alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

CEDRIC WARREN , Petitioner ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 1405 LT Case Nos. 2001

- 034902

- CFAES

2 001

- 036396

- CFAES STATE OF FLORIDA , Respondent

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed July 22, 2022 Petition for Writ of Habeas Co rpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction. Cedric Warren, Lake City, pro se. No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

. This Court previously d ismissed Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus stemming from Volusia County Circuit Court Case Number s 2001

- 034902

- CFAES and 2001

- 036396

- CFAES. Because it appears that Petitioner’s filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous, Petitioner2

is cautioned that any further pro se filings in this Court asserting claims stemming from the i dentified case number s may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filings in this Court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include forfeiture of gain time

. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (20 2 2 ) ; State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)

. PETITIONER WARNED.

COHEN , EISNAUGLE and TRAVER , JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010
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. RappaportRichard
      A. Rappaport
              Principal
      Executive Officer
              July
      26, 2010
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of Razor Resources Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endingJanuary 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Rong XIn Yang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ Rong Xin Yang                                    

Rong Xin Yang, 

Chief Financial Officer

Dated: March 13, 2007
#### Gregory VAN ALTON v. FISK ELECTRIC, INC., et al.

No. 88-CC-0023.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Welton Becket & Associates — Third Party; applying for supervisory and/or re*129medial writs; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 83-5216; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CW-8416.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1





WESTCOTT PRODUCTS CORPORATION


Certification of Principal Executive and Financial Officer


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 Westcott Products Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010, Wayne Bassham and Todd Albiston hereby 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.





Date:
December 3, 2010

By:
/s/Wayne BasshamWayne BasshamPresident and DirectorPrincipal Executive OfficerDate:
December 3, 2010

By:
/s/Todd AlbistonTodd AlbistonVice President, Director and acting CFOPrincipal Financial Officer
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 8 -00 137 -CV Ro sc o, Inc . d/b/aG r and P r air ie Co unt r y C lub, App e lla nt v. Horizon Distributors, Inc., Appellee

FR OM C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 2 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NO. C-1- CV-07 -00 5134 , HO NORAB LE ERIC SHEP P ERD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N The parties to this appea l have f iled a joint motion t o vacate the trial c ourt’s judg ment and dismiss this c ase without pr ejudice. We grant the motion, vac ate the judgment without refe renc e to the merits, and dismiss thi s case . See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) , 43.2(e) .

__________________________________________ Diane H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and He nson Vac ated a nd Remanded Filed: Mar ch 28, 2008
**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 of SRKP 6, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, 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/ Anthony
              C. PintsopoulosAnthony
              C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
              Financial OfficerNovember 7, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6417]



[[Page 15755]]

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, 
Liquidator, or Manager

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the 
following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as 
indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in 
the Federal Register) may be relied upon as ``of record'' notice that 
the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the 
statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal 
Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the 
identification of any institutions which have been placed in 
liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the Manager of 
Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.


    Dated: March 12, 2012.
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Pamela Johnson,
Regulatory Editing Specialist.

                                           Institutions in Liquidation
                                             [In alphabetical order]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       FDIC Ref. No.                Bank name                     City                  State        Date closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10429.....................  New City Bank............  Chicago..................  IL...............     3/9/2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2012-6417 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. George Edward JEFFERSON.

No. 89-KH-0189.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 24, 1989.

In re Jefferson, George Edward; —Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 65354; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 20778-KH.

Denied.

*12461
#### Leon P. GILBERT v. Gregory WADDELL and Willard Waddell.

No. 87-C-0625.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5566; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “H”, No. 82-587.

Prior report: La.App., 501 So.2d 330.

Denied.

MARCUS, LEMMON and COLE, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### Beauford WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71020.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 25, 1987.

Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative, Mark Evan Olive, Chief Asst, and Billy H. Ñolas and James C. Lohman, Staff Attys. of the Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Kaplan, Capital Collateral Coordinator and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

SHAW, Justice.

