alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
; was not contingent upon providing substantial assistance. As to Augello's 

. 

sentence, this court will not disturb a district court's sentencing 

determination absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 989, 12 P.3d at 957. 

While Augello was sentenced to a prison term of 19 to 48 months, the 

maximum possible sentence, it is within the parameters provided by the 

relevant statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(d) (category D felony punishable by 

prison term of 1 to 4 years); NRS 205.690(2) (possession of a credit card 

without consent punishable as a category D felony), and Augello does not 

allege that those statutes are unconstitutional. Further, Augello has not 

demonstrated that the district court relied solely on impalpable or highly 

suspect evidence. See Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 

(1976). We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion at sentencing. 

In Docket No. 64779, Augello argues that the district court 

abused its discretion at sentencing by imposing a consecutive sentence to 

his sentence in Docket No. 64706. Further, Augello argues that the 

district court failed to make findings in support of its sentencing decision. 

We have consistently afforded the district court wide discretion in its 

sentencing decision, see e.g., Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 

1376, 1379 (1987), and it is within that discretion to impose consecutive 

sentences, see NRS 176.035(1). Here, the district court noted Augello's 

prior criminal record, his drug abuse, and his history of committing crimes 

to support his drug use before sentencing him to a consecutive prison term 

of 19 to 48 months. The sentence falls within the parameters provided by 

the relevant statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(d) (category D felony punishable 

by prison term of 1 to 4 years); NRS 205.760(1) (fraudulent use of a credit 

card punishable as a category D felony), and Augello does not allege that 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
J. 

those statutes are unconstitutional or that the district court relied on 

impalpable or highly suspect evidence. See Silks, 92 Nev. at 94, 545 P.2d 

at 1161. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at 

sentencing. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

scat-A-er 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Washoe County Alternate Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COUFtT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I 947A
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from McCombs
Realty Partners Ltd. 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000759198
<NAME> MCCOMBS REALTY PARTNERS LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       25
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           5,776
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,040)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          5,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,373)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,620
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,483
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (62)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.77)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD., 

Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., 

Appellee

______________________

2023-2099

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-

00120.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

November 30, 2023

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 30, 2023

Case: 23-2099 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 11/30/2023
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000005007-MAR-201212:50 PM
#### Charles D. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. CAP’N FROSTEE and Shelby Mutual Insurance Company and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 35908.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 8, 1967.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1967.

Kaplan, Dorsey & Sicking and Richard A. Sicking, Miami, for petitioner.

Lally, Miller & Hodges, Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date September 28, 1966.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.

*3Our consideration, of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is, therefore, denied.

The motion of petitioner for attorney’s fees is also denied.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 OF
TEL-SAVE  HOLDINGS,  INC. AND  SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                            1
<CASH>                                            23,199,000
<SECURITIES>                                     168,595,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                     61,213,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       8,088,000
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 272,572,000
<PP&E>                                            67,840,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     7,238,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   449,612,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            177,922,000
<BONDS>                                          389,424,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             669,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (150,212,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     449,612,000
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 324,769,000
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    269,427,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 245,140,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                22,752,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (189,857,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      40,388,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (230,245,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   50,562,000
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (179,683,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (2.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (2.88)
        


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1423

_____________________________

WALLACE MILLER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

October 23, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as unauthorized. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 

1236 (Fla. 2004). 

ROBERTS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Wallace Miller, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Investors FinancialServices, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Tommy A. Moore, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of1934; and

(2)                   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: March 12,  2008 |   |   |                              |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                       |   |   |                              |
|                       |   |   | By: /s/ Tommy A.  Moore, Jr. |
|                       |   |   | Tommy A.  Moore, Jr.         |
|                       |   |   | Chief Executive Officer           |

 

----
DAME, OF WRSTITUTION rcs arena ck Wt a a sg os sea ENUMERATED BY ME ON THE ase. pay OF SN : UMERATOR. "ie

PLACE OF ABODE. wae eile | RELATION. | tmat | vine crtmensair. | EDUCATION. NATIVITY AND MOTEER ToNGUR — ” ae ee:
| of cach pemen on 4 ? : ; i 4 3 ;

«@ ii Cemeeweeme | eT Te aes WG mene [a __

tle any en i soehsineit een at

if Hi if Cotes MEME A pabettann. : ey Mother tence Flewettith, - Mather tongun.

re ers ‘ : “e 7)a)e: w |u| sm |-ss | se | ee | te | 3? | a8 ae to PT Sy AN = : _ S tens = esas a ——— B

=) r * y j | . ' i . I ~
> a) Ly Ee Dae Ae leant Ay E41. ale oe Wa draneee SES BS fe i kbd Da
3 i DALS a Soc iste lee cot: oe ; o ae "3
F, 3 @~ i i vy | * H
‘ S i & eae. TM fi 4seita 1 ji. baat SEX fi 1 ae) - B) . ;
Sea Aisa Soe enters
— _ . : — ‘ : — ‘ iibin E
Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. :
i ; sags
hoe ay aS Fn Mee fh, ints Eade. £
ww * | c Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. Zz ‘
a 4 } 3 a : _ . —
5 “eve BSR 3 ” “ S at eee To “| ee Beste: iT 1 cn Sprit pA TORR Inines matoyce JA ry « rat ests *, Sate Eee are LRiasrtacey (Rirattics cee .

