alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ben LOPEZ and Maria Rosa Gonzalez, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-952.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1972.

*70Meyer M. Brilliant and Alexander L. Martone, Miami, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVER'FIELD, *JJ.*

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal from convictions of grand larceny returned by a jury in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County. The State proved that the appellants were apprehended in the act of removing a large quantity of merchandise from a store in which they were employed. On this appeal, appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgments, and raise five additional points alleging procedural errors in the trial.

Turning first to the point concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, we have examined the record and find the evidence sufficient.

The first procedural point urges error because the court allowed an unlisted witness to testify. It does not present reversible error for the reasons given in Buttler v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 313. But see Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 744.

Appellants’ second point, which urges error because the court allowed two police officers to testify when they had not appeared for discovery depositions, does not show an abuse of discretion. It appears that the officers’ failure to respond at the time of the taking of the depositions was not deliberate. The trial judge would have permitted their depositions to be taken at a later time in the proceedings. It is appellants’ burden to show prejudicial error. See Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 771.

Appellants’ third and fourth points are directed to an adverse ruling concerning objections to questions propounded to witnesses, and to an adverse ruling concerning the best evidence rule. The record reveals that appellants had a full, fair trial. The evidentiary rulings complained of concerned nonessential matters. The court’s rulings did not tend to prejudice the defendants before the jury, nor did the rulings prevent appellants from presenting matters important to their defense. No prejudicial error has been demonstrated. See Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332; Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26, 103 So. 170 (1925).

The last point urges that the court erred in not granting a mistrial after the prosecuting attorney made a comment during final argument. This point is applicable only to the appellant Gonzalez. A reading of the comment convinces us that there is no reasonable basis upon which the jury could have interpreted it as a comment upon appellant Gonzalez’s failure to testify. See Parks v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 431.

Affirmed.
#### Lonice Fletcher BIRGE, Appellant, v. Thomas James BIRGE, Appellee.

No. 72-611.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         632727
<SECURITIES>                                   4976625
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6258300
<ALLOWANCES>                                   123516
<INVENTORY>                                    4008381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16471325
<PP&E>                                         892460
<DEPRECIATION>                                 313928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19354587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6820596
<BONDS>                                        105886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    6975000
<COMMON>                                       2384
<OTHER-SE>                                     5450721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19354587
<SALES>                                        13584255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13773887
<CGS>                                          8704447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3875151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             393112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                801177
<INCOME-TAX>                                   232930
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            568247
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   568247
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .18
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,555,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,352,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   599,000
<INVENTORY>                                    753,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,526,000
<PP&E>                                      52,289,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,069,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,265,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,662,000
<BONDS>                                     14,278,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,873,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,265,000
<SALES>                                     18,595,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,595,000
<CGS>                                        8,130,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,074,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             992,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,810,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,754,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,056,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 30,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,026,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.09


</TABLE>
#### Alfred Stanley KOWAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-102.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and William C. Owen, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal 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 RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Richard D. STOUT, Appellant, v. Rafael Alberto COTT and Keys Community Hospital, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-1065.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 3, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF DECEMBER 9, 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD77124 WU Building Investors, LLC vs. Watkins & Company Real Estate, Inc.

D/B/A Watkins & Company, Inc. and Richard C. Watkins

WD77281 In the Interest of: C.E.B. & L.N.B.; Juvenile Officer; Missouri

Children’s Division vs. C.C.B. (Father)

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD76959 State of Missouri vs. Brandon M. Roberts

WD77003 State of Missouri vs. Mark Black

WD77225 State of Missouri vs. Leilani Denney
#### Harold J. BENNETT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44581.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 282 So.2d 881.
#### Jimmy Lee SYKES, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary of Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Respondent.

No. 77-2286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 7, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Chief, App. Div., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Benedict P. Kuehne, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus DENIED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/  Randy L. KotlerRandy L. KotlerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2  Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    I, Jill R. Marlatt, Controller (Principal Financial Officer) of Gateway Energy Corporation, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries for the periods presented.   Date:  November 15, 2010/s/ Jill R. Marlatt Jill R. Marlatt Controller (Principal Financial Officer)


---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**RODMEN FOSTER, BV-3203,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**KATHLEEN KANE, ATTORNEY**

**GENERAL FOR STATE OF**
**PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL C. POTTEIGER, CHAIRMAN OF THE** 

**PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, AND JOHN**  **E. WETZEL, SECRETARY OF THE**

**PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 180 MM 2014** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 30 th**  **day of December, 2014, the Application for Leave to File** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is** DENIED

**.**
#### Robert Lee HOLMES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44291.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 25, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 730.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Verizon North Inc.





