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

No. 86-840.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Joseph Eugene Perrin, and Robert F. Moeller, Asst. Public Defenders, Bar-tow, for appellant.

*39Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Harvey Whipple, appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty of robbery and sentencing him outside the guidelines to twenty-five years imprisonment. We affirm the appellant’s conviction but remand for resentencing.

A jury found appellant guilty of robbery in violation of section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1985). The state filed notice of intent to seek habitual offender treatment of the appellant at sentencing. At the hearing on the state’s motion for sentence enhancement, appellant attacked the accuracy of the guidelines scoresheet by testifying that several of his misdemeanor convictions were uncounseled. The appellant also disputed the number of convictions reflected on the presentence investigation report. Although the appellant challenged the pre-sentence investigation report and guidelines scoresheet, no evidence was submitted by the state to support the challenged documents.

The trial court adjudged the appellant a habitual offender and adjudicated him guilty of robbery. Although the score-sheet reflected a recommended sentence of twelve to seventeen years imprisonment, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-five years imprisonment with 145 days credit for time served. The only written reason the trial court gave for its departure was “sentenced as habitual felony offender.” This timely appeal followed.

The habitual offender statute is not an alternative to guidelines sentencing and cannot be employed as a basis for departure from the guidelines. *Whitehead v. State,*498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). We, accordingly, must reverse and remand for resentencing. At resentencing, in view of the appellant’s challenge to the presentence investigation report and the resulting guidelines scoresheet, the trial court should resolve any uncertainty regarding appellant’s prior record.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
#### Ramon SESCON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1842.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 22, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kim W. Munch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The state charged defendant with lewd and lascivious assault on a child under the age of fourteen years and failure to appear. Defendant pled no contest to the assault charge and guilty to the failure to appear charge. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced within the guidelines. On appeal we find merit only to his contention that the trial court improperly imposed court costs.

The court did not pronounce the imposition of any costs at the sentencing hearing. Nevertheless, the court’s written judgment imposed court costs of $400 pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985); $40 pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1985); $5 pursuant to section 943.25(4), Florida Statutes (1985); and $4 pursuant to section 943.25(8), Florida Statutes (1985). Since the court made no mention of costs during the hearing but later imposed them in its written judgment, we find that the trial court erred by not comporting with the procedural safeguards in *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984). *See Arnold v. State,*505 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

We also find merit to the defendant’s argument that the imposition of costs pursuant to section 27.3455 violated the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Florida Constitutions. The state argues that the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appeal because it was not raised before the trial court. However, since the first mention of costs in the record is in the written judgment, it is axiomatic that the defendant could not object to something he did not know was being imposed. Therefore, we reach the defendant’s ex post facto argument on section 27.3455 costs.

*46This court has previously decided this issue. *See Bowman v. State,*495 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); *Maldonado v. State,*498 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the judgment in this case imposing court costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). We also certify the question set out in *Bowman*to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance. As to the other costs imposed, we reverse without prejudice to the state to seek the imposition of these costs against the defendant in accordance with *Jenkins.*

SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
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-Q of CFC International, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Dennis W. Lakomy, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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: April 17, 2006 |  | /s/    Dennis W. Lakomy                             
|                     |  | Dennis W. Lakomy                                    
|                     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 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 § 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.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert S. Cubbin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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. By:
    
    /s/ Robert S. CubbinRobert S. Cubbin
Chief Executive Officer
March 12, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.




                    /s/ Richard A. Rappaport
                    ---------------------------
                    Richard A. Rappaport
                    Principal Executive Officer
                    November 8, 2005




                                       16
# Exhibit (23)

# INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS CONSENT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Abatix Corp.:

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in registration statement No. 333-95187 on Form S-3
of Abatix Corp. of our report dated March 4, 2003 relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Abatix Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and
2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders
equity and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule for each of
the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears
in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Abatix Corp. Our report
contains an explanatory paragraph for the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142 in 2002.

