alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Earl GUNSBY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 76-4291

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 12, 1977.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for respondent-appellant.

J. Richard Rahter (Court-appointed), St. Petersburg, Fla., for petitioner-appellee.

Before GOLDBERG, CLARK and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc.*v. *Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al„*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Earl Gunsby was charged with committing robbery. He entered into a plea bargain with a Florida prosecutor. He agreed to testify against a co-defendant, and the State agreed that Gunsby’s maximum sentence would be seven years. Shortly after entering the guilty plea, Gunsby gave a sworn statement to the prosecutor in which he incriminated himself and his co-defendant.

At the trial of the co-defendant, Gunsby’s testimony differed from that given in the sworn statement. The co-defendant was acquitted. The State’s motion to withdraw Gunsby’s guilty plea because of his failure to keep the plea bargain was granted. Gunsby entered a plea of not guilty and went to trial. Over defense objection, the prosecution introduced the inculpatory statement. The jury found Gunsby guilty, and he was sentenced to serve 20 years.

The district court granted Gunsby’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the sworn statement was part of the *128aborted plea bargain and that evidence thereof should not have been presented to the jury. The district court ordered Guns-by re-tried in 120 days, and the respondent has appealed.

Subsequent to the district court’s order, the Supreme Court decided *Hutto v. Ross,*429 U.S. 28, 97 S.Ct. 202, 50 L.Ed.2d 194 (1976). In that case a confession made subsequent to a plea bargain was held to be admissible at trial after the plea bargain soured because the confession was not part of the plea bargain. In the case before us the appellant argues that the inculpatory statement was not part of the plea bargain; the appellee contends that it is. The record is unclear on this point. Since *Hutto v. Ross*cannot be applied without this factual determination, we reverse the district court’s order and remand for an evidentiary hearing. See *Townsend v. Sain,*372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
H. Res. 319

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 21, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3) to amend the Federal Election Campaign

Act of 1971 to provide for a voluntary system of spending

limits and benefits for congressional election campaigns, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

the amendments made in order by this resolution and shall

not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

House Administration. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall

be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on

House Administration now printed in the bill, modified by the
2

HRES 319 EH

amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee

on Rules accompanying this resolution. The committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall

be considered as read. No amendment to the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall

be in order except the amendment printed in part 2 of the

report of the Committee on Rules, which may be offered only

by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as

read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendment as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original

text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit, which

may not include instructions. After passage of H.R. 3, it shall

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill S. 3 and

to consider the Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order

to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate

bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 3 as
3

HRES 319 EH

passed by the House. If the motion is adopted and the Senate

bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to move

that the House insist on its amendments to S. 3 and request

a conference with the Senate thereon.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Orlando CATANESE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41421.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                           15,580
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    22,473
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,426
<INVENTORY>                      31,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 78,992
<PP&E>                          147,568
<DEPRECIATION>                  107,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  151,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            54,009
<BONDS>                          52,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                         800
<COMMON>                          2,206
<OTHER-SE>                       38,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    151,837
<SALES>                          27,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 42,419
<CGS>                            17,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    26,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 17,287
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               (1,662)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (2,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                        300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (3,088)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     (3,088)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.16)

        

</TABLE>
#### Harold ROBINSON, a minor by Isadora Robinson, his mother and next friend, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, and Holmes Braddock, Chairman of the Board, et al., Respondents.

No. 43370.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 14, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Friendly Ice CreamCorporation (“the Company”) for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2001 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Paul V. Hoagland, as Senior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer, Treasurer and Assistant Clerk of the Company, hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

1)              The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|   | By:                                                                                          | /s/  PAUL V. HOAGLAND |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  Paul V. Hoagland                                                                 |
|   | Title:  Senior Vice President,

Chief  Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Clerk |
|   | Date:    November 4, 2002                                                          |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         8853273
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2597553
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     925138
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        16896088
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          16928216
<LOANS>                                       31092803
<ALLOWANCE>                                      41592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                61807439
<DEPOSITS>                                    48443533
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1185343
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8878
<OTHER-SE>                                    12169685
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                61807439
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2069138
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               757481
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                876020
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3702639
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1872658
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1872658
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1829981
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     3201
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               77137
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1613369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 478555
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      478555
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    326932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.26
<LOANS-NON>                                       3000
<LOANS-PAST>                                     19000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  80000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 38381
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                41592
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             41592
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Sherwood SPENCER, Appellee.

