alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael A. BAGGETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-736.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 4, 1974.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Elliott C. Metcalfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted, adjudged guilty, and sentenced to seven years imprisonment on a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and to five years on a charge of grand larceny, to run consecutively.

Upon a review of the briefs and record on appeal, we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Although not raised on appeal, we conclude that in light of the facts and circumstances of this case the trial court erred in imposing upon appellant two separate sentences on two crimes which were facets of the same transaction, sjnce the only valid sentence that could have been entered was for the highest offense. Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So.2d 12.

The case is remanded for the purpose of vacating the sentence as to grand larceny and resentencing appellant on the judgment for breaking and entering.

Remanded with directions.

MANN, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
#### Wayne Jasper PRATER, Plaintiff-Relator, v. Elayn HUNT, Director, Department of Corrections, State of Louisiana, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 4317.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 12, 1973.

Wayne Jasper Prater, in pro. per.

Elayn Hunt, Director, Dept, of Corrections, State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, for defendant-respondent.

Before FRUGÉ, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

By petition filed in this court, the relator Prater applies to our original jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus ordering his release from custody in the Louisiana State Penitentiary on the grounds that he is being improperly detained in that institution.

The original jurisdiction of the Louisiana courts of appeal is limited to matters arising in cases of which they have appellate jurisdiction. Since they do not have appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters, the original jurisdiction of these intermediate courts to issue writs of habeas corpus does not include within its scope the question of confinements arising by reason of criminal proceedings. See State ex rel. Simien v. Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish, 186 So.2d 669 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966); State ex rel. Jones v. Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish, 185 So.2d 80 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966).

For the foregoing reasons, we deny the relator’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied.
{incorporated clty, town, or vitae, within-the above-nained. divtato
Enumerated by mo 00 Oa BD envi day of Tere, 1000,

WELT: CENSU OF THE UNEDPED. STATES.

| SCHEDULE No. 1.—POPULATION.

(orrraten acres LE

a

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Adi

Hei a

hy
tk

istration,

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

, ot the U.S. Census Bureau.

a alli
Hd ul PRT
com ‘

= eget cae

wd,

sgh

aT!
aS |
dactiea ff

ul

‘|
shy

aul |

haa

— 4S

ipo

NF

“tl

ZL ZPD clewscs

Resse SRS SSE SRES

FRE SE NFS

[EERE
#### FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Candace COURBIER and James Courbier, her husband, et al., Respondents.

No. 43810.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 5, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 850.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50382

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WARREN ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-96-2

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Warren Anthony 

Johnson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Johnson has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50382 Document: 00514280652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 17-50382

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-50382 Document: 00514280652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
#### Carl DACHTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-342.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1974.

Arthur Massey, Miami', for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and SPECTOR, SAM, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s first point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the trial court found him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to sixty days in the county jail. Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence, although conflicting, substantially supports the holding of the trial judge. See State v. Sebastian, Fla. 1965, 171 So.2d 893. Appellant’s remaining points appear to be appellate afterthoughts and do not present reversible error upon authority of the rule stated in Silver v. State, Fla. 1966, 188 So.2d 300.

Affirmed.
MEMORANDUM 

To: File 

From: Marc Thomas 

Subject: Meeting with Used Oil Representatives 

Date: October 5, 2010 

On September 16, 2010, EPA met with representatives from the used oil community to discuss 

their comments regarding how used oil (specifically used oil that is considered “off-spec”) is 

characterized in the proposed rule, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that 

are Solid Wastes.” Representatives of the Used Oil Management Association (UOMA), NORA, 

the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), EnergyLogic, URS Corp., and Clean 

Burn were in attendance and discussed how the characterization of off-spec used oil as a solid 

waste would impact their industry. EPA asked clarifying questions regarding the information 

presented. 

The list of meeting attendees is attached as Attachment A. A copy of UOMA’s comments that 

were distributed at the meeting is attached as Attachment B. A copy of a follow-up email from 

UOMA to EPA clarifying some of their comments is attached as Attachment C. 

Attachments
# F i r e F l y M e d i a G r o u p U A V F l e e t a s o f O C T 1 5 

# S p e c S h e e t f o r U A V M u l t i r o t o r C r a f t D J I S 1 0 0 0 + a n d C i n e s t a r C S 8 c o n f i g u r e d t o X 8

D J I S 1 0 0 0 +

m u l t i r o t o r U A V
F u t a b a 1 4 s g h a n d h e l d l i n e o f s i g h t c o n t r o l l e r w i t h G P S F u t a b a 1 4 s g h a n d h e l d l i n e o f s i g h t c o n t r o l l e r w i t h G P S
T B D

