alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellant,

v.

JOHN JEREMY ROGERS,

 Appellee.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-12-00207-CR

Appeal from the

363rd District Court

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC# F09-24738)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the State’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a). Finding that the State has complied with the requirements of Rule 42.2(a), we 

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

October 31, 2012

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Antcliff, J.

(Do Not Publish)
#### Wallace WADE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43010.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 18, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,651                   3,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,209                  73,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,132)                 (4,978)
<INVENTORY>                                     60,718                  66,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,048                 185,501
<PP&E>                                         177,295                 164,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,324)                (49,914)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,673                 348,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,540                 134,065
<BONDS>                                        150,000                       0
<COMMON>                                             5                      10
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (102,333)                  33,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,673                 348,393
<SALES>                                        528,233                 492,405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               528,233                 492,405
<CGS>                                          370,845                 344,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  370,845                 344,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   701                   1,355
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,562                  18,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,818                  38,485
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,404                  13,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,414                  25,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                  58,958                  13,840
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (728)                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,644                  39,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.34                    4.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.12                    3.95
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9020-9021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4825]


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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VA Innovations in Nursing Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hereby gives notice that 
the second meeting of the VA Innovations in Nursing Advisory Committee 
will be held March 3-4, 1997, in Room C7 at VA Headquarters, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The March 3, 1997, session will 
convene at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m. The March 4, 1997, 
session will convene at 8:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:00 p.m.
    The purpose of the committee is to study and formulate 
recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health on how VA can 
generally promote and support health care innovations in which nurses 
play key leadership and clinical roles and which promote VHA's 
reengineering efforts.

[[Page 9021]]

    On March 3, the Committee will explore issues that impact on 
innovations in nursing. On March 4, the Committee will realign 
strategies to identify existing and potential innovations in nursing as 
well as barriers which impede innovations.
    The meeting is open to the public. Public comment may be offered 
from 3:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on March 3, 1997. Those who plan to 
attend or who have questions concerning the meeting should contact the 
Designated Federal Official for the Committee, Charlotte F. Beason, 
Ed.D., RN, at (202) 273-8422.

    Dated: February 19, 1997.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-4825 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### Jessie James TOWNSEND, a minor by Maud W. Jameson, grandmother and next friend v. James Beard BERRY.

No. 47021.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1973.

Liston & Upshaw, James Y. Dale, Wi-nona, for appellant.

Brooks, Guyton & Shaw, Kosciusko, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Marshall Perry, Judge.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### Gerald J. MAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 22, 1971.

W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

Appellant Gerald J. May appeals to this Court from an order denying his motion to vacate a previous judgment and sentence entered against him.

On April 28, 1969, indictment was returned into the Lee County Circuit Court *25charging Lee with the offense of rape. On October 21, 1969, he entered a plea of guilty to assault with intent to commit rape, which plea was accepted by the Court. He was thereupon adjudged guilty of said offense and sentenced to serve a period of twenty years in the State Prison. On February 3, 1970, a little over three months thereafter, he filed a motion under CrPR 1.8S0, 33 F.S.A., to vacate said judgment and sentence, which the trial Court denied. Said order of denial was appealed to this 2nd District Court, and on November 13, 1970, the order appealed from was affirmed, 240 So.2d 872.

On December 14, 1970, just one month later, he filed his second motion to vacate the judgment and sentence which motion, on March 2, 1971, was denied by the trial Court. He has now appealed this second order of denial to this Court.

The thrust of his current motion for relief filed in the trial Court is that he was not fully advised of all of his constitutional rights at the time he pleaded guilty as aforesaid, such as his right to be confronted by his accusers, informed as to the maximum penalty of the charge, and generally that he did not knowingly understandably and voluntarily enter his guilty plea.

However, we note that in his previous motion for relief under CrPR 1.850, which was affirmed by this Court (of which case we take judicial notice inasmuch as it is a part of the records of this Court), this identical point was directly raised, fully argued, and squarely disposed of adversely to the appellant. CrPR 1.850 provides *inter alia*that “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” Under this quoted provision, the trial Court properly denied the second motion for relief which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. See Marshall v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 723; Riley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 766; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 676, cert. den. 392 U.S. 913, 88 S.Ct. 2073, 20 L.Ed.2d 1371; Mapp v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 431.

The order appealed from is therefore—

Affirmed.

HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### Pauline T. SAWYER, formerly Pauline T. Roberts, Appellant, v. Mary Alice WORTH, Individually, and as surviving wife of Howard W. Worth, Deceased, and as Executrix of the Estate of Howard W. Worth, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 73-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             958,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,586,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        760,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,274,000
<PP&E>                                          10,232,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,084,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,362,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,224,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            71,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,194,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,362,000
<SALES>                                         52,612,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,612,000
<CGS>                                           45,528,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,373,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   661,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     50,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 50,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        50,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .01
        


</TABLE>
----

----

EXHIBIT (32)(b)

| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |                                              |   |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: April 28, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Donna L. Belusar                         |   |
|                 |   | Donna L. Belusar                                  |   |
|                 |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                 |   |                                              |   |
#### Elizabeth Giahn, Respondent, v Ishak Giahn, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 394]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated May 29, 1992, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated April 4, 2000, which, inter alia, determined that the parties’ agreement dated August 27, 1992, was void as the product of coercion, (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated November 6, 2000, as, upon granting his motion for leave to renew and/or reargue, adhered to the original determination, and (3), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated April 19, 2001, as, upon granting those branches of his motion which were for leave to renew and/or reargue and to vacate the order dated April 4, 2000, denied that branch of his motion which was to remit the matter for arbitration before a Beth Din.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 4, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was vacated by the order dated April 19, 2001; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 6, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 19, 2001, made upon reargument and/or renewal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 19, 2001, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the defendant’s motion which is to remit the matter for arbitration before a Beth Din is granted, and the matter is remitted to arbitration before a Beth Din.

“[W]here parties enter into an agreement and, in one of its provisions, promise that any dispute arising out of or in connection with it shall be settled by arbitration, any controversy which arises between them and is within the compass of the *484provision must go to arbitration” *(Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta],*9 NY2d 329, 334; *see, Mendelsohn v A & D Catering Corp.,*100 AD2d 209, 213). The use of the phrase “any dispute arising out of this agreement” is a broad provision which compels submission of all issues arising under the agreement to arbitration *(Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], supra,*at 334; *Matter of Allied Van Lines [Hollander Express & Van Co.],*29 NY2d 35; *Matter of Cooper v Abrams,*40 AD2d 866, *affd*32 NY2d 865). Here, the plaintiff alleges, and the defendant concedes, that the defendant failed to fulfill his contractual obligations by failing to make the installment payments as required by the parties’ agreement. Nonfulfillment of a contractual obligation is a “dispute” within the meaning of the agreement, and the matter must be remitted to arbitration before a Beth Din in accordance with the parties’ agreement *(see, Matter of Cassone,*63 NY2d 756, 758-759; *Matter of Macy & Co. [National Sleep Prods.],*39 NY2d 268, 271). Santucci, J.P., Smith, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED W ELLNESS AND REHABILITATION CENTER OF POMPANO P.A. A/A/O SANTIAGO CANARIO , A ppellant , v. Case No. 5D 21

- 2073 LT Case No. 2014

- SC

- 11215 UNITED AU TOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed April 26, 2022 Appeal from the C ount y Court for Orange County , Elizabeth Starr, J udge. Robert Morris, o f

E iffert & Associates, P .A., O rlando, f or Appellant. Michael J. Neimand, House Counsel of United A utomobile Ins urance Company , Miami, f

or A ppellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, WALLIS and WOZNIAK , JJ. , concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CA-360-1230-00]


Special Area--Fee Adjustment

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of fee adjustment for use of Special Area within Butte 
County, California.

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

SUMMARY: The BLM is adjusting the daily fee from $2.50 per site, per 
day to $5.00 per site, per day for recreational mineral collection at 
the Forks of Butte Creek Special Recreation Management Area. This fee 
adjustment is required to reflect the current market value of the 
recreation opportunity being offered by BLM, and to reduce over-
crowding and degradation within the Special Recreation Management Area.

DATES: This fee adjustment will take effect January 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles M. Schultz, Area Manager, 
Bureau of Land Management, 355 Hemsted Drive, Redding, CA 96002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forks of Butte Creek Special Recreation 
Management Area in Butte County, California, was placed under 
protective withdrawal (S 4528) by Public Land Order 5329 on January 18, 
1973, to segregate the area from all forms of appropriation, including 
the mining laws. While the mineral rights to much of this area continue 
to be held under mining claims that pre-date this withdrawal, several 
segments (sites) of Butte Creek are not encumbered with mining claims. 
These sites have become extremely popular for recreational mineral 
collection via panning, sluicing and dredging.
    The authority for this fee adjustment is 43 CFR 8372. Any person 
who engages in mineral collection within the Forks of Butte Creek 
Special Recreation Area in violation of permit terms or stipulations 
may be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not 
to exceed 12 months.
Charles M. Schultz,
Redding Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-33409 Filed 12-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
PAUL R. WATKINS J800 - 19731
DANA LATHAM (I8@8 - 1974)

