alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alexander DICAPRIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1576.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 3, 1977.

*79John W. Tanner, P. A., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Anthony C. Musto and Benedict Kuehne, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Appellant appeals from an Order revoking his probation and sentencing him to the state penitentiary. However, tíife issue he raises on appeal relates to the original Order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing him on probation.

Appellant contends that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case initially and to enter the Order of probation. Since subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, acquiescence or waiver, and lack of such jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, we now consider the issue of jurisdiction on this appeal. *Solomon v. State,*341 So.2d 537 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); *Wilds*v. *Permenter,*228 So.2d 408 (Fla.4th DCA 1969).

Appellant was charged by information with possession and delivery of cannabis sativa L. The information contained no allegations of a prior conviction of Appellant of the Drug Abuse Law or that the amount of marijuana involved exceeded five grams. In the absence of such allegata, the offenses charged were only misdemeanors as a matter of law and the Circuit Court had no felony jurisdiction. *Boley*v. *State,*273 So.2d 109 (Fla.4th DCA 1973). Therefore, the Circuit Court’s Order placing Appellant on probation was void. *Pope v. State,*268 So.2d 173 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); *Boley v. State,*supra.

All proceedings flowing from this void Order, specifically the Order revoking probation and sentencing Appellant, are a nullity and must be reversed. Ware *v. State,*231 So.2d 872 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); *Solomon v. State,*supra.

REVERSED.

ALDERMAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors




The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Planar Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-82696, 33-82688, 33-90258 and 333-45191) on Form S-8 of Planar Systems, Inc.
and subsidiaries of our report dated November 3, 1999, except as to note 15,
which is as of December 13, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Planar Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 24, 1999 and September 25,
1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
September 24, 1999, and our report dated February 29, 2000, relating to the
balance sheet of dpiX, LLC as of December 31, 1999, and the related statements
of operations and members' capital and cash flows for the period from July 1,
1999 (inception) to December 31, 1999, which reports appear, or are incorporated
by reference, in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Planar Systems, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended September 24, 1999.




/s/ KPMG LLP
------------------------
Portland, Oregon
March 27, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 10.1.8.a.

                            AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
                             TERRA INDUSTRIES INC.
                             SUPPLEMENTAL DEFERRED
                               COMPENSATION PLAN

     Terra Industries Inc. desires to amend its Supplemental Deferred
Compensation Plan as amended as of May 1, 1995 (the "Plan"), all on the terms
and conditions herein. Accordingly, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     (a)  Article VI of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following new
section 6.06 therein reading in its entirety as follows:

          "6.06  Early Distribution. The Participant may elect, before or after
                 ------------------
     Participant's Retirement or Termination of Service, to receive a
     distribution with respect to the value of part or all of the vested portion
     of the Participant's Bookkeeping Account. Any such distribution shall be
     equal to the value of the portion of the Participant's Bookkeeping Account
     elected, less a forfeiture penalty of 20% of that value, and the amount
     distributed shall be in full satisfaction of the Participant's rights with
     respect to the portion of the account so elected."

     (b)  Article X of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following new
section 10.05 therein reading in its entirety as follows:

          "10.05.  Legal Fees or Expenses. The Company shall reimburse the
                   ----------------------
     Participant for any legal fees and expenses reasonably incurred in
     connection with the enforcement of Participant's rights under this Plan;
     provided that the Company shall not be required to reimburse for such fees
     or expenses unless the resolution of any enforcement action taken by the
     Participant is substantially in favor of the Participant, whether by
     adjudication, settlement or otherwise."

     (c)  Except as herein provided, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by
its duly authorized officer as of the 26/th/ day of July , 2000.
                                      ------        ----


                                            TERRA INDUSTRIES INC.


                                            By  /s/ George H. Valentine
                                                -----------------------------

                                            Its  Senior Vice President
                                                -----------------------------
#### Jane C. VINING, Appellant, v. Catherine M. HETHCOX d/b/a Palmetto Properties, Realtor, Appellee.

No. 76-1823.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 11, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1977.

