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

No. 76-1169.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 9, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*755PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, appellant argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him for petit larceny after having withheld sentence for more than five years. We agree.

The state charged appellant with petit larceny and burglary. On September 29, 1969, after accepting a plea of guilty to both charges, the trial court withheld sentence on the petit larceny count and placed appellant on probation for a term of five years on the burglary count which term it later changed to seven years. Subsequently, on June 24, 1976, the court revoked appellant’s probation, adjudged him guilty on both counts and gave him a five-year general sentence at hard labor.

Section 775.14, Florida Statutes (1975), reads as follows:

> “Any person receiving a withheld sentence upon conviction for a criminal offense, and such withheld sentence has not been altered for a period of five years, shall not thereafter been sentenced for the conviction of the same crime for which sentence was originally withheld.”

Clearly, under this statute the trial court could not sentence appellant on the petit larceny charge since more than five years elapsed between the date on which the court withheld sentence and the date on which the court imposed sentence. Therefore, we must vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the case to the trial court for the imposition of a new sentence on the burglary count alone.

We note here, that, unlike the original sentence, the new sentence should not imprison appellant to hard labor, as there is no existing statute providing for such punishment for any offense. *Corsey v. State,*349 So.2d 738 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); *McDonald v. State,*321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., SCHEB, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARNOLD LAWSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 06-158 Erie

v. )

)

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was received by the Clerk of

Court on July 17, 2006, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan

Paradise Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act,

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 2], filed on July

19, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s motion be denied. The parties were allowed

ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on

Petitioner by certified mail and on Respondent. No objections were filed. After de novo

review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 2] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on July 19, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00158-SJM-SPB Document 3 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of approved Tribal/State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710, of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-497), the Secretary of the Interior 
shall publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved Tribal/State 
Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III (casino) gambling on 
Indian reservations. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through her delegated authority, has 
approved the Tribal/State Gaming Compact between the Citizen Band 
Potawatomi Indian Tribe and the State of Oklahoma, which was executed 
on December 5, 1996.

DATES: February 3 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Indian 
Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 
20240, (202) 219-4068.

    Dated: January 24, 1997.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-2551 Filed 1-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 8, 2023

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

________________

No. 3D23

- 0428

Lower Tribunal No. F20

- 17755

________________



### Dexter Ettienne

- M odeste , Jr.

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County

, Zachary James

, Judge.

Dexter Ettienne

- Modeste, Jr., in proper person

.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDE Z , HENDON, and LOBREE , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1 

### T o n g, St a nl ey

Fr o m: V irgini a L a u < V L a u @ b aa q m d.g ov> S e nt: Mo nd ay
, A p ril 04

, 2016 10 : 22 AM

T o: T o ng, St a nl ey S u b j ec t: U p d a t e o n B ay A r ea c h a r b r o il e r r e gi s tr a ti on

H i S t a n l ey , s o r r y f o r t h e la t e r e p l y , m y ki d s w e r e o n s p ri ngb r e ak

. A s t o y o u r qu e s t i o n , t h e o n l y r e s t a u ra n t s t h a t a r e r e g i s te r e d a r e f o r t h e c h ai n

- d r i v e n c h ar b r o il e r s – i n cl ud i n g R e d R o b i n , Carl’s J r, a nd B u r g e r Ki ng s

. F o r t h e und e r-fir e d c h ar b r o il e rs , m o s t r e s t a u ra n t s a r e cla i m i ng t h a t t h e y c o o k l e ss t h a n

s t a nd ar d p e r w e e k a nd t h u s ar e n o t r e qu ir e d t o c o o k

. T h e las t f e w i n s p e c t i o n s t h a t w e r e c o m p l e t e d du ri ng t h e r e c e ssi o n

s h o we d t h a t al l o f

t h e r e s t a u ra n t s we r e b e l o w t h e s t a nd ar d. H o w e v e r , i t m a y n o t b e t h e cas e n o w

. A s t o t h e e qu i p m e n t i n s t al l a t i o n , we a r e s t ill w a i t i ng f o r t h e fi n al r e p o r t f r o m Bill W e lc h t h a t w o u l d i n cl ud e t h e s o u r c e

te s t r e s u l t s

. W e r e qu ir e o u r s o u r c e t e s t s t aff t o r e v i e w t h e r e p o r t p r i o r t o c e r t i f y i ng a n y o f

t h e e qu i p m e n t

. Y o u p r o b a b l y al r e a d y k n o w t h a t G e o ff r e y Glass l e f t t h e D i s t ric t t o mo v e t o Was h i ng t o n s t a te

. H e w a s t h e r u l e d e v e l o p e r

w o rki ng o n t h e c o o ki ng e m issi o n s

. P l e a s e l e t m e k n o w if y o u h a v e a n y f u r t h e r qu e s t i o n s

.