py
;

‘

ie
‘

;
i
$
‘

i

}

|

i

| | a ae p ;
Ss Wb ne ee Bh wry eee 2 eR
! bil
} { } ae aie oe ae _. rae
i | a
| s =~
( ‘ } - 7 H aw a
baits — ements +
2H . rele - , \ ~ = :
2 - - + Pa OR Sewer ; = — eT
ne ' " ° 4 . SIN as
" ej , | rs * - > « 5 x
wsrndinawn aac 1 n +, os
j
Fi . > 2 o ‘5 ~ eee ug
2 ie = * t - my = 7 7 4 - — : = '
rs z ri ex * - TO
a
me . 4
Bae ee ae ore ie 5 ed ee es em ie cs
2 x > em

PIN ees Pee) 5 Fe Niareng Baie ort!
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996 
<CASH>                                         197,900
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,438,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      6,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,040,800
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,016,700
<LOANS>                                     10,055,100
<ALLOWANCE>                                    170,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,126,700
<DEPOSITS>                                   8,763,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,413,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            255,600
<LONG-TERM>                                    868,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           49,400
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       172,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     605,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              14,126,700
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                567,800
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              193,800
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               761,600
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             326,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             500,700
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          260,900
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   30,800
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,100
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                242,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,400
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      49,400
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.49
<LOANS-NON>                                    148,400
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 3,900
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 20,300
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               181,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   47,600
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,900
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              170,100
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            14,800
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        155,300
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael A. PETRUCCELLI and Donald Genung, Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, Appellants, v. Leonard E. FULTS, Appellee.

No. 69-624.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 19, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Lowell Wayne ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-910.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 30, 1971.

*919Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

Appellant Lowell Wayne Roberts brings to this Court for review an order entered by the trial Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief.

On February 23, 1966, appellant Roberts was informed against for the offense of manslaughter. On February 28, 1966, he was arraigned, entered plea of not guilty, and in due course was tried and convicted by a jury of the offense charged. He was adjudged guilty by the Court, and on April 11, 1966, was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in the State Prison.

On October 28, 1970, some four and a half years thereafter, he filed his motion in the trial Court under CrPR 1.850, 33 F. S.A., to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence upon sundry grounds. On November 17, 1970, order was entered by the trial Court denying the post-trial motion. It is this order that Roberts now asks this Court to review. We affirm.

The order entered by the trial' Court denying the motion for relief contains a finding by the Court that the instant motion by Roberts is the “second of its nature” filed by him and that it sets forth “no new facts not contained in the previous petition”. It must be assumed, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that such previous motion was determined adversely on the merits against Roberts and also that the grounds urged in the previous motion were duplicated in the instant motion. This being true, the instant motion violates that portion of CrPR 1.850 which provides that “the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” Upon this premise alone, the order here appealed was not erroneous. See Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723; Laboda v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 107; Saunders v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 680.

However, we have carefully considered the contentions of appellant Roberts on this appeal and find that they are clearly without merit; so the order appealed from is therefore—

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1
                                  ------------

            Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP, independent auditors.


<PAGE>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.'s
33-77820, 33-77814, 33-69846, 33-69848, 33-66540, 33-66542, 33-63723, 333-02617,
333-38017, 333-50831, 333-90233, 333-90255 and 333-41812 of Bush Industries,
Inc. on Form S-8 and 333-14819 and 333-09291 of Bush Industries, Inc. on Form
S-3 of our report dated February 1, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Bush Industries, Inc. for the year ended December 29, 2001.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

Buffalo, New York
March 19, 2002
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11

                                 SYNTELLECT INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Years Ended December 31,
                                                                         ------------------------
                                                                1999                1998                1997
                                                             ------------       ------------       ------------
<S>                                                          <C>                <C>                <C>
Numerator:
      Numerator for basic and diluted income (loss) per
           share -- net income (loss)                        $ (1,866,000)      $ (2,618,000)      $    141,000
                                                             ============       ============       ============
Denominator:
      Denominator for basic income (loss) per share -
          weighted average number of common shares
          outstanding during the period                       13,034,000         13,441,000         13,328,000
      Incremental common shares attributable to exercise
          of outstanding common stock options                        --                 --              460,000
                                                             ------------       ------------       ------------
Denominator for diluted income (loss) per share                13,034,000         13,441,000         13,788,000
                                                             ============       ============       ============
Basic net income (loss) per share                            $      (0.14)      $      (0.19)      $       0.01
                                                             ============       ============       ============
Diluted net income (loss) per share                          $      (0.14)      $      (0.19)      $       0.01
                                                             ============       ============       ============
</TABLE>


The computation of diluted loss per share for 1999 and 1998 excluded the effect
of incremental common shares numbering 565,400 and 317,933, respectively,
attributable to the exercise of common stock options because their effect would
be anti-dilutive.