alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00826-CR

Moses SALAS, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08-01-013-CRW

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2010

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written 

plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 
04-09-00826-CR

- 2 -

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part 

of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On March 12, 2010, we ordered that 

this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court 

certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate 

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No 

response was filed. In the absence of an amended trial court certification showing that the 

appellant has the right of appeal, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### Frances Y. HOLMES et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY.

No. 61498.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Frances Y. Holmes, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 353 So.2d 737.

Writ denied.
<PAGE>

                              September 5, 2000


Simple Technology, Inc.
3001 Daimler Street
Santa Ana, California 92705-5812

                  Re:      Simple Technology, Inc. Registration Statement on
                           Form S-1 for 6,364,000 Shares of Common Stock

Ladies and Gentlemen:

                  We have acted as counsel to Simple Technology, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the proposed
issuance and sale by the Company of up to 6,364,000 shares of the Company's
Common Stock (the "Shares") pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement
on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act").

                  This opinion is being furnished in accordance with the
requirements of Item 16(a) of Form S-1 and Item 601(b)(5)(i) of Regulation
S-K.

                  We have reviewed the Company's charter documents and the
corporate proceedings taken by the Company in connection with the issuance
and sale of the Shares. Based on such review, we are of the opinion that the
Shares have been duly authorized, and if, as and when issued in accordance
with the Registration Statement and the related prospectus (as amended and
supplemented through the date of issuance) will be legally issued, fully paid
and nonassessable.

                  We consent to the filing of this opinion letter as Exhibit
5.1 to the Registration Statement and to the reference to this firm under the
caption "Legal Matters" in the prospectus which is part of the Registration
Statement. In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that we are within
the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act,
the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission
promulgated thereunder, or Item 509 of Regulation S-K.


<PAGE>

                                                             Simple Technology
                                                                        Page 2

                  This opinion letter is rendered as of the date first
written above and we disclaim any obligation to advise you of facts,
circumstances, events or developments which hereafter may be brought to our
attention and which may alter, affect or modify the opinion expressed herein.
Our opinion is expressly limited to the matters set forth above and we render
no opinion, whether by implication or otherwise, as to any other matters
relating to the Company or the Shares.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            /s/ BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
                                            BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             517,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,932,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,326,000)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,585,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,884,000
<PP&E>                                          11,904,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,540,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,156,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,815,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        23,567,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (20,536,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,156,000
<SALES>                                          8,768,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,768,000
<CGS>                                            4,233,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,207,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 141,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (813,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (813,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (813,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.08)


</TABLE>
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.71 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Ohio http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/01-Redistricting_File--PL_94-171/ http://factfinder2.census.gov The data will include summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age for multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts. According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011
  https://www.census.gov/rdo  http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html Please visit <http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/> for an interactive map showcasing county-level population change from 1960 to 2010, as well as state-level data on race and Hispanic or Latino origin for 2010. The widget will be updated as states are released and can be embedded on your website. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

PATRICK JAMES ZOTIKA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0512 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2013-436207-001 DT 

The Honorable Christine E. Mulleneaux, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Craig W. Soland 

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Charles R. Krull 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ZOTIKA 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Chief Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. 

B R O W N, Chief Judge: 

¶1 Patrick James Zotika was convicted of two counts of 

possession or use of dangerous drugs (Counts 1 and 6), class four felonies, 

two counts of possession or use of drug paraphernalia (Counts 2 and 4), 

class six felonies, one count of possession or use of marijuana (Count 3), a 

class six felony, and one count of possession or use of narcotic drugs (Count 

5), a class four felony. The jury also found three aggravating factors. At 

sentencing, the trial court imposed presumptive ten-year concurrent terms 

of imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutive to Zotika’s 

sentences resulting from his probation revocation in unrelated cases. 

¶2 On appeal, Zotika argues that the trial court’s imposition of 

ten-year terms of imprisonment for Counts 2, 3, and 4, all class six felonies, 

exceeds the maximum sentences permitted by law. The State confesses 

error, acknowledging that 3.75 years is the presumptive sentence, and 5.75 

years is the maximum sentence for Counts 2, 3, and 4. A sentence that falls 

outside the statutory range is unlawful and therefore constitutes 

fundamental, prejudicial error. See State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, 13, ¶ 40 

(2010) (citing State v. House, 169 Ariz. 572, 573 (App. 1991)). 

¶3 Because we accept the State’s confession of error, we vacate 

the sentences imposed for Counts 2, 3, and 4, and remand for resentencing. 

We affirm the convictions on all six counts and the sentences imposed for 

Counts 1, 5, and 6.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 2-86602, 33-15775, 33-37567 and 33-45482 of Cracker Barrel Old Country 
Store,  Inc. on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-59582 on Form S-3
of our report dated September 11, 1996, incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. for the year ended
August 2, 1996.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Nashville, Tennessee

October 25, 1996
EXHIBIT 32.2

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CFC International,  Inc.
and  subsidiaries  (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities  and Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Dennis W. Lakomy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


     Date:  July 26, 2004          /s/           Dennis W. Lakomy
                                   ------------------------------
                                        Dennis W. Lakomy
                                        Executive Vice President
                                        and Chief Financial Officer

This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided by CFC International,  Inc., and will be retained by CFC International,
Inc.  and  furnished to the  Securities  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
#### Sarah HOLLIDAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-603.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 1, 1972.

Beckham & McAliley, Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., James G. Mahorner, and Daniel S. Dearing, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court ruled it had no jurisdiction over this action against the State of Florida for the allegedly wrongful death of plaintiff’s son on August 9, 1969 and dismissed the cause with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed from that judgment and the state filed cross-assignments of error.

After the appeal was lodged in this court the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 71-165, Laws of Florida. It recited that if cases such as this have been dismissed, “such action shall be reinstated by order of the court upon the filing of a petition by the plaintiff during the period between July 1, 1971 and July 1, 1972.”

We previously denied a plaintiff’s motion to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for the purpose of entertaining a petition by plaintiff for reinstate*270ment pursuant to Chapter 71-165 because the state argued it had certain valid and proper arguments which should be heard and disposed of as a result of its cross-assignments of error.

We have heard those arguments and are of the opinion that this appeal is moot as a result of Chapter 71-165 and plaintiff’s expressed desire to petition the trial court for reinstatement. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff to apply for reinstatement of the cause by filing a proper and timely petition in the trial court.

It is so ordered.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Minnie Schwan, as Administratrix of the Estate of Minna M. Hipp, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County,

May 26, 1953.

*Stanley Fowler*for administratrix.

*William Otis Badger*and *Harry Wieser*for Hattie Phillipson, respondent.

*Harold B. Epp*for Alfred Hipp, Jr.

*John Clark Toas,*special guardian for Anna H. Jack.

Hazleton, S.

This proceeding was referred to a Referee to hear and report in regard to a family tree. The Referee filed his report more than ninety days ago, hut no action was taken by either party concerning same and no decree has been entered. One of the parties now moves that the proceeding be re-referred to a referee to take testimony with respect to evidence allegedly *602recently uncovered in Germany. This motion is opposed upon the ground that the proffered new evidence is not of such a nature as to warrant such course and further that *“*Unless a referee’s report, excepting on a reference to hear and determine, is passed upon and confirmed, approved, modified or rejected by a surrogate within ninety days after it has been submitted to him, it shall be deemed to have been confirmed as of .course and a decree to that effect may be entered by any party interested in the proceeding upon two days’ notice.” (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 66.)

I believe the additional evidence should be considered by the Referee provided I have the power to refer the matter back to him, even though more than ninety days have elapsed since his report was filed. The effect of the newly discovered evidence if received and believed will probably change the result arrived at by the Referee.

Fifty-two years ago, the Court of Appeals, in *Matter of Clark*(168 N. Y. 427, 431) which involved “ the construction or proper interpretation of section 2546 of the Code of Civil Procedure ”, from which section 66 of the Surrogate’s Court Act was derived, held (p. 438) that “ the acts, conduct and silence of the respondent constituted a waiver of any right he may have possessed to require the entry of a decree as of course confirming the report of the referee.”

The respondent could, if he saw fit, upon two days’ notice, have presented a decree for entry. “ But as under this section no decree confirming the report can be entered except upon two days ’ notice, we think until that notice is given and a decree entered in pursuance of it the proceedings remain open and undetermined.” *(Matter of Clark,*168 N. Y. 427, 434, *supra; Matter of Hoffman,*136 App. Div. 516; 1 Warren’s Heaton on Surrogates’ Courts, § 106, subd. 9, par. [d].)

Therefore, I hold that even though ninety days have passed since the Referee’s report was filed, the failure of respondent to proceed upon two days’ notice for entry of a decree in pursuance of the report has resulted in the proceeding remaining open and undetermined.

The motion is granted and an order may be submitted accordingly on notice.
# C_2012163EN.01000401.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 June 2012

2012/C 163/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2468 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 98,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4319 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80795 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9781 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2012 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5995 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,481 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 296,60 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6973 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2960 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4648 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2848 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2665 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2894 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6723 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6314 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6043 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 464,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,5563 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9486 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5540 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 806,72 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9708 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,953 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,8070 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,524 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5353 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6203 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,1540 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2468

JPY

Japanese yen

98,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4319

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80795

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9781

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2012

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5995

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,481

HUF

Hungarian forint

296,60

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6973

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2960

RON

Romanian leu

4,4648

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2848

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2665

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2894

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6723

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6314

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6043

KRW

South Korean won

1 464,58

ZAR

South African rand

10,5563

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9486

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5540

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 806,72

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9708

PHP

Philippine peso

53,953

RUB

Russian rouble

40,8070

THB

Thai baht

39,524

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5353

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6203

INR

Indian rupee

69,1540

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### COCONUT GROVE LOUNGE CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Thelma POHNL, Appellee.

No. 66-740.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 1, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

.Appeal dismissed.
#### CROSS-AERO CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and Frank J. Crawford, Individually, Appellants, v. CROSS-AERO SERVICE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and Dean Franklin, Individually, Appellees.

No. 73-1004.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2012074EN.01000801.xml

| 13.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 March 2012

2012/C 74/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3119 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 107,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4348 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83920 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9312 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2056 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4795 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,563 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 293,48 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6966 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1095 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3553 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3585 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2498 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3026 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1784 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6092 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6551 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 474,62 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,9555 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3013 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5475 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 010,83 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9796 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,911 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,8450 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,210 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3745 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,6480 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,5750 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3119

JPY

Japanese yen

107,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4348

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83920

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9312

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2056

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4795

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,563

HUF

Hungarian forint

293,48

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6966

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1095

RON

Romanian leu

4,3553

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3585

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2498

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3026

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1784

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6092

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6551

KRW

South Korean won

1 474,62

ZAR

South African rand

9,9555

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3013

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5475

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 010,83

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9796

PHP

Philippine peso

55,911

RUB

Russian rouble

38,8450

THB

Thai baht

40,210

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3745

MXN

Mexican peso

16,6480

INR

Indian rupee

65,5750

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---