Edward C. Yining, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Gregory T. Zell, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Dade County v. Pepper,*168 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); and *Marx v. Goldfinger,*187 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries IV, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President 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; 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: February 4, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries IV, Inc.
(Reap. Dec. 9677)

#### Fed. Tele. & Radio Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 879347.

(Decided April 19, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson £ Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement presents the question of the proper dutiable value of certain telephone apparatus exported from Belgium.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that, on or about the date of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in Belgium either for home consumption or for export to the United States. It was further stipulated and agreed that, on or about that date, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States, and that the cost of production of said merchandise, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the invoice unit values, less 1.11 per centum.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f), supra, is the proper basis of value for the telephone apparatus in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, less 1.11 per centum.

As to any other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                  S. 1

    To strengthen the economic competitiveness of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Gillibrand, 
 Mr. Coons, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Shaheen, and 
  Mr. Akaka) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To strengthen the economic competitiveness of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Competitiveness Act''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

    It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should--
            (1) eliminate tax loopholes that encourage companies to 
        ship American jobs overseas;
            (2) expand markets for United States exports by enforcing 
        trade laws, stopping unfair currency manipulation, and opening 
        up new markets for products made in the United States;
            (3) promote the development of new, innovative products 
        bearing the inscription ``Made in America'' by creating tax 
        incentives to support United States industries and funding 
        research and education programs to support and train workers in 
        those newly developed areas;
            (4) modernize and improve the highways, bridges, and 
        transit systems of the United States to reduce congestion and 
        the negative impacts of congestion on productivity and the 
        communities of the United States;
            (5) modernize and upgrade the rail, levees, dams, and ports 
        of the United States to get commerce flowing farther and 
        faster;
            (6) place computers in classrooms to ensure that all 
        children in the United States have the tools they need to be 
        the innovators of tomorrow;
            (7) ensure that small businesses and households in the 
        United States have access to high-speed broadband;
            (8) invest in critical new infrastructure, such as a 
        national energy grid, to reduce energy waste and promote the 
        use of renewable energy sources; and
            (9) streamline regulatory policies that unnecessarily put 
        the United States at a competitive disadvantage.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 3.8


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                      ****

      Intertec Publishing Corporation, a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

      FIRST: That the Board of Directors of said corporation at a meeting duly
held, adopted a resolution proposing and declaring advisable the following
amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation:

            RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of Intertec
      Publishing Corporation be amended by changing the First Article thereof so
      that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows: "The name of
      the corporation shall be PRIMEDIA Intertec Corporation."

      SECOND: That in lieu of a meeting and vote of stockholders, the
stockholders have given unanimous written consent to said amendment in
accordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware.

      THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of sections 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware.
Case Wo, 9,373.

#### MEADE v. KEANE.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 51.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term. 1826.2

Evidence — Production of Receipt — Commission to take Deposition — Clerical Error — Bt Whom Deposition Written.

1. If a witness for the plaintiff testifies that on a certain day he paid to the defendant a certain sum of money, and took his receipt, the plaintiff is not bound to produce .the receipt on the trial.

2. If a dedimus issue to take depositions in a cause in which Richard M. Meade is plaintiff, whereas the name of the plaintiff was Richard W. Meade, and the commissioners certify that they took the depositions to be read in a cause in which Richard W. Meade was plaintiff, the depositions are admissible, notwithstanding the ■clerical error in writing an M. for a W. in the commission.

3. In taking a deposition under a commission it is not neeesary that it should be written by the commissioners, or by their clerk, or by the witness.

[This was an action at law by Richard W. Meade against Richard R. Keane.] Assump-sit, for money had and received.

C. C. Lee, for plaintiff,

offered to read a part of a deposition, in which the witness testified that he paid a certain sum of money on a certain day, and took his receipt.

Mr. Key, for defendant,

objected, unless the plaintiff should produce the receipt.

2

 [Affirmed in 3 Pet (28 U. S.) 1.]

But THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, eontril)

overruled

the objection.

Mr. Key. then objected to the deposition, because the commission, under which it was taken, purported to be issued in a cause in which Richard M. Meade (not Richard W. Meade, which was the name of the plaintiff,) was plaintiff: although the commissioners certified that they took the deposition to be read in a cause in which Richard W. Meade was plaintiff.

But THE COURT (THRUSTON, -Circuit Judge, contrff) overruled this objection also; *1294saying it was a mere clerical error; and that a commission is not an ex parte proceeding, as is the case where a deposition is taken under the act of congress, and the parties are not bound to the same strictness.

