Jr., et al v. The STATE of Louisiana and the Department of Natural Resources.

No. 98-CC-3164.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1999.

IN RE: Natural Resources Dept, of: Louisiana State of; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Plaquemines 25th Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 38-266; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 98CW-2764

Stay order recalled. Writ denied.

*646MARCUS, J., not on panel.

VICTORY and TRAYLOR, JJ., would grant the writ.
Opinion issued August 16, 2016.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-09-00328-CV

———————————

SAMSON LONE STAR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, N/K/A SAMSON LONE 

STAR, L.L.C., Appellant/Cross-Appellee

V.

CHARLES G. HOOKS, III, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT 

EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES G. HOOKS, JR., AS 

TRUSTEE OF THE SCOTT IRA MCKEEVER TRUST AND THE DAVID 

WAYNE MCKEEVER TRUST, AND ON BEHALF OF CHAS. G. HOOKS 

& SON, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, MCKEEVER PARTNERSHIP, 

LTD., AND CHARLES G. HOOKS III AND SUE ANN HOOKS, AS COTRUSTEES UNDER THE WILL OF CHARLES G. HOOKS, SR., 

Appellees/Cross-Appellants

On Appeal from the 60th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. B173008B

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
2

In our opinion dated March 15, 2016, we suggested a remittitur of 

$2,620,475.50 in unsupported fraud damages. We stated that if the appellees and 

cross-appellants, Charles G. Hooks, III, Individually and as Independent Executor 

of the Estate of Charles G. Hooks, Jr., as Trustee of the Scott Ira McKeever Trust 

and the David Wayne McKeever Trust, and on behalf of Chas. G. Hooks & Son, a 

General Partnership, McKeever Partnership, Ltd., and Charles G. Hooks III and 

Sue Ann Hooks, as Co-Trustees under the Will of Charles G. Hooks, Sr. 

(collectively, “Hooks”), filed such remittitur within twenty days, we would modify 

the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified.

On March 29, 2016, Hooks timely filed a consent to the remittitur and asked 

the Court to modify the trial court’s judgment consistent with our opinion in this 

matter. Accordingly, we vacate our judgment, but not our opinion, dated March 15, 

2016, and modify the trial court’s judgment to delete $766,626.85 in “unpooling” 

damages; delete $2,620,475.50 in fraud damages representing the formationproduction damages and their associated late charges; modify the amount of mostfavored-nations damages to $431,450.71, consistent with the parties’ stipulation; 

and modify the post-judgment interest rate to reflect an 18% rate for past-due 

royalties (i.e., the most-favored-nations damages) and a 5% interest rate for other 

recoveries. See TEX. R. APP. P. 46.3 (providing that court of appeals may suggest 

remittitur and if remittitur is timely filed, court must reform and affirm trial court’s 
3

judgment in accordance with remittitur). We further affirm the trial court’s 

judgment as modified. See id. This Court’s opinion of March 15, 2016, otherwise 

remains in effect.

Evelyn V. Keyes

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.
No. 55521.

#### The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 170011-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the concentrated ox gall passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27551-27552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OA07-20-000]


Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

May 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 25, 2007, Perryville Energy Partners, 
L.L.C. filed a letter to inform the Commission that it will not file 
revisions to its pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) 
because it has been granted a waiver of the requirement to file a OATT 
until it receives a request for service from an entity other than 
Entergy Louisiana, pursuant to Commission's Order No. 890.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for 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 e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abedeef9e8e4c5c7c2c5cef8dedbdbc4d9dfebcdced9c885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf898a9d8c80a1a3a6a1aa9cbabfbfa0bdbb8fa9aabdace1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

[[Page 27552]]

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 30, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9354 Filed 5-15-07; 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>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,019
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                       301
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,638
<PP&E>                                           3,759
<DEPRECIATION>                                     705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,488
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,792
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,717
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,132
<CGS>                                               16
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   201
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,208
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 16,600
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,392)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)
        

</TABLE>
No. 44299.