EXHIBIT 99





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 on Form 10-Q of Verizon North Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies 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) 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 as of the dates
and for the periods presented in the Report.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Dated: May 13, 2003 |  | /S/    LAWRENCE T. BABBIO,
JR.                   
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |                                                  
|                    |  | Lawrence T. Babbio, Jr.                          
|                    |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                   
|Dated: May 13, 2003 |  | /S/    LAWRENCE R. WHITMAN                       
|                    |  |                                                  
|                    |  | Lawrence R. Whitman                              
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer                          





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Verizon North Inc. and will be retained by Verizon North Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15576 and #15577; MARYLAND Disaster Number MD-00036]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Maryland (FEMA-4374-DR), dated 06/25/2018. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         05/15/2018 through 05/19/2018.
 DATES: Issued on 06/25/2018. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/24/2018. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/25/2019.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/25/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Frederick, Washington The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 155766 and for economic injury is 155770. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) James Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2018-14164 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### MOLTON RICKARDS, defend’t. *vs.*ROBERT PATTERSON, plaintiff.

Referees may adjourn a cause for consideration, but the adjournment must appear by record.

On certiorari to a judgment by scire facias on a transcript from another county, will the court revise the original judgment.

Certiorari to Justice Wilds, of Kent county, on a judgment in sci. fa. on a judgment by Justice Fennimore, of New Castle county.

The record showed the transcript of a suit before Justice Fennimore, of New Castle county, by Patterson against Rickards, and. judgment on the 17th of June, 1845, by default for plaintiff, for $23 11; and execution issued and endorsed “ not put in the hands of constable ; defendant appears and opens judgment for trial.” On this transcript Justice Wilds, of Kent county, issued a scire facias on the 17th of' July, 1848, to which there was an appearance; and, after several adjournments, a trial by referees on the 19th of August ; report by them September 1st, and judgment for plaintiff for $15 00.

*Mr. Srhithers*

filed the following exceptions :—1. That there was no judgment on Justice Fennimore’s docket, which would authorize a scire facias, as the judgment rendered on the 17th of June had *236been opened. 2. That the referees’ report on the 1st of September, was illegal, as the casé was tried on the 19th of August, and there was no adjournment, shown by the record, either by the justice or the referees. 3. That the sum found due did not appear, except by reference to the body of the report; and, 4. That it did not‘appear from the *record*that the award was in writing, otherwise than by reference to the award itself. *(Digest,*317 ; 2 *Harr. Rep.,*74.)

*Comegys,*for plaintiff below.

*Smithers,*for defendant below.

*Comegys,*contra.

1. The judgment in New Castle county .was not actually opened. 2. This court will not reverse a judgment rendered in New Castle county. To do that a certiorari should be taken in New Castle county. This court may reverse Justice Wilds’ judgment, but not Justice Fennimore’s. 3. As to adjournments, the referees had the control of the case, and not the justice, and they adjourned the cause. (4 *Harr. Rep.,*353, *Deputy*vs. *Betts.)*

Smithers.

Referees may adjourn a case, but it must appear that they have adjourned it.

*The Court*

reversed the proceedings before Justice Wilds, on the third exception, viz : that although the adjournment might be by the referees, the record must show that there was such adjournment.

By consent then, and by request of *Mr. Comegys,*the whole proceedings were reversed.
257 La. 175

#### Sandra Mary GUIDRY and Allen J. Guidry v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC., et al.

No. 50999.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: Sandra Mary Guidry and Allen J. Guidry applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 239 So.2d 744.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we cannot say the result is incorrect.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Thomas GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. Gerald CONNORS, Superintendent, Kendall Childrens Home, Respondent.

No. 43516.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 4, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal L 349/29 D

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.349.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 349 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5229 December 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.349.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 349

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5229 December 2009

---

| Contents | | V   Acts adopted from 1 December 2009 under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Euratom Treaty | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS WHOSE PUBLICATION IS OBLIGATORY |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention | 1 |

Contents

V   Acts adopted from 1 December 2009 under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Euratom Treaty

page

ACTS WHOSE PUBLICATION IS OBLIGATORY

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1272/2009 of 11 December 2009 laying down common detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards buying-in and selling of agricultural products under public intervention

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SkillSoft Public Limited
Company (the "Company") for the period ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Thomas J. McDonald, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his
knowledge:





(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.




SKILLSOFT
      PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANYDate:
      April 1, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Thomas J. McDonaldThomas
      J. McDonaldChief
      Financial Officer