No. 71-5.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Jose A. Gonzalez, Judge.

Appeal from order denying Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to subpoena duces tecum; appeal dismissed.
260 La. 1068

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Willie ALLEN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52130.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 29, 1972.

In re: Willie Allen applying for writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Since a hearing has been fixed for March 1, 1972 by the trial court, this application is moot.
#### WILD *v.*PURE OIL CO.

This case is controlled by *Fetters*v. *Wittmer Oil & Gas Properties, ante,*310.

Appeal from Isabella; Hart (Bay), J.

Submitted October 22, 1931.

(Docket No. 170, Calendar No. 35,783.)

Decided April 19, 1932.

Bill by Elsie May Wild against Pure Oil Company and others to set aside an oil and gas lease. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*O’Keefe <& O’Keefe,*for plaintiff.

*Virgil W. McClintic, F. H. Dodds,*and *James E. Ryan,*for defendant Pure Oil Company.

Per Curiam.

This case is a companion of *Fetters*v. *Wittmer Oil & Gas Properties, ante,*310, and is controlled thereby.

Affirmed accordingly, with costs to appellee.
#### FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and the Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. John D. FAUGHN and Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43277.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### SAMUEL CRANSTON, d. b. app’t. *vs.*CHENEY NIELDS, p. b. app’t.

Tlie agent of a money lender cannot charge a borrower commissions, unless employed by him to procure the loan.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in an action of assumpsit. Pleas, non-assumpsit and usury.

The action was by C. Nields, for services rendered in the negociation of a loan of $5,000. The claim was one per cent, commission. A witness was asked if that was the usual rate of commission, which was objected to as ah attempt to set up a special custom, at a particular place; and no such custom was set out in the declaration.

*Mr.*Rodney.

We do not seek to prove a custom; but the value of services rendered.

*The*Court.

As a custom of money lenders, it cannot be proved. If.the plaintiff rendered service on the employment of the defendant, for him, he is entitled to recover the value of those services, and the witness may give his estimate of the value of the service in the place where it was rendered.

The case was argued before the jury by *Mr.*Rodney, for the plaintiff, and *Mr. Gordon,*for the defendant.

*The Court*

charged that to entitle the plaintiff to recover, the jury must be satisfied that the defendant employed Nields to render him this service of procuring for him a loan of money; that in this respect he must be shown to have acted as the agent of the borrower, and not the lender; and that a mere application for a loan of money at the legal rate of interest, made to a person who holds himself out as a money lender for others, creates no relation of agency as between the borrower and the lender, or the agent of the lender, and *373gives the lender no right to claim of the borrower, compensation for procuring the loan. That such a money lender has no right to charge the borrower with commissions. The owner of the money lent has no right to charge for making the loan, any thing more than six per cent., which the law allows him. If he should take any thing more, it would be usury. Neither cm his agent do it. Nor can the principal and agent by joining together, take from a person to whom they lend money, more than six per cent., without violating the law.

*Rodney,*for plaintiff.

*Gordon,*for defendant.

Yet if a man in want of money employs another as an agent to procure it for him, the value of the service thus rendered for him, and on his employment, can be recovered in this action; just as any other services rendered for another at his request, may be the subject of an action.