D J I 4 1 1 4 4 0 0 K V b r u s h l e s s m o t o r s T

a t t u 6 s 2 2

. 8 v 1 6 , 0 0 0 m A h 1 9 3 1 g 4

. 2 K g
1 1

. 0 K g

1

. 2 6 K g i n c l u d e d i n M T O W R F 2

. 4 0 0 G H z Z e n m u s e Z 1 5 B M P C C g i m b a l
n o f l y z o n e s h a r d p r o g r a m m e d i n G P S

p e r m a n u f a c t u r e r

2 0 d B m @ 2

. 4 0 0 G H z

u p d a t e d a s p e r m a n u f a c t u r e r 1 5 m / s A T

T I o r G P S
R F A T

T I + G P S b y D J I A 2 f l i g h t c o n t r l l e r

1 8 c h a n n e l r a d i o c o n t r o l l e r 2

. 4 0 0 G H z t o 1

. 2 m B l a c k M a g i c P o c k e t o n Z e n m u s e z 1 5
4 8 9 g ( 1

. 1 l b s ) n o l e n s 1 0 4 5 m m x 5 1 1 m m x 4 0 0 m m T i g e r M o t o r s U 7 v 2 b r u s h l e s s m o t o r s T B D 

### C i n e s t a r C S 8 c o n f i g u r e d t o X 8
m u l t i r o t o r U A V

T

a t t u 6 s 2 2

. 8 v 1 6 , 0 0 0 m A h 1 9 3 1 g 5

. 7 K g
1 8 K g

1 0 4 5 m m x 6 5 0 m m x 5 2 5 m m

1 5 m / s A T

T I o r G P S
R F A T

T I + G P S b y D J I A 2 g l i g h t c o n t r o l l e r

1 8 c h a n n e l r a d i o c o n t r o l l e r 2

. 4 0 0 G H z t o 1

. 2 m

R e d c a m e r a o n M o V I M 1 0 1

. 8 K g ( 4 l b s ) n o l e n s 1

. 5 K g i n c l u d e d i n M T O W R F 2

. 4 0 0 G H z M o V I M 1 0 g i m b a l

n o f l y z o n e s h a r d p r o g r a m m e d i n G P S

p e r m a n u f a c t u r e r

u p d a t e d a s p e r m a n u f a c t u r e r

2 0 d B m @ 2

. 4 0 0 G H z
# • Page No

.. 

# M

.....

# ··-······-~ ' Note 

### A.-The ee\isu; Yeer 

# begins 3une 1, 1879, 

### and

# en~ May 81, 1880. ,.,_. •-"':'. • • • , ; }, 

# s ; I

# o·:.v~**L~~** Note B.-AJl persons will be Included in the EnunieraUon who were livlag on the 1st day or.lune, 1880. Ne;> others vvill. Chlldren BORN SINCE uperv sor 5 1 0 •
-

### -/~.-- --- .June 1 • fSSO, Will be OMI'ITED. Members or Fatnllfes who have DIED SINCE June 

### t, 1880, will be INCLUDED.

### ~ Enumeration Dist. No.

__ 

# u_.___ Note C.-Questlons 

### t:os. 13" 14, 22 and 23 

### are not to be asked In 

### respect to 

### persons

# und~r to years 

## or age. 

# Si:tt.EDULE 

# 1.-Inliabitanta

# in_&oJfitAM~.0~-**~~~ty** oL

# /?°~tf :4,

# :ta~e of

....

# ~ enumerate by me on 

# th.e

.. ·-·**~** 

# . day of Jtllle, 1880

.....

# ~~
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00511

- CV
JUBILEE ACADEMIC CENTER, INC.

v. CAMERON APPRAISAL DISTRICT
On Appeal from the 404th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- DCL

- 05470

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APP EALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 16, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                           7,869
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                    103,806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,914
<PP&E>                                       1,255,259
<DEPRECIATION>                                 648,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 865,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,319
<BONDS>                                        457,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       133,714
<OTHER-SE>                                    (33,226)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   865,986
<SALES>                                        221,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221,806
<CGS>                                          212,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,266)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,638)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Sidney RAMEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-996.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 19, 1967.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

An information charging the appellant with assault with intent to commit rape was filed in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the information and waived jury trial. At trial of the cause, the court permitted an eight year old girl to testify, over the appellant’s objection as to the competency of the witness to testify. At the conclusion of the cause, the trial court found the appellant guilty and entered the conviction and sentence appealed herein.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the eight year old child to testify, on the grounds that by her own testimony it was shown she did not properly appreciate the nature and obligation of the oath to tell the truth, and that the trial court failed to properly instruct her in this regard. We affirm.

It does not appear from the record that the trial judge manifestly abused his discretion in permitting the minor witness to testify. See: Rowe v. State, 87 Fla. 17, 98 So. 613; Dings v. Dings, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 227; Swain v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 3. Therefore, the judgment, conviction and sentence here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1



Below each General Partner's name is a list of the limited  partnerships,  other
than the  Registrant,  for which the General Partner serves as a general partner
and the companies for which the General  Partner serves as a director.  The list
includes only those  limited  partnerships  and companies  which have a class of
securities  registered  pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or are subject to the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Act.