Affirmed by the supreme court. 3 Pet. [28 U. S.] 1.

Mr. Ivey also objected that the commissioners had not certified that the deposition was taken down by the commissioners or their clerk, or by the witness himself.

But THE COURT (THRUSTON. Circuit Judge, contra) overruled this objection also.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Walt
      Tatum, Chief Executive Officer of Cyberads, Inc. (the "Company") do hereby
      certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
      2006,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      December 21, 2006




/s/
      WALT TATUM


Walt
      Tatum


Acting
      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.54

THIRD AMENDMENT TO REVOLVING CREDIT AND  TERM LOAN AGREEMENT

This Third Amendment to Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement (the "Amendment") is made as of the 19th day of February, 2003 by and among



in
consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and benefits to be derived herefrom.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Borrower and National Bank of Canada ("NBC") entered into a certain Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement dated as of February 28, 2000 (as
amended in effect, the "Loan Agreement"); and

WHEREAS,
NBC has assigned all of its right, title and interest in and to the Loan Agreement and the documents, instruments and agreements executed and delivered in connection therewith
to the Lender; and

WHEREAS,
the Borrower has requested that the Lender modify and amend certain provisions of the Loan Agreement; and

WHEREAS,
the Lender has agreed to modify and amend certain provisions of the Loan Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW,
THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows:





---



12/31/03 and thereafter

The required Consolidated Tangible Net Worth for the Previous quarter plus the Applicable Profit Margin plus Subordinated Debt




12/31/03

$500,000




12/31/02 and thereafter, quarterly

1.5:1.0




---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto executed this Amendment as a sealed instrument as of the date first above written.

| |  | MFIC CORPORATION              
| |  | ------------------------------
| |  | By:                           
| |  | PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
| |  | By:                           

---

QuickLinks
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**386 KA 14-00931**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHAD M. JOHNSTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M. Mohun, J.), rendered April 24, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault on a peace officer, police officer, fireman or emergency medical services professional.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault on a peace officer, police officer, fireman or emergency medical services professional (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.08), defendant contends that he was denied due process at sentencing when County Court imposed a sentence based on defendant’s postplea arrest without determining that the information upon which it was basing the sentence was reliable and accurate. As a preliminary matter, we note that defendant’s contention is not encompassed by the waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Kolata
, 119 AD3d 1376, 1377; see generally People v Peck , 90 AD3d 1500, 1501). However, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review because he “failed to object to the sufficiency of the court’s inquiry or to request a hearing, and he did not move to withdraw his plea on that ground” ( People v Hassett , 119 AD3d 1443, 1444, lv denied 24 NY3d 961). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Barry W. Chandler, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Atlantic BancGroup, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Atlantic BancGroup,
                  Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (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 Atlantic BancGroup, Inc.




Date:  May 10, 2006                      /s/ Barry W. Chandler
       ------------                      ---------------------
                                         Barry W. Chandler
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Fund 5
Financial Staements for the year ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,460,577
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   105573
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,994,817
<PP&E>                                      69,142,504<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                            (35,147,739)<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,555,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,915,230
<BONDS>                                     42,500,954<F3>
<COMMON>                                   (7,160,452)<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,555,732
<SALES>                                     13,839,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,839,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,917,959<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,717,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,470,412<F6>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,470,412<F6>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (93,215)<F7>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,377,197<F8>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F8>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F8>
<FN>
<F1>Includes apartment complexes of $68,251,341 and deferred expenses of $89,163.
<F2>Includes depreciation of $34,745,814 and amortization of $401,925.
<F3>Represents mortgage notes payable.
<F4>Represents total deficit of general partners and limited partners of $375,628
and $6,784,824, respectively.
<F5>Included operating expeses of $5,311,497, real estate tax expense of $2,201,309
and depreciation and amortization of $3,4105,153.
<F6>Includes gain on sale of peroperty of $3,265,789.
<F7>Represents an extraordinary loss on the early extinguishment of debt.
<F8>Net income allocated $23,772 to the General Parnters and $2,353,425 to the
Limited Partners for the year ended 12/31/95.  Average net income per unit of
Limited Partners interest is $66.86 on 35,200 units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>