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

No. 86-634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 28, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Joel E. Grigsby, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

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

SANDERLIN, Judge.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentences imposed after a jury found him guilty of sexual performance by a child, capital sexual battery, sexual activity with a child, and two counts of sexual battery.

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony, in violation of the *“Williams*Rule.” *See Williams v. State,*110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). This point is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions.

Appellant next claims that the trial court erred in imposing costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). We agree. Prior to sentencing, appellant had *182been found insolvent on three occasions for purposes of trial. Following sentencing, appellant was adjudicated insolvent for purposes of appeal, and a public defender was appointed. At sentencing, however, the trial court imposed $200.00 in costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), without finding that appellant had the ability to pay, despite his presumptive indigence. We hold that it was error to impose these costs without a hearing to determine whether this previously adjudicated indigent appellant had the ability to pay. *See Harris v. State,*498 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). It, therefore, follows that the clerk’s certificate which denied appellant gain time for failure to pay these costs, entered on the same day the trial court imposed the costs, was improper. *But see Butler v. State,*492 So.2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (appeal of order imposing costs pursuant to section 27.3455 was premature where defendant failed to file motion to be sentenced to term of community service in lieu of imposition of costs). Accordingly, we strike the assessment of costs, and remand to the trial court with directions to restore appellant’s gain time, and order to the appropriate community service contemplated by section 27.3455. The judgment and sentences are otherwise affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL
REPORT AND FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,167,826
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,235,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,437,611
<INVENTORY>                                 10,793,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,226,946
<PP&E>                                      31,071,090
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,767,978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,613,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       57,603,483
<BONDS>                                      1,989,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           822
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,487,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,613,799
<SALES>                                    140,877,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           140,877,890
<CGS>                                      115,778,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              115,778,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               640,344
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,867,854
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                258,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            258,055
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,706,374
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
#### THOMAS SUTKOWSKI ET AL. *v.*RICHARD TARRO ET AL.

*Max F. Brunswick,*in support of the petition.

*Barry S. Zitser,*in opposition.

Decided March 25, 1998

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 927 (AC 15421), is denied.

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Michael MITCHELL.

No. 86-KH-2433.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Mitchell, Michael; applying for remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 311-661.

Denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Beverly Brooks

a nd Beverly Brooks v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 1 5 8

- CV

Trial court case number: 2 0 1 3

- 19 8 6 2

Trial court: 2 69th District Court of Harris County

Appellant

, Metropolitan Transit Authority (“METRO”)

, and a ppellant, Beverly
Brooks, each filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final judgment, signed on December

4 , 201 5

. Each appellant ’ s brief initially w as due on August 8, 2016. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( a )

. On August 29, 2016, Brooks filed her appellant’s brief. METRO’s appellee’s
brief, therefore, was due on September 28, 2016.

On August 31, 2016, this Court granted METRO’s first motion to extend time and

extended the time to file its appellant’s brief to October 17, 2016, with no further extensions absent exceptional circumstances. On October 25, 2016, we granted METRO’s second motion and extended the time to file its appellant’s brief to December 16, 2016, with no additional extensions. And, on November 7, 2016, we granted METRO’s motion to extend the time to file its appellee’s b rief and extended the time to file that brief to December 16,
2016, with no further extensions. METRO , representing that it “has been trying to settle this appeal,” has filed a third motion t o exten d time to file its brief

. We grant the motion. METRO’s ap pellant’s brief and appellee’s brief , if any, are due to be filed no later

than January 1 7 , 201 7 . No additional extensions will be granted

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 1 2 , 2017
EXHIBIT
32.1


Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


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 of Cogdell Spencer Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge on the date hereof,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”), filed concurrently herewith
by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:
      May 11, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/Frank
      C. SpencerName:
      Frank C. SpencerTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer




The
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Cogdell Spencer Inc (the “Company”),
hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge on the date hereof, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2009 (the “Form 10-Q”), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


Date:
      May 11, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/Charles
      M. HandyName:
      Charles M. HandyTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer




Pursuant
to the Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-47551, dated March 21,
2003, this certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended or incorporated be reference in any registration statement of the
Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
AAM-12-329-E 

April 30, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10522 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0446 

Ms. Shelly Alexander 

President 

ALEXAIR, Inc. 

108 Kahului Airport Road, # 108 

Kahului, HI 96732 

Dear Ms. Alexander: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 14, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of ALEXAIR, Inc. (ALEXAIR), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow ALEXAIR, which is 

operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one drug and alcohol testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ALEXAIR. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant ALEXAIR, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR 

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow ALEXAIR, which is operating under separate parts 

of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject 

to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of ALEXAIR are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

ALEXAIR part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
### MicM^ failed/ #|S 162*3 

# Oku O^Hf c2''l /a/-u curl* of W^"is 

# ryufi ^ now* "filed incourt of appeals 12tfi Court ofADcaals 3|swct 

### Al*fc.'*******"• ;/*^' a L L n Q ^P" 

### j/^,6 nasi Ui.xt.it/
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6366]



[[Page 15747]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP12-72-000; PF11-9-000]


Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Clarification of Notice of 
Application

    On February 24, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Application 
in the above referenced proceeding. This Notice clarifies that any 
party wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the 
proceeding should file a motion to intervene prior to the close of the 
comment date. Only parties to the proceeding can seek rehearing of the 
Commission's order and then further ask for court review of Commission 
orders in the proceeding.
    Additionally, persons only wishing to comment on the proceeding 
should file their comments on any aspect of the application with the 
Secretary of the Commission and the Commission will consider these 
comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken. The filing 
of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the 
proceeding.
    In light of this clarification, comments will be due by 5 p.m. 
Eastern Time on March 30, 2012.