Vir g i n ia L a u Ba y A r e a A ir Q u ali t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t ric t
9 3 9 Ellis S t r e e t
S a n F ra n cisc o , C A 94 1 0 9

D ir e c t: ( 4 15 ) 7 49

- 4 6 9 6

F ax : ( 4 1 5 ) 7 4 9

- 4 7 4 1

E m ail : v la u@b aa q m d.g ov
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-111466, 333-111467, 333-111469 and 333-116114 on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 333-122215 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 6, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of The DIRECTV Group, Inc. (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating the change in the Company's method of accounting for subscriber acquisition, upgrade and retention costs and a change in
the Company's presentation of it's consolidated statements of cash flows to present separate disclosure of cash flows from operating, investing and financing activates of discontinued operations) and
management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The DIRECTV Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP

Los
Angeles, California
March 6, 2006

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                                2577
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        51676
<ALLOWANCES>                                          1606
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     58563
<PP&E>                                               13293
<DEPRECIATION>                                        5454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      200625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                20594
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               127
<OTHER-SE>                                          119959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        200625
<SALES>                                             371054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    371054
<CGS>                                               285250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        73240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (4104)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       5484
<INCOME-TAX>                                          5351
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   5351
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          5351
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .42



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      (32.1)(A)





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 of United Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Evelyn F. Smalls,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '1350, as
adopted pursuant to '906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/
Evelyn F. Smalls





Evelyn F.
Smalls


Chief
Executive Officer


March 31,
2009
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52339-52340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26547]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than October 21, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Pat Marshall, Manager of 
Analytical Support, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. The Sanwa Bank Limited, Osaka, Japan; to acquire Morcroft 
Capital Corporation, Fairfield, New Jersey, and thereby engage in 
leasing and financing

[[Page 52340]]

activities, pursuant to Secs.  225.28(b)(3) and (b)(1) of the Board's 
Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 2, 
1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-26547 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
This docket entry contains two documents, which are captioned “Notice of 1

In Rem Claim to Property,” (Doc. 266), and “Notice of In Rem Seizure of Property

on Land,” (Doc. 266-2).

 The document filed at this docket entry is captioned “Notice of Presentment 2

of Classified Information,” (Doc. 290).

 Insofar as the filings in question could be construed as motions, the motions 3

are denied, because defendant was represented by counsel at the time he filed

them, but he filed them without assistance therefrom. See United States v.

D’Amario, 268 F. App’x 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2008) (“The Constitution does not confer a

right to proceed simultaneously by counsel and pro se . . . .”); see also United States

v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, 206 n.17 (3d Cir. 2006).

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 4:07-CR-0422

:

v. : (Judge Conner)

:

ALBERT LEO BERRETTINI, JR., :

and MARY ANN BERRETTINI, :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2010, upon consideration of the

documents (e.g., Docs. 266, 290, and the like) filed by defendant Albert Leo 1 2

Berrettini, and it appearing that defendant is not “applying to the court for an

order,” see Fed. R. Crim. P. 47(a) (“A party applying to the court for an order must

do so by motion.”), and it further appearing that there is no reason to permit such 3

documents to be filed with the court as they bear no relationship to the pending

Case 4:07-cr-00422-CCC Document 297 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 2
 Insofar as defendant may wish to submit the documents as evidence, the 4

court reminds defendant that evidentiary materials should be submitted at trial, not

filed with the court in advance of trial. Subject, of course, to the strictures of the

applicable rules of evidence and procedure, the court will admit them into evidence

at trial.

criminal matter, and the court finding that the power to strike such documents 4

from the record is within the court’s inherent powers, see Ray v. Eyster, 132 F.3d

152, 156 (3d Cir. 1997) (“[A] court does have inherent authority over both its docket

and over the persons appearing before it. It has long been recognized that courts

are vested with certain inherent powers that are not conferred either by Article III

or by statute, but rather are necessary to all other functions of courts.” (citing U.S.

v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32 (1812))), it is hereby ORDERED that all documents filed by

defendant and not previously disposed of are STRICKEN from the record, without

prejudice to future filings which are properly characterized and which are in

compliance with the applicable rules of procedure and local rules of court.