Dallas, Texas
March 24, 2003
# BANKGREENVILLE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION

# Exhibit 32         
Section 1350 Certifications

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of BankGreenville Financial Corporation (the
Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2007 as
          filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                      |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                      |  |                              
|Date:  August 8, 2007 |  | By:   /s/  Russel T. Williams
|                      |  | Russel T. Williams           
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer      

|                      |  |                         
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                      |  |                         
|Date:  August 8, 2007 |  | By:   /s/  Paula S. King
|                      |  | Paula S. King           
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-482-000.
    Applicants: Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.
    Description: Cancellation of Second Revised version of Volume No. 1 
to be effective 4/9/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120309-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-483-000.
    Applicants: Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.
    Description: Submission of Third Revised Volume 1 to be effective 
4/9/201.
    Filed Date: 03/09/2012.
    Accession Number: 20120309-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-484-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: 20120309 Miscellaneous Filing to be effective 4/9/
2012.
    Filed Date: 3/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20120309-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at: 
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other 
information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: March 12, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2012-6506 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, William A. Sanger, certify that:

1.                        I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of EmergencyMedical Services Corporation;

2.                        Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.                        Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.                        The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                        The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a) All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 7, 2006     |   |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                            |   |   |
| /s/ William A.  Sanger          |   |   |   |
| Name: William A.  Sanger        |   |   |
| Title: Chief  Executive Officer |   |   |
|                                 |        |        |  |

 

----
[Cite as State ex rel. Pettway v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 2013-Ohio-1567.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99259



## STATE, EX REL. TIMOTHY PETTWAY

RELATOR

vs. 

## CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ET AL.

RESPONDENTS



### JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 461141

Order No. 463486

RELEASE DATE: April 16, 2013FOR RELATOR

Timothy Pettway No. 550655 Toledo Correctional Institution P.O. Box 80033 2001 East Central Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43608

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS

Timothy J. McGinty, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss, Esq. Assistant County Prosecutor 9 th Floor, Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

{¶1} Timothy Pettway has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Pettway

seeks an order from this court, that requires Judge Deena Calabrese and the Cuyahoga

County Court of Common Pleas to render a ruling with regard to a “motion to vacate void

judgment” as filed in State v. Pettway , Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-498474.

{¶2} Attached to the motion for summary judgment filed by Judge Calabrese and

the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, is a copy of a judgment entry, journalized

on December 19, 2012, which demonstrates that a ruling has been rendered with regard to

Pettway’s motion to vacate void judgment. Thus, Pettway’s complaint for a writ of

procedendo is moot. State v. Jerninghan , 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658

N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman , 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983).

{¶3} Accordingly, we grant the motion for summary judgment. Judge Calabrese

and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to pay costs. Costs waived. The

court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and its date

of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶4} Writ denied.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
**Exhibit 31.3**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002I, Robert S. Cubbin, Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K / A of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.; and  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;        Date: March 20, 2008 /s/ Robert S. Cubbin   Robert S. Cubbin   Chief Executive Officer
#### Earl McGOWAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-558.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 17, 1987.

Earl McGowan, in pro. per.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *McGowan v. State,*421 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 433 So.2d 519 (Fla.1983). The grounds stated in the 3.850 motion either are insufficient on their face or were or should have been raised on direct appeal.
#### In the Interest of R.S. and S.S.

No. 87-CK-2748.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re R.S. and S.S., In Interest of; Van Cleef, Judith M.; applying for writ of cer-tiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CA-0575; Parish of Jefferson, Juvenile Court of Jefferson Parish, Div. “A”, No. 85-C-98A.

Denied.

DENNIS and COLE, JJ., would grant the writ.
**Exhibit      32.2**

|   | 1. | The                Report 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                November 19, 2008 | /s/                Lionel Choong                      |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | Lionel                Choong, Chief Financial Officer |
|                                    | (Principal                Financial Officer)          |

----