#### Protests 814465-G, etc., of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies,, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
                                        OF
               JONES NAUGHTON ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
                       (a Colorado corporation)
                                  INTO
                  GO ONLINE NETWORKS CORPORATION
                        (a Delaware corporation)

Pursuant to Section 252c of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware,

It is hereby certified, on behalf of each of the constituent
corporations named below, as follows:

1.  The names of the constituent corporations are Jones Naughton
Entertainment, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("JNNE") and Go Online
Networks Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("GONC").  The Articles
of Incorporation of JNNE was filed with the Secretary of State of
the State of Colorado on October 20, 1987.  The Certificate of
Incorporation of GONC was filed with the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware on August 12, 1999.

2.  An Agreement and Plan of Reorganization between JNNE and GONC
has been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by
JNNE and GONC in accordance with Section 252c of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

3.  GONC is the surviving corporation.

4.  The executed Agreement and Plan of Reorganization is on file at
the principal place of business of GONC, the surviving corporation,
at 5681 Beach Boulevard, Suite 101, Buena Park, California 90621.  A
copy of the Agreement and Plan of Reorgan9ization will be furnished
by GONC, the surviving corporation, without cost, to any stockholder
of JNNE or GONC who sends a written request therefor to GONC at its
principal place of business indicated above.  The certificate of
Incorporation of the survivor corporation shall be its Certificate
of Incorporation.

5.  The authorized capital stock of JNNE preceding the merger is
100,000,000 shares of common stock, no par value, and 20,000,000
shares of preferred stock, no par value.  The authorized capital
stock GONC is 100,000,000 shares of common stock par value $.001 per
share and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $.001 per
share.

JONES NAUGHTON ENTERTAINMENT, INC.



By: /s/ Joseph M. Naughton
Joseph M. Naughton
Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:

/s/ Joseph M.  Naughton
Joseph M. Naughton
Secretary



GO ONLINE NETWORKS CORPORATION



By: /s/Joseph M. Naughton
Joseph M. Naughton
Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:[

/s/ James Cannon
James Cannon
Secretary



[STATE OF DELAWARE        ]
[SECRETARY OF STATE       ]
[DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS]
[FILED 09:00 AM,  09/09/1999]
[991377404-3082585        ]
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

I, David N. Vander Ploeg, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of School Specialty, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the undersigned:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2010 (the Report) which this statement accompanies 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 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of School Specialty, Inc.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 25, 2010



/s/    David N. Vander PloegDavid N. Vander PloegExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Annual report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed as
filed by School Specialty, Inc. for purposes of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
No. 96-5688.

#### Plante *v.*Gallant et al.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9658)

#### United States *v.*Ballester Hermanos

Entry No. 1622.

(Decided April 12, 1960)

*George Goehr an Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney) , for tlie plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Lawrence, Judge:

This case involves a collector of customs’ appeal for a reappraisement of certain canned corned beef exported from Paraguay.

*650From the record before the court, upon which this appeal has been submitted for decision, it appears that the parties hereto are in agreement that export value is the proper basis of appraisement of the canned corned beef in issue, there being no higher foreign value, and that $2.7275 per dozen tins, net, packed, represent such value.

I, therefore, find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.G. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the canned corned beef in controversy and that said value is $2.7275 per dozen tins, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00623-CR

DEVONTE RASHARD HAYES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 337th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 1356324)

After due consideration, the Court grants the motion to dismiss this appeal filed 

by the appellant, Devonte Rashard Hayes. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, 

and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed. It is further ORDERED that this decision 

be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered May 12, 2015.

Judgment rendered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.
**Exhibit 31.1**
Certifications
I, Suki Mudan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,2007, of Caneum, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the smallbusiness issuer and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
 b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small businessissuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 21, 2007
/s/ SukiMudan
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9456]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-604]


 In the Matter of Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing 
Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof; Correction

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This correcting amendment corrects a typographical error in 
the institution of investigation notice published in the Federal 
Register on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26645). The notice published in the 
Federal Register on May 10 inadvertently cited the incorrect section of 
the U.S. Code. Therefore, the Commission is amending the second 
sentence in the third from the last paragraph to read ``In instituting 
this investigation, the Commission has not made any determination as to 
the scope of 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)(ii) or whether 337(a)(1)(B)(ii) is 
sufficiently broad as to encompass such processes.''

DATES: Effective on May 17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the 
Commission, 202-205-2000 (e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#066b67746f6a7f68286764646972724673756f726528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d505c4f54514453135c5f5f5249497d484e54495e135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>).

     Issued: May 11, 2007.

    By Order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
 [FR Doc. E7-9456 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P


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