 S/ Christopher C. Conner 

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cr-00422-CCC Document 297 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 2
EX 32.1



PRESIDENTS CERTIFICATION



CERTIFICATE 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 (the Report) on the Form 10-QSB/A of The Bralorne Mining Company (the Company) for the period ended May 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rene Bernard, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



1.    The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.     The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.







/s/ Rene Bernard



Rene Bernard



Chief Executive Officer

President and Director



Date:  June 9, 2004
```

[105th Congress Private Law 8]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:pvtl8.105]

Private Law 105-8
105th Congress

                                 An Act

 
For the relief of Mercedes Del Carmen Quiroz Martinez Cruz. <<NOTE: Nov. 
                       10, 1998 -  [H.R. 1834]>> 

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

SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR MERCEDES DEL CARMEN QUIROZ 
            MARTINEZ CRUZ.

    (a) In General.--Mercedes Del Carmen Quiroz Martinez Cruz shall be 
classified as an immediate relative within the meaning of section 
201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for purposes of 
approval of a relative visa petition filed under section 204 of such Act 
by Mercedes Del Carmen Quiroz Martinez Cruz and the filing of an 
application for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Mercedes Del Carmen Quiroz Martinez 
Cruz enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of 
status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the petition and the 
application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 
adjustment of status are filed by Mercedes Del Carmen Quiroz Martinez 
Cruz with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mercedes Del Carmen Quiroz 
Martinez Cruz, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer 
to reduce by 1, for the following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas available under section 201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act.

    Approved November 10, 1998.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2550

MARK JAMELL, an infant who sues by his mother

as next friend Carol A. Jamell; CAROL A.

JAMELL, individually,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, A Municipal Corporation,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-249-2)

Argued: June 3, 1996 Decided: June 26, 1996

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Louis Bernard Fine, Henry Lewis Allen, FINE, FINE, LEGUM &

FINE, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Jeffrey

Salb, BREEDEN, MACMILLAN & GREEN, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 Under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove gross negligence

to recover from a municipality for injuries at a "playground or

other recreational facility." See Va. Code § 15.1-291.

2 On appeal the Jamells relied in part on certain affidavits

submitted to the district court after summary judgment had been

awarded to the City. By order dated August 4, 1995, the district

court declined to consider these affidavits because they had not

been timely filed. We find no error in this ruling, and

consequently we, too, have not considered the untimely affidavits.

2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Jamell and his mother, Carol A. Jamell, appeal from the

district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of

Chesapeake, Virginia. The Jamells sued the City after Mark sustained injuries while he was using playground equipment at a park

owned and operated by the City. The suit alleged that the City was

grossly negligent1 by failing to provide various safety features on

the equipment, failing to warn of dangers, and failing to properly

maintain the equipment. The Jamells sought compensatory and

punitive damages. The City filed a motion for summary judgment.

On July 28, 1995, the district court granted the motion, holding

that the Jamells presented no evidence creating a genuine issue of

material fact with respect to the issue of gross negligence. This

appeal followed.

After carefully considering the record, the briefs and the

arguments of the parties, we conclude that the district court properly granted the City's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough

opinion. See Jamell v. City of Chesapeake, No. 2:95cv249 (E.D. Va.

Jul. 28, 1995).2
#### Jessie DAY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Joel T. Smith, and Betty Mae Smith, Appellees.

No. 77-1431.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 12, 1978.

Michael Foster of Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan & Genders, P. A., Tampa, for appellant.

Benjamin H. Hill, III and R. Wayne Miller of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P. A., Tampa, for appellee Florida Ins. Guaranty Association.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Day seeks to appeal an order which states “the Defendant, Florida Insurance Guaranty Association’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby granted.” This is not a final decision, order, judgment or decree within the contemplation of Fla.R.App.P. 3.2(b). Likewise, this case is not one which formerly would have been cognizable in equity so the order is not subject to an interlocutory appeal. Fla.R.App.P. 4.2(a).

Therefore, we have no jurisdiction, and this appeal is hereby dismissed *sua sponte. Rizzuto v. DiPaolo,*357 So.2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA, opinion filed Apr. 19, 1978); *Arnold v. Brady,*178 So.2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.