The Governor has signed a death warrant for White. We denied a petition for relief on 20 August 1987. *White v. Dugger,*511 So.2d 554 (Fla.1987). The basis for our denial of the petition was that White was procedurally barred from further post-conviction relief by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and 3.851 and that no exception to these rules had been shown. Despite our holding, White petitioned the trial court for relief under rule 3.850and a stay of execution. The trial court denied relief and the stay of execution, finding relief was barred by rules 3.850 and 3.851. White now appeals that denial. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

We point out again to the office of collateral counsel that failure to follow rules

3.850and 3.851 procedurally bars relief. The fact that we are dealing with a death sentence does not excuse appellant’s failure to abide by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief and stay of execution. No petition for rehearing will be entertained.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur in result only.
#### Maurice FERGUSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BP-10.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 1987.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

*84Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Mana Ines Súber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

In this appeal from a judgment and sentence imposed following the revocation of appellant’s community control, the State concedes that the lower court erred in entering a judgment and sentence for burglary in Case No. 85-6752. The record confirms error by revealing that although he was initially charged with burglary and dealing in stolen property, appellant pled nolo contendere only to the dealing in stolen property count. The State agreed to nolle pros the burglary charge. Appellant was then placed on community control for two years to be served concurrently to a sentence he was serving under Case No. 85-4983.

Following a finding by the trial court that appellant subsequently violated his community control, which finding is not contested as erroneous by appellant on this appeal, the court sentenced appellant to various prison terms including five years on the original burglary charge.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and sentence for burglary in Case No. 85-6752.

ERVIN, J., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                              List of Subsidiaries
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


         <S>                                                          <C>
         1.       U.S. Bridge of N.Y., Inc.
                  State of Incorporation:                              New York
                  Name(s) under which does business:                   U.S.B. Construction Co.

         2.       U.S. Bridge Corp. (Maryland)
                  State of Incorporation:                              Delaware
                  Name(s) under which does business:                   U.S. Bridge Corp. (Maryland)

         3.       One Carnegie Court Associates, Inc.
                  State of Incorporation:                              Maryland
                  No longer operational

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 9, 2019

No. 04-19-00353-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.H.C., A CHILD,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI-19681

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s attorneys have filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is GRANTED. 

The withdrawing attorneys are ORDERED to comply with TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                         0000846538
<NAME>                        ALLOU HEALTH & BEAUTY CARE, INC.

<S>                            <C>            <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS             12-MOS        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-2000    MAR-31-1999    MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1999    APR-01-1998    APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000    MAR-31-1999    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                               51,311        400,090         46,675
<SECURITIES>                              0              0              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    77,138,958     51,778,415     44,489,386
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,285,000      1,615,965        371,475
<INVENTORY>                     163,752,266    122,917,911    112,530,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                246,883,542    211,039,574    168,375,963
<PP&E>                            8,702,719      8,085,505      7,194,116
<DEPRECIATION>                    4,778,176      4,245,599      3,580,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  259,955,452    219,907,381    178,384,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           182,158,385    158,847,103    124,416,943
<BONDS>                                   0              0              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0              0              0
<PREFERRED>                               0              0              0
<COMMON>                              6,766          6,539          5,770
<OTHER-SE>                       76,150,079     60,329,505     52,607,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    259,955,452    219,907,381    178,384,296
<SALES>                         421,046,773    334,175,150    301,092,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                421,046,773    334,175,150    301,092,217
<CGS>                           367,963,675    289,637,296    262,236,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    30,798,306     24,977,029     22,539,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0              0              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0              0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               10,902,244      9,655,427      8,482,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  11,382,548      9,905,398      7,832,914
<INCOME-TAX>                      4,339,000      3,958,520      2,976,507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               7,043,548      5,946,878      4,856,407
<DISCONTINUED>                    7,915,637     (4,599,023)      (576,197)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0              0              0
<CHANGES>                                 0              0              0
<NET-INCOME>                     14,959,185      1,347,855      4,280,210
<EPS-BASIC>                            2.22            .22            .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                          2.05            .20            .72


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PURESA LOZOYA VAZQUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73321

Agency No. A070-033-381

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Puresa Lozoya Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for withholding of removal

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

JAN 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73321

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s

determination that an alien was convicted of a particularly serious crime. Arbid v.

Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012). We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.

2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Lozoya

Vazquez’s conviction is a particularly serious crime that renders her ineligible for

withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); Miguel-Miguel v.

Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941, 946-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (drug trafficking felonies

presumptively constitute particularly serious crimes).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lozoya

Vazquez failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if

she returned to Mexico. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
USDA United Forest Region One	 Northern Region States 

Department of Service 200 East Broadway 

. . Agriculture Missoula, MT 59802 

File Code: 2580 

Date: NOV " 2U(,,"~

Laurel Dygowski
 

Regional Haze Coordinator
 

Air Quality Planning and Management Unit
 

US EPA - Region 8
 

1595 Wynkoop Street
 

Denver, CO 80202-1129
 

Dear Ms. Dygowski: 

The USDA Forest Service Northern Region is pleased to provide the following comments in 

regards to the BART Analysis submitted by Ho1cim Cement. 

•	 Ho1cim should be required to include fuel substitution as a viable option for S02 control. 

The Forest Service believes that their interpretation of Appendix Y is incorrect, and that 

they should consider switching to a low sulfur fuel. 

•	 We are concerned that Ho1cim does not consider SNCR as a viable control technology 

for NOx. Ho1cim claims that this is emerging technology and thus not an available 

BART technology. The Forest Service disagrees and would like Ho1cim to redo its 

analysis assuming that SNCR is a viable technology. This is relevant considering other 

cement companies have agreed to install this technology in order to achieve BART. 

•	 The Forest Service is concerned that one ofthe technologically feasible options for NOx 

control presented by Ho1cim is mid-kiln injection oftires. Ho1cim submitted a permit 

request to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality in 2003 for this 

technology and has yet to receive approval. Since there remain questions as to whether 

Ho1cim will even be permitted to add mid-kiln injection oftires, this should not be 

considered a technologically feasible option. 

•	 When assessing deciview improvements or costs per deciview for improvements, 

Ho1cim should consider all Class I areas, not just Gates of the Mountains. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this analysis. 

Sincerely, 

C~~~LA,/Y)r,aa$l{' 

/THOMAS L. TIDWELL
 

Regional Forester
 

Caring for the Land and Serving People	 Pnnled on Recycled Paper
#### SUCCESSION OF Wallace Reed DAVIDSON.

No. 88-C-0547.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 1988.

In re Leigh, Penelope a/k/a; Forrest, Henrietta; Forrest, Michael; Forrest, Courtney; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA86-1242; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 820027.

Prior report: La.App., 525 So.2d 15.

Denied.

WATSON, J., would grant the writ.
#### Stingray JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4-86-0365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 28, 1987.

*179Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Teitler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Of the six issues which have been raised herein, only those which we find to have merit are addressed in this opinion, by which we reverse appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

The trial court gave the following reasons for departure from the guidelines:

> 1. The Defendant is an habitual offender pursuant to F.S. 775.084.

> 2. The Defendant lied to this Court when he was placed on probation as to his name, aliases, and prior record. The Defendant has made a career out of crime and when caught uses various names to escape responsibility.

> 3. The Defendant committed the instant offense only eight days after being released from his third separate prison commitment.

> 4. The Defendant committed three felonies and five misdemeanors after he was placed on probation for the instant offense.

The habitual offender statute, section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1985), can no longer operate as an alternative to guidelines sentencing nor as a reason for departure. *Whitehead v. State,*498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986). *Cf. Winters v. State,*500 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (habitual offender statute still effective basis on which to exceed statutory maximum so long as sentence imposed does not exceed guidelines recommendation). Accordingly, the trial court’s first basis for departure has been eliminated.

The trial court’s second basis for departure is also invalid. In effect, it punishes appellant for a crime (perjury) for which he has neither been charged nor convicted, in contravention of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f). *See Sloan v. State,*472 So.2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), *quashed in part on other grounds,*491 So.2d 276 (Fla.1986); *Beauvais v. State,*475 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

The trial court’s third reason has been found to be a valid reason for departure. *Nixon v. State,*494 So.2d 222 (Fla. *1801st DCA 1986) (defendant’s commission of offense in question only 31⁄2 months after release from prison valid reason for departure). However, the fourth reason given, as presently worded, is not valid as it has already been calculated into appellant’s guideline score. *Hendrix v. State,*475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985). Since we cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have departed as it did had it known three of the four reasons given for departure were invalid, we reverse and remand for resentencing. *Albritton v. State,*476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.