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

No. 75-624.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 26, 1976.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Craig S. Barnard, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Rehearing of the cause filed July 22, 1976, is hereby granted, and the decision of this Court filed on July 9, 1976, is hereby withdrawn and vacated.

Defendant appealed a conviction of robbery in violation of section 813.011, Florida Statutes, assigning as error the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial after the arresting officer commented on the defendant *1042standing mute while in custody. The arresting officer testified:

> “Q. At any time during the time that you were transporting him, or booking him, did he offer you any explanation as to why he was carrying around that much play money, with a one dollar bill on the outside of it?

> “A. No, he didn’t. He didn’t say anything.”

Although no objection was made, the trial court perceptively recognized the gravity of the matter and commendably proceeded to preserve defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent by admonishing the jurors in that respect. However, the arresting officer’s comment on defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent was fundamental reversible error and of such constitutional proportion that neither objection nor admonition could correct. *Bennett v. State,*316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1976); *Jones v. State,*200 So.2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); *Shannon v. State,*335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); *Martin v. State,*334 So.2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of conviction are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

MAGER, C. J., CROSS, J., and GALE, JOHN, Associate Judge, concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SMTEK International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kirk A. Waldron, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

Date: May 10,2004

 
| By:                                                |   /s/ Kirk A. Waldron |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Kirk A. Waldron                                    |                            |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |                            |
| SMTEK International,  Inc.                         |                            |

 

----
BEVERLY CRUMLEY HAYS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

Hays County Government Center, 712 Stagecoach Trail, Ste. 2211, San Marcos, Texas 78666 

(512) 393-7660 

APPEAL STATUS NOTICE 

Re: Clerk's Record 

Trial Court Cause # 14-1456 

Appellate Court Cause #03-15-00224-CV 

JEFFREY ANDERSON AND CYNTHIA ANDERSON VS. NAMKEN 

CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND BRANDON NAMKEN 

Please be advised that we have calculated the due date for filing the clerk's record to be May 

15, 2015 for the following reason(s): 

The judgment was entered November 5, 2014 and Notice of Appeal was filed April 15, 

2015 

AND 

D A Motion for New Trial was filed within 30 days. 

D Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was filed 

within 20 days. 

I am unable to file the record by the due date as calculated above because (select one): 

~appellant has not filed a written request for the preparation of the clerk's record 

and the appellant has failed to pay the fee or make arrangements to pay the fee for 

prepari'lg the clerk's record. 

I, BEVERLY CRUMLEY, Clerk of the District Courts in and for Hays County, do 

hereby certify ::he above and foregoing to be an accurate statement of the current status of 

the appeal in the above entitled cause up to this date. 

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL of office this 2nd day of June, 2015. 

BEVERLY CRUMLEY
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Phoenix Footwear
Group, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to Amendment No.
1 of the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
April 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-Q/A
Report"), that:

(1) the 10-Q/A Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the 10-Q/A Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

The undersigned have executed this Certification effective as of May 25, 2005.

                                       /s/ Richard E. White
                                       --------------------------------
                                       Richard E. White
                                       Chief Executive Officer

                                       /s/ Kenneth Wolf
                                       --------------------------------
                                       Kenneth Wolf
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and will be retained by Phoenix
Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 12.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Congwu Cheng, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of AutoNavi Holdings Limited (the Company);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Companys other certifying officer and
I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Intentionally omitted];

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date:
June 27, 2011



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Congwu Cheng       
|Name:  |  | Congwu Cheng           
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Gabriel GIL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42921.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 7, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d 43.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

**FORM N-PX**

**ANNUAL REPORT OF PROXY VOTING RECORD OF**

**DWS Climate Change Fund, DWS Health Care Fund and DWS Small Cap Value Fund**

**Each a Series of DWS Securities Trust**

Investment Company Act file number  811-2021

DWS Securities Trust

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY  10154

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

John Millette

Secretary

One Beacon Street

Boston, MA  02108-3106

(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  617-295-1000

Date of fiscal year end:  05/31

DWS Climate Change Fund

DWS Health Care Fund 

Date of fiscal year end:  07/31

DWS Small Cap Value Fund

Date of reporting period:  7/1/08-6/30/09

Form N-PX is to be used by a registered management investment company, other than a small business investment company registered on Form N-5 (§§ 239.24 and 274.5 of this chapter), to file reports with the Commission, not later than August 31 of each year, containing the registrant's proxy voting record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30, pursuant to section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and rule 30b1-4 thereunder (17 CFR 270.30b1-4). The Commission may use the information provided on Form N-PX in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles.

