alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jimmie L. JONES, Respondent.

No. 73-818.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 6, 1973.

Phillip S. Shailer, State’s Atty., and Jon H. Gutmacher, Asst. State’s Atty., Ft. Lau-derdale, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Jimmie Lee Jones was charged, tried by a jury, and found guilty of grand larceny. He filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court entered its order which (1) reserved ruling on the motion until such time as the defendant, Jimmie Lee Jones, had been: given a polygraph examination, and (2) directed the State Attorney to make the necessary arrangements to have a polygraph examination administered to the defendant on or before a certain date. This is the order which the State has sought to have reviewed by petition for writ of certiorari.

When a defendant in a criminal case has been found guilty by a jury, and thereafter files a timely motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, the motion should be heard and considered by the trial court solely on the basis of the record and the evidence upon which the jury reached its verdict. This would apply as well to the weighing of the credibility of defendant’s testimony in his own behalf.

The jury did not have the benefit of a polygraph examination of defendant. Therefore, the court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the State, absent its consent,1 to have a polygraph examination *221administered to the defendant where the obvious purpose is to use the result in determining whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Certiorari is granted and the order quashed.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

1

. It was held in State v. Brown, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 532, that such procedure was not improper when done, with the joint stipulation of the State and the defendant.
#### Vera FOSTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 1973.

*183John J. Quinn, Key West, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with the crime of second degree murder. She pleaded not guilty, was tried and found guilty as charged. The court entered judgment and sentenced her to a term of twenty-five years in the State Penitentiary.

The evidence showed that Jimmy Travers died from a stab wound in the back which was inflicted during a violent altercation between him and appellant which began when she found Jimmy, her lover and home companion, intoxicated in a barroom with a woman sitting on his lap.

Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment of conviction on the grounds that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a police officer as to the in custody confession of the appellant and that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial because of the insufficiency of the evidence.

The grounds relied on by appellant for reversal have been carefully considered in the light of the record and briefs and we find no reversible error has been shown. The record discloses that the case was fairly tried, that the verdict is supported by the evidence, and that the several rulings of the trial court challenged by the appellant did not, on the record and under the law, constitute reversible error.

Affirmed.
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Ronaldo Reyes       | Attn: Robert Castle / Kristine Gullo |
| 1761 East St. Andrew Place           | 301 Bellevue Parkway, 3rd Floor |
| Santa Ana, CA  92705                 | Wilmington, DE 19809 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets LLC |
| Attn:  Darnella Tinnel-Crawford       | Ally Bank |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 700               | Attn:  Martha Tate |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 200 West Civic Center Drive |
|                                            | Sandy, UT 84070 |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2018-3 |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller & Chief Accounting Officer |
|   |   |
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2120 

To amend the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, 

and Venues Act to include hospitality businesses in grant program for 

shuttered venue operators, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2021 

Mr. AMODEI (for himself, Mr. CRIST, Ms. TITUS, and Mr. PASCRELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small 

Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, 

Nonprofits, and Venues Act to include hospitality businesses in grant program for shuttered venue operators, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Access for 

5 Venue Equity Act’’ or the ‘‘SAVE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2120 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF HOSPITALITY BUSINESSES IN GRANT 

2 PROGRAM FOR SHUTTERED VENUE OPERA3 TORS. 

4 Section 324 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small 

5 Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (Public Law 116– 

6 260; 134 Stat. 2022; 15 U.S.C. 9009a) is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘a hospitality business,’’ before 

8 ‘‘or live performing arts organization operator’’ each 

9 place it appears; 

10 (2) in the heading for paragraph (3) of sub11 section (a), by inserting ‘‘A HOSPITALITY BUSI12 NESS,’’ before ‘‘OR LIVE PERFORMING ARTS ORGANI13 ZATION OPERATOR’’; and 

14 (3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the 

15 following new paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(11) HOSPITALITY BUSINESS.—The term ‘hos17 pitality business’ means a person or entity that is 

18 assigned a North American Industry Classification 

19 System code beginning with 713, 487, 5615, 7113, 

20 721, 722320, or 561920.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

----

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-46865, 33-64380,  333-7328, 333-8270, 333-10156, 333-13988, 333-147914) of Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited of our report dated 31 March 2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Rio Tinto Group, which appears in this Form 20-F.

| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP | /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                           |                       |
| **PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP** | **PricewaterhouseCoopers** |
| Chartered Accountants          | Chartered Accountants      |
| London, United Kingdom         | Brisbane, Australia        |
| 31 March 2008                  | 31 March 2008              |

 

----
Order entered September 28, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00377-CR

IVORY MONTWAIN NAILS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-58191-L

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES this appeal.

On September 16, 2016, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. On September 23, 2016, we received appellant’s brief and a 

motion to extend time to file the same. Because findings are no longer necessary, we VACATE

the September 16, 2016 order.