The plaintiff had a verdict.
Top
Skip to main content

The U.S. National Archives Home

BlogsBookmark/ShareContact Us

- Research Our RecordsExplore our nation’s history through our documents, photos, and records.
- Veterans’ Service RecordsRequest military records and learn about other services for yourself or a family member.
- Educator ResourcesFind primary sources, tools for teaching with documents, and student and educator programs.
- Visit UsPlan a trip to the Museum, to one of the Presidential Libraries, or to conduct research.
- America’s Founding DocumentsThe Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

National Archives Showcases Historical Coal Mining Communities with New Photography Exhibit

## Archives News

                -  National Archives Unveils New Mass Digitization Center in College Park 
                -  Authors Discuss Russell Lee’s American Coal Miner Photos 
                -  America’s Favorite Pastime: Baseball at the Archives 

** More News...** Upcoming Events...

##  Archives.gov

## Information For...

              - Citizen Archivists
              - Federal Employees
              - Genealogists
              - Members of Congress
              - Preservation
              - Records Managers
              - The Press

## Publications

              - Today's *Federal Register*
              - Prologue Magazine
              - Subscribe to Email Newsletters
              - All Publications

## Orgs. & Offices

              - Center for Legislative Archives
              - Federal Records Center
              - Office of the Federal Register
              - Office of the Inspector General
              - Presidential Libraries
              - Staff Directory

## About Us

              - What is the National Archives?
              - National Archives by the Numbers
              - Doing Business with Us
              - Plans and Reports
              - Open Government
              - Our Plain Language Activities

## I Want To...

              - Get My Military Record
              - Plan a Research Visit
              - Visit the Museum
              - View Online Exhibits
              - Apply for a Grant
              - Research Presidential Records

## Participate

              - Attend an Event
              - Donate to the Archives
              - Work at the Archives
              - Volunteer at the Archives

## Resources

              - A-Z Index
              - America's Founding Docs
              - Contact Us
              - En Español
              - FAQs
              - Forms

## Shop Online

              - Visit the National Archives Store
              - Buy Reproductions and Microfilm

## Connect With Us

- Facebook
- X
- Instagram
- Tumblr
- YouTube
- Blogs
- Flickr

 

Contact Us · Accessibility · Privacy Policy · Freedom of Information Act · No FEAR Act · USA.gov

The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration1-86-NARA-NARA or 1-866-272-6272

Top
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Dec ember 15, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00432

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.G. ET AL., CHILDREN,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA00058

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

State’s motion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED. We ord er the brief due

January 2, 2018.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of December, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### George E. GOODSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1370.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 10, 1978.

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

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper because no existing state statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any offense. *Speller v. State,*305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Appellant need not be present at resentencing.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Remedy Corporation of our report dated January 24, 1997, included in the 1996
Annual Report to Stockholders of Remedy Corporation.

Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of Remedy
Corporation listed in Item 14(a)2. This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the consolidated financial statement schedule referred
to above, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 File Nos. 33-90378 and 33-91560) pertaining to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and the 1995 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan and 1995
Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of Remedy Corporation of our report
dated January 24, 1997 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the consolidated financial statement schedule included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                                          /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 27, 1997

                                       17
#### Elizabeth P. BEERS, Petitioner, v. Charles Arnold SEESHOLTS et al., Respondents.

No. 43379.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J.; dissents.
#### Ronald SHEPHERD, on behalf of; and all in the State of Arizona similarly situated; Rollin Barkley, on behalf of; and all in the State of Arizona similarly situated; Robert A. Bricker; Marion Rodgers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Administrator of the Veterans’ Administration, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rollin BARKLEY; Ronald Shepherd; Robert A. Bricker; Marion Rodgers, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 90-15911, 90-16670.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 10, 1991.

Decided April 1, 1992.

James M. Ackerman, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.

Malcolm L. Stewart, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.

*133Before: NORRIS, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

In this appeal, we decide whether the Arizona anti-deficiency law is preempted by Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) regulations that authorize the VA to collect deficiencies on VA-guaranteed home loans. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 33-729 A, 33-814 G. Because the Arizona anti-deficiency law at issue here is identical to the Oregon anti-deficiency law we considered in *Connelly v. Derwinski,*961 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir.1992), we hold, on the basis of that opinion, that Arizona’s anti-deficiency law is preempted by 38 C.F.R. § 36.4323(e). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment awarded to the Secretary of Veteran Affairs.

In a separate unpublished memorandum disposition, we also affirm the summary judgment against Barkley, who raised issues particular to his case.

AFFIRMED.