A registrant is required to disclose the information specified by Form N-PX, and the Commission will make this information public. A registrant is not required to respond to the collection of information contained in Form N-PX unless the Form displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") control number. Please direct comments concerning the accuracy of the information collection burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                  
<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                        
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited  financial  statements for the year ended August 31, 1996
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                  1,694
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             406
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2,109
<PP&E>                                 37,741
<DEPRECIATION>                         (6,005)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         33,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     100
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               44,875
<OTHER-SE>                            (10,999)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           33,976
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        4,062
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         2,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     2,087
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            2,087
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.40
        

</TABLE>
#### Rocky Lane WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-1105.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 11, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Lewis Kinder, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, and David E. Stone, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was tried and convicted by the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County following waiver of jury trial and pleas of not guilty to the charges of assault with intent to commit murder and unlawfully buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property well knowing the same to be stolen.

He has appealed from the judgment and sentence on both counts. Reversal is sought on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.

We have carefully considered the points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the convictions and that no reversible error appears. See King v. State, 156 Fla. 817, 24 So.2d 573 (1946), as to the conviction of buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. It was conclusively shown that the appellant fired a weapon at the pursuing officer, and the finding of guilt as to the assault with intent to commit murder is presumed correct. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24.

Affirmed.
Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (03 / 21 / 2014): Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:
Migration to groundwater: Slow to moderate PBT rating: P1B1T2 Health: 1-2 Drinking Water, Inhalation, XB Testing (Testing desired)

Eco: 1 Water (All releases to water with a CC = ppb)
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Victoria Internet Services, Inc (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Leon Golden, Chief Executive and Financial Officer 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:

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: March 26, 2011                  /s/ Leon Golden
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Leon Golden
                                      President, Chief Executive Officer, and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
#### Arthur C. ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-499.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Request for Information (FAA-2015-3382) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Brevig:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-3382). 

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date 

listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by November 2, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 3:38 PM 

To: Garyb@DennisonTech.com
#### LEAR v. MEIGS.

No. 38299.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. So.2d 162. 217
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2475 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2475

    To allow certain veterans to use high occupancy vehicle lanes, 
                         including toll lanes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2021

 Ms. Malliotakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To allow certain veterans to use high occupancy vehicle lanes, 
                         including toll lanes.

    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 ``HOV Lanes for Heroes Act''.

SEC. 2. HOV FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 166(b) of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting at the end the following:
            ``(6) Disabled veterans.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The public authority may allow a 
                disabled veteran to use the HOV facility if such 
                veteran has a license plate that clearly identifies the 
                vehicle, a registered transponder, or other method of 
                identification the public authority considers necessary 
                for qualification.
                    ``(B) Definition of disabled veteran.--For purposes 
                of this paragraph, the term `disabled veteran' means a 
                veteran (as such term is defined in section 101 of 
                title 38) who the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has 
                determined has a service-connected (as such term is 
                defined in such section) disability rated at or above a 
                percentage determined to be qualifying by the public 
                authority.
                    ``(C) Occupancy exception.--Notwithstanding the 
                occupancy requirement of subsection (a)(2), 1 occupant 
                described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may be 
                permitted to use a HOV facility.
                    ``(D) No charge for tolls.--Under this paragraph, a 
                public authority may charge no toll.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 166 of such title is further 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``through (5)'' and 
        inserting ``through (6)''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ``paragraph (4) or 
        (5)'' and inserting ``paragraph (4), (5), or (6)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CARMEL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Jerry BROOKS, deceased, and J. T. Brooks, Father, Ola Mae Brooks, Mother, and Eight Dependent Children, Respondents.

No. 40969.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 14, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### D. Donald SMITH, Appellant, v. W. O. C., INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-613.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

Arthur S. Clark, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Pallot, Silver, Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order cancelling a lis pendens. The question presented on appeal is whether or not the trial court correctly found that the allegations of the complaint were insufficient to state a cause of action which would, if proven, entitle the plaintiff to an interest in the real property described in the lis pendens. The trial court correctly held that an equitable lien, as distinguished from a mechanic’s lien, does not exist for purely contractual services performed in connection with the sale of real property. See Carter v. Suggs, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 784.

Affirmed.
#### COCHRAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner, v. Robert DIXON and the Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 39867.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 12, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.