We GRANT appellant’s September 23, 2016 motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed 

as of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2226200
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          335800
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        348000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  259100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3169100
<COMMON>                                           400
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       739000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             488000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1227400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      22900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            925900
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                1300
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   26900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      400
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  964300
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  3169100
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       627100
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             50800
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      441600
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      492400
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         134700
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                4400
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  139100
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         43700
<NET-INCOME>                                     95400
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        400
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    95000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         57900
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        43100
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          167400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.31
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Robert M. Pereira, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Phoenix Footwear
Group, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge the foregoing Quarterly Report of the Company:

(1) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d), and,

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

Dated: November ___, 2002


/s/ Robert M. Pereira
--------------------------------------
Robert M. Pereira
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|    |                                                                                                    |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc.; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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; |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| Date:  | April 14, 2015 | /s/ Jeffery Ostapeic |
|   |   | Jeffery Ostapeic |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
Appeals dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 11, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-24-00269-CR

NO. 14-24-00270-CR

____________

TIFFANY HERRERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1832938 & 1832940

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of no guilty to two charges of causing bodily injury 

to a child under fifteen years of age. The record reflects that in exchange for 

appellant’s guilty pleas, the State agreed to dismiss a third criminal charge against 

appellant. We dismiss the appeals. 

Consistent with the agreement between the parties, the trial court certified 
2

that each of these cases was a plea bargain case and that appellant had no right of 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). An agreement under which the State 

dismisses a criminal proceeding in exchange for a guilty plea is a plea bargain for 

purposes of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2). Kennedy v. State, 297 

S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813–

14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 

Because appellant’s pleas were made pursuant to a plea bargain, she may 

appeal only matters raised by a written pre-trial motion or with the trial court’s 

permission. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant is not appealing any pretrial rulings. The record does not contain any adverse pre-trial rulings.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### Mary Ellen HAYES, Appellant, v. Elaine K. COOPER, Appellee.

No. L-180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1970.

Levin, Askew, Warfield, Graff & Mabie, Pensacola, for appellant.

Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on *653appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Jose Amado PEREZ, M.D., P.A., Appellant, v. Sergio Max RODRIGUEZ, M.D., Appellee.

No. 76-1864.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

*827Robinson & Greenberg, Miami, for appellant.

Wayne, Genden & Bach and James W. Jarvis, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

HUBBART, Judge.

The plaintiff (Jose Perez) appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the defendant (Sergio Rodriguez) upon granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to counts I and IV of the plaintiff’s complaint. The motion for summary judgment was based on res judicata grounds. The plaintiff contends on appeal that a prior default judgment entered against him in an action brought by the defendant Rodriguez on two promissory notes was not res judicata as to the present breach of contract actions notwithstanding that the prior notes arose out of obligations contained in the contract now sued upon. We agree and reverse.

The law is clear that a default judgment conclusively establishes between the parties, so far as subsequent proceedings on a different cause of action are concerned, the truth of all material allegations contained in the complaint in the first action and every fact necessary to uphold the default judgment, but such judgment is not conclusive as to any defense or issue which was not raised and is not necessary to uphold the default judgment. *Baum v. Pines Realty, Inc.,*164 So.2d 517, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). The complaint in the prior action on the promissory notes alleged that the plaintiff Perez executed two promissory notes in favor of the defendant Rodriguez which the plaintiff Perez defaulted on and for which judgment should be entered in the amount due and owing. The default judgment entered upon this complaint conclusively establishes that the plaintiff Perez is liable to the defendant Rodriguez on the two promissory notes in the total amount adjudged.

The default judgment, however, is not conclusive on the breach of contract actions presently brought since these actions raise issues which were not involved in the prior actions and which are not necessary to uphold the prior default judgment. Indeed, the complaint in the prior action does not even mention the contract upon which the present suit is brought. Moreover, the present suit alleges facts and theories of liability under the contract which are in no way inconsistent with the established liability of the plaintiff Perez on the prior promissory notes. Counts I and IV of the present complaint are, accordingly, not barred by res judicata.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND
COMPREHENSIVE EARNINGS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          53,119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,740)
<INVENTORY>                                     44,164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,230
<PP&E>                                           8,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,442
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,772
<SALES>                                        285,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               285,497
<CGS>                                          162,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,784<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,454
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,284
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,284
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.99
<FN>
<F1>INTEREST INCOME NET OF INTEREST EXPENSE
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31633]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: December 15-19, 1997.
    Time of Meeting: 0830-1600 (both days).
    Place: Pentagon, Washington, DC.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board's (ASB) Ad Hoc Study on 
``Independent Assessment of the Technical Maturity of the Aerostat 
Demonstration Program'' will meet for briefings and discussions on 
advanced JLENS sensor concepts. These meetings will be closed to the 
public in accordance with Section 552b(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., 
specifically subparagraph (1) thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C., Appendix 
2, subsection 10(d). The classified and unclassified matters to be 
discussed are so inextricably intertwined so as to preclude opening 
any portion of these meetings. For further information, please 
contact our office at (703) 695-0781.
Wayne Joyner,
Program Support Specialist, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31633 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### James Lee CRUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-543.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 11, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

      We hereby  consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on  Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-99764, 33-41474, 333-50298 and 333-111513) and  Form S-3 (File No. 333-130111) of Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. of our report  dated March 15, 2006 relating to the financial statements, financial statement  schedules, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control  over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial  reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPNew York, New YorkMarch 15, 2006