cmicann orice
SEARS TOWCA, SUITE $200

CHICAGE, HLLINDIS @OBOE
PHONE (312) @7€-7700, FAX 992-0767

Homsxouc prnce
OTH FLOOR
ETANDARO CHARTERED BANK AUILDING
4 DES VOEUX ROAD CENTAAL, HONG KONG
PHONE ¢952-2522-7888. FAX 2522-7000

wounoy ofpice
0 BIBHOPSCATE. ELEVENTH FLOOR
LONDON ECEM 3xF ENCLAND
PHONE #44-20°7 710-1000, FAX 7374-4400

AOS ANGELES Orring

835 WEST PHFTH STREET. SUITE «200
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071-2007
PHOME (219) #O5-1294, FAX BOI-8703

mmacnw SFFice,
VUITOR GASHEKA. 7, OTH FLoon
MOSCOW 123036, RUSSIA
PHONE 27-0068 7851294, FAX 785-1235
Me ERED OFFICE

ONE NEWARK CENTER. 1BrH FLOOR
MEWARK. MEW JERSEY O7101-3174
PHOME (0742 690-1234, FAX 829-7200

LATHAM & WATKINS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
53np AT THIRD, SUITE 1000
285 THIRD AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022-4802
TELEPHONE (212) BOG4200
Fax (212) 75-4864

December 22, 2000

Writer's Direct Dial: 212 906-1272
Email: bruce.prager@Iw.com

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Marion Bruno, Esq.

Assistant Director

Federal ‘Trade Commission

Bureau of Competition

Premerger Notification Office

Room 303

6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

Re:

Dear Marion:

ORANGE COUNTY OFECE
@50 TOWN CENTER ORIVE. EuITE 2000
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA O2E20-15 25
PHONE (714) GaO-IPSS, FAX 700-8290

Sax_nutse oFrice
70) ‘et ATAEET. suITc 2100
BAK CLEGO, CALIroAMA 2101-8157
PHONE (819) 2901294, Fax O86-7 419
SANFRANSISCO OFFICE
S05 MONTGOMERY STRECT. SUITE 1900
SAN PRANCIECO. CALIFORNIA O41N-2582
PHONE (4137 961-0000, FAX 305-6006
SULLEON valiry OFFICE

195 COMMONWEALTH DRIVE
MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 04026
PHONE (@S0) 328-4800. Fax 403-2600

SUMGAPORE OCrIce

BO RAFFLES PLAC!
VOB PLAZA 2, SI
PHONE +€5-030.

4-20
e oseeres
AX G3G-7%

Tanne OFFICE
KANCHATSU BUILDING. STH FLOOR
B41 KYOBASHI, CHUO-KU
TOKYO 104-0031, JAPAN
PHONE +013-5524-1B00. FAX 65720901

WARMINGION. D.C. orrice

JOO! PENNSYLVANIA AVE.. H.W, SUITE 1300
WASHINGTON. D.C 20004-2305
PHONE (BOR) €37-2200, PAX 697-2201

FILE NO, 23491-0017

Swedish Match North America, Inc./National Tobacco Company

This letter follows upon the conversation that my partner James Kearney and I
had this morning with John Graubert of the Federal Trade Commission, General Counsel's
office. I am writing on behalf of Swedish Match North America, Inc., and with the concurrence
of National Tobacco Company, to advise you that those parties have determined to abandon the
February 10, 2000 Asset Purchase Agreement relating to Swedish Match's proposed purchase of
National's chewing tobacco brands and related assets. Accordingly, I have been authorized by
Swedish Match AB to withdraw the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act Notification
and Report Form, Transaction No. 2000-1965, that it filed in connection with that proposed

transaction.

NY_DOCS\498850.1 [W97]


LATHAM & WATKINS,
Marion Bruno, Esq.
December 22, 2000
Page 2

Should you have any questions regarding this matter please call me. Have a very
happy Holiday Season.

ce: John D. Graubert, Esq.
Richard Liebeskind, Esq.

NY_DOCSW98850.1 [W97]
#### Eugene M. CALLIS and E. W. Hurst d/b/a Callis-Hurst Consultants, Appellants, v. GEE & JENSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-78.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 19, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of 1st Source Corporation (1st Source) on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry E. Lentych,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:








(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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 1st Source.











By:








/s/LARRY E.
LENTYCH


Larry E.
Lentych


Chief
Financial Officer


April 24,
2008