John J. Nooney

  Limited Partnerships:

   Nooney Real Property Investors-Two, L.P.        Nooney Income Fund Ltd., L.P.
   Nooney Real Property Investors-Four, L.P.


                                      -22-
Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATION
                                      OF
                              PSB HOLDINGS, INC.
                UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
PSB Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (1) the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

      Date: August 16, 2004

                                           DAVID K. KOPPERUD
                                           David K. Kopperud
                                           President and CEO


                                           SCOTT M. CATTANACH
                                           Scott M. Cattanach
                                           Treasurer
                                           (Chief Financial Officer)
#### Thomas JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-692.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 12, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### McCOTTER MOTORS, INC., Petitioner, v. BORG-WARNER CORPORATION and American Motors, Inc., Respondents.

No. 73-1398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
ve Katee Hen ala hoe:
os Bile’ Pie sg 7

x

te
Ae pe te ee ne
‘

aca Letianel |
Sina, Savane by 7

{

: wae La vad Oe if

|
iS See
aaa

a ae ae

r
MN abla Seca aR ei ts STA MC ee | of :

dali nan nae

Se eee ot

oe

ae rene Diagn ecb ao queens

Se
.

Potae
|

SSN

Beh ae Poe?

ye ey aie. ets ae,

Ong ae

~
ewan as

Cee ae
eth ae tw = .¢

Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,
not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http:/Mwww.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.

| J EF A 4 | |
/ Be Eh he! ae feet |

tuenainearpatameeh abe adenine

Ee te es se le we

=
Cincom covhnapaibeeis
oo enw cwew esate <a

“\
he

N
‘\
al
‘x
N

Oe

em em NER ee tm ae

-~ -———— a -

ee oe

Nd

ee

-

, ‘
i
54
:
;
“4
}
+
ee,

| Wie : = 5
ane Orerat eet . erhic tet
Bat, 4 ene = ‘
PT Sy! 7 \roone aME OUNSUn Wh reas SPC

NS Oi
2. Ty fe Be
lai seh eb REO st tl tain: dag
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 11.2

                             PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------
                                                       NUMBER            PERCENT            EQUIVALENT
                                                      OF SHARES        OUTSTANDING            SHARES
                                                   --------------    ---------------    ----------------
<S>                                                  <C>                    <C>          <C>      
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                2,300,000              100.00%          2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                               642,233               96.99%            622,916
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock          15,310,943              100.00%         15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                        11,242,857              100.00%         11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                         4,323,874              100.00%          4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                          6,000,000              100.00%          6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued             58,431               54.03%             31,573
   1997 Warrants Exercised                                48,300               97.59%             47,137
                                                   --------------                         --------------
                                                      39,926,638                              39,879,300

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                           39,879,300

NET LOSS                                                                                  $  (11,104,845)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                        $        (0.28)
                                                                                          ==============
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with theAnnual Report of Particle Drilling Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jim B. Terry, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Jim B. Terry        |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Jim B. Terry            |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date: December 13,2007

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParticleDrilling Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Particle DrillingTechnologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
#### WEBER *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 40,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided November 17, 1961.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Per Curiam.

For the reason stated by Judge Evans for dismissing the petition, the application for leave to appeal is denied.

*Application denied.*
#### Eva Mae FUSELIER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 4067 C.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Jan. 29, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Mar. 7, 1973.

Armentor and Wattigny, by Gerard B. Wattigny, Milton LeBlanc, Jr., and Henry A. Bernard, Jr., New Iberia, Broussard, Broussard & Moresi, by Paul G. Moresi, Jr., Thompson & Sellers, by Roger C. Sellers, Abbeville, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Davidson, Meaux, Onebane and Donohoe, by John G. Torian, II, Lafayette, Scofield, Bergstedt and Gerard, by Thomas M. Bergstedt, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellees.

Before FRUGÉ, HOOD and DOMEN-GEAUX, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the case of Trahan, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al., La.App., 273 So.2d 331, the judgment of the district court is affirmed at the costs of plaintiffs-appellants.

Affirmed.
December 3, 2015 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation Docket ManagementSystem 1200 NewJerseyAve., S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Re: Petition of JGL Enterprises for an Exemption Pursuantto Section 

### 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Director: Flight Standards Service: Please acceptthis as my request to withdraw my application for exemption to section 

### 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

### I returned a completed application to your department on orabout September 17, 2015 and after careful thought, Iwant to withdraw this petition as I do not have any intentto pursue personal or private business. 

### I do wish be in complete compliance to register my hobby drone when it becomes avaliable on-line. If you may need anything from me to complete this request, pleasefeel free to contact me. 

## Sincerelym.

# Jeffery~Jw(**~** JGL Enterprises 1189 Zucco Lane Johnstown, PA. 15905 Phone: 814-254-6619 Email: jlowry999@hotmail.com 

# __ j