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6366 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0305

SAT Date: 3/5/2013

Print Date: 3/3/2015

Related cases: Yes

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 2

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 12

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: NEURO, LIVER, DEVEL, THYROID, AQUATOX-A,C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0305

FATE: 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 2.02 (E) 

S = 2.51 g/L at 25 C (E)

VP = 97.4 torr at 25 C (M)

BP = 76.2 C (M)

H = 3.81E-2 (E)

log Koc = 2.42 (E)

log Fish BCF = 1.00 (E)

log Fish BAF = 0.98 (E) 
POTW removal (%) = 0-25 via stripping and possible partial biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = low

Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 2 hrs

Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 6 da

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 940 hr via OH radical

PBT Potential: P3B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is good all routes based on analogs. There is 

concern for neurotoxicity based on the submitted acute inhalation study where signs consistent 

with neurotoxicity including tremors and seizures were seen at 3000 ppm but not at 300 ppm. 

Additional concerns based on the are thyroid and liver toxicity [rat 

28-day oral NOEL = 150 mg/kg (F), 6 mg/kg (M); rat 90-day oral NOEL = 30 mg/kg (F), 6 

mg/kg (M)] and developmental toxicity [mouse developmental toxicity NOEL = 35 mg/kg, 

delayed onset of puberty at higher doses of 175 and 350 mg/kg]. Moderate concern. 

 Test Data: acute inhalation study in rats - no deaths at 300 or 3000 

ppm; signs consistent with neurotoxicity including tremors and seizures at 3000 ppm; no effects 

at 300 ppm (also submitted as 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 30

daphnid 48-h LC50 62

green algal 96-h EC50 26

fish _ chronic value 2.2

daphnid _ chronic 

value

42

algal _ chronic 

value

6.8

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR chemical class = 

 log Kow = 2.02 (EPI), 2.64 (ACD); liquid with unknown mp (P); S = 1.3 g/L 

(P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3 and <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 220
(ppb)

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. C AS E Y L UC Z AK , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10279 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 1 6 1 - P MP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a s e yL u c z a kap p e a ls f r o m th e 1 2 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f orw i r e f r aud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1343, a nd m a ki ng af a l s e s t a t e m e nt , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1001. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 22 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10279 2 L u c z a kc o n te n d s th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e . A s ag e n e r a l ru le , th is c o u rt d o e s n o t r e v ie w c la im s o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. See U n i ted S ta tes v. B en

f o rd , 574 F . 3d 1228, 1231 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . L uc z a k ha s not d e m o n s tr a te dth a t th is is a n “u n u s u a l c a s e ” ju s tif y in g c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th is c o n te n tio n o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. Se e i d. L uczak al so cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y app l yi ng a tw o-l evel e n h a n c e m e n tf

o ru s e o f “ s o p h i s t i c a t e dm e a n s ” p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 B1 . 1 ( b ) ( 8 ) ( C) ( 2 0 0 2 ) . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd i dn o te rrb e c au s e Lu c z a k ’ s s c h e me in v o lv e d“e s p e c ia llyc o m p le x o re s p e c ia llyin tr ic a te o f f e n s e c o n d u c t” in its

“ exec ut i on or conceal m ent . ” U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1 app . n. 6(B ) ( 20 02 ). L u c z a kf u rth e rc o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile dto c o n s id e rh is g a m b lin g a d d ic tio n w h e n it im p o s e dh is s e n te n c e a n dth a t h is s e n te n c e is s ubs t a nt i ve l yunr e a s onabl e . T he r e c or d r e f l e c t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not p r o c e d u r a llye rr , s e e U

n ite d S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 520 F . 3d 984, 991- 93 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( e n ba nc ) , a nd tha t , unde rthe t ot a l i tyof the c i r c um s t a nc e s , the s e nt e nc e a tthe b o tto m o f

th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; s e e a ls o Ca r ty , 520 F . 3d a t993. AF F I RME D.
Exhibit
      32 .2








Certification
      Pursuant to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Brendan Technologies, Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:





To
      my
      knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:
              September 28, 2007
            By:
            /s/
              LOWELL W. GIFFHORNLowell
              W. GiffhornChief
              Financial
              Officer




EX-4
Exhibit
32.1




SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on From 10-Q of Israel
Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal quarter
ended October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of the
Registrant.




Dated:
      December 15, 2009
            
            /s/ J. Patrick McMahonJ.
      Patrick McMahonChief
      Executive Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eric P. DUFRENE.

No. 87-K-2022.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Dufrene, Eric P.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, and prohibition; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KA-6853; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “E”, No. 308-924.

Prior report: La.App., 513 So.2d 331.

Denied.
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 Atlas America Public #15-2005 (A) L.P.
(the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      13, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00156-CR

DeMarcus McCowan

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 211th District Court

of Denton County (F-2009-0442-C)

August 8, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel