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

No. 88-354.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Nov. 17, 1988.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Glen P. Gifford, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Sean Daly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

ORFINGER, Judge.

In a negotiated plea agreement accepted by the court, defendant plead guilty to three separate charges of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), and was subsequently adjudicated guilty of each of these third degree felonies. The judgment of conviction, however, erroneously refers to both Case Nos. 87-1829 and 87-1831 as convictions for “sale and delivery” of a controlled substance, both second degree felonies, and upon remand, should be corrected to properly reflect the crimes for which defendant plead and was convicted.

Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for 30 months, a sentence within the guidelines. In addition, however, the court imposed a 5 year term of probation in Cases 87-1829 and 87-1831 consecutive to the incarceration, and the State concedes that the combined term of incarceration and probation exceeds the statutory maximum 5 year penalty for these crimes. Accordingly, we vacate the sentences in Cases 87-1829 and 87-1831, and remand them for resentenc-ing.

SENTENCES VACATED; REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.
Order entered October 27, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01365-CR

TERRANCE GERMAINE WILKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-62224-X

ORDER

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on 

December 5, 2011. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 5, 20111and a motion for 

new trial on December 28, 2011. The trial court certified appellant had the right to appeal. The 

trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial on January 25, 2012, and the State appealed. 

This Court vacated the trial court’s order granting the new trial and reinstated the judgment of 

conviction. State v. Wilkins, No. 05-12-00154-CR (Tex. App.––Dallas Feb. 4, 2014, pet. ref’d) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication). This Court’s mandate issued on June 13, 2014. 

 

1

 Appellant’s December 5, 2011 notice of appeal was not docketed as an appeal in this Court.
Appellant filed a second notice of appeal on February 11, 2014, which was forwarded to this 

Court on October 23, 2014.

Accordingly, we DIRECT the Clerk to transfer the clerk’s and reporter’s records, 

including all exhibits, from the appeal in cause no. 05-12-00154-CR into the above appeal.

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing appellant’s February 11, 2014 notice 

of appeal, as well as all other documents filed in the case from February 4, 2014 until the date of 

this order.

Appellant’s brief is due within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3235

___________

Janetta Kearney, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

City of Little Rock; Capitol Zoning * [UNPUBLISHED]

District Commission, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2005

Filed: July 26, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Janetta Kearney appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing her civil action

against the City of Little Rock and the Capitol Zoning District Commission. After

careful de novo review of the record, see Springdale Educ. Ass’n v. Springdale Sch.

Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998), we conclude dismissal was proper for the

reasons explained by the district court. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>


                    SUNRISE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                  Exhibit 11.1



                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS


  Weighted average shares:

<CAPTION>

                                                                         Years Ended December 31,
                                                           -----------------------------------------------
                                                                 1996               1995              1994

<S>                                                        <C>                <C>               <C>       
Primary:

Common stock                                               26,414,218         14,935,468        10,129,283

Warrants and stock options                                       ----               ----             ----
                                                           ----------         ----------        ----------

Weighted average common and common equivalent
shares outstanding                                         26,414,218         14,935,468        10,129,283
                                                           ==========         ==========        ==========



Fully Diluted:

Common stock                                               26,414,218         14,935,468        10,129,283

Warrants and stock options                                       ----               ----              ----
                                                           ----------         ----------        ----------

Weighted average common and common equivalent
shares outstanding                                         26,414,218         14,935,468        10,129,283
                                                           ==========         ==========        ==========


<FN>

  Fully  diluted  earnings  per  share  are  not  presented  on the  face of the
  Consolidated  Statement of Operations since they are not materially  different
  than primary earnings per share.

</FN>
</TABLE>
### z I I.**-~** 

### 'l j! • . ) 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNARD Unauthorized AirTransportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods ofCompetition, and Violations ofPublic Charter Rules EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and Violations ofPublic Charter Rules Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Docket49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status ofthis proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- 17486.2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: April 27, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,

'-- :;;?"

# -c===::::z: ::.._

# ~uel Podberesky
. Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings Dayton Lehman, Jr. Deputy Assistant General Counsel for 

### Aviation E forcement ndrceedill.gs

# ~ United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FAX: 202-366-7152I 

### 3

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 I hereby certify that on this 27th day ofApril, 2012, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: Original U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 By First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 ByFirst Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 S Leland Norton Way SamBernardino, CA 92408
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**






Certification
      by the Co-Presidents


of


Boardwalk
      GP, LLC


pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(as
      adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Co-Presidents of Boardwalk GP, LLC
      hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, (the "Report") of Boardwalk
      Pipeline Partners, LP (the “Partnership”) fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements of Income of the
      Partnership .








November
        8, 2006


*/s/
      Rolf A. Gafvert*


Rolf
      A.
      Gafvert


Co-President


( co-principal
      executive officer)














*/s/
      H. Dean Jones II*


H.
      Dean
      Jones II


Co-President


(co-principal
      executive officer)
#### Gary D. SMITH v. STATE.

3 Div. 399.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 11, 1986.

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1986.

Gary D. Smith, pro se.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Mary Ellen Fike Forehand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Gary D. Smith, appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The only allegation cognizable under the remedy is Smith’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on the following grounds: (1) Counsel “failed to interview the purported victim of the crime to determine whether or not prima facie evidence of theft of property I existed”; and (2) counsel “failed to explain to petitioner the essential ingredients of the charge of theft of property I.”

The trial court did not err in denying Smith’s petition without an evidentiary hearing because his allegations were insufficient; Smith failed to satisfy the “prejudice” requirement of *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for he did not allege in his petition that, had counsel been effective, he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial. *See Hill v. Lockhart,*— U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).

Accordingly, this cause is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         169,740
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,253
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,727
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    925,340
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,683,908
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,702,201
<LOANS>                                      2,448,474
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (37,840)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,417,877
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,821,906
<SHORT-TERM>                                   774,678
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            106,532
<LONG-TERM>                                    354,710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,139
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,342
<OTHER-SE>                                     343,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               5,417,877
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                201,394
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              170,003
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,448
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               374,845
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             154,747
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             222,098
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          152,747
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    7,813
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               6,018
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                110,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,582
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      42,964
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,964
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.86
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.44
<LOANS-NON>                                     20,172
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,464
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 4,441
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 20,833
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                34,583
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,638
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,082
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               37,840
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            37,840
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Microsoft Word 10.0.2627;Supplemental Severance Pay Policy





   The Company has adopted a severance pay policy providing executive officers
   and key employees with salary continuation in the event of a termination.
   Terminations resulting from cause, resignation, retirement, death, and
   disability are not eligible. Subject to the company's discretion, the policy
   generally provides for one month's base pay for each full year of service
   with a minimum amount payable of three months and a maximum amount payable of
   twelve months. This is not a vested benefit and may be amended or terminated
   at any time.
#### Edmundo LUNA, Appellant, v. TOTAL MORTGAGE, LTD., Appellee.

No. 88-1719.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 15, 1988.

*901Alec Ross, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Koppen, Watkins, Partners & Associates and Curtis J. Herbert, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee has confessed error. Because appellee failed to refute appellant’s affirmative defenses or to establish their legal insufficiency, genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved. Consequently, the trial court erred in entering final summary judgment. *See First Nat ’l Entertainment Corp. v. Brumlik,*531 So.2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); *Mathews v. Dime Sav. Bank of New York,*507 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Aroll v. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp.,*496 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *O’Neal v. Brady,*476 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      14, 2009 | /s/      Paul Roszel                    |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|              | Paul      Roszel                        |
|              | President,      Chief Executive Officer |

----
#### STATE ex rel. James JARVIS v. Warden DEES.

No. 89-KH-0662.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Jarvis, James; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; *898Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 09-88-0979.

Relator’s application seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus is denied. The Court of Appeal acted on March 31, 1989. Further, relator’s claim that the Court should set aside the trial court’s ruling that he lacked mental capacity to proceed because he was not afforded an independent mental examination by a chosen physician does not warrant relief. The district court record does not contain any pleading seeking independent mental examination by a chosen physician.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) of North American Insurance Leaders, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Paula S. Butler, Executive Vice President, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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 Registrant.



|                   |  |                              
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2007 |  | /s/ Paula S. Butler          
|                   |  | Executive Vice President     
|                   |  | (principal financial officer)
Order entered February 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00261-CR

No. 05-13-00262-CR

No. 05-13-00263-CR

No. 05-13-00264-CR

MARQUIS OBRIAN WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-56960-U, F13-57100-U, F12-71366-U, F13-71367-U

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On January 7, 2014, we ordered J. Daniel Oliphant removed as appellant’s counsel and 

ordered the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in the appeals. We have 

received the trial court’s order appointing Katherine Drew of the Dallas County Public 

Defender’s Office as new counsel.

We DIRECT the Clerk to add Katherine Drew as appellant’s appointed attorney of 

record.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Ms. 

Drew and to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary ofTransportation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 DearMr. Foxx: July 23, 2014

This letteris ininresponse to DOT Order 2014-6-6 terminating EAS subsidypayments at the Venango Regional Airport and· in support of our petition requesting a waiver of the 1 0 enplanement statute, Docket-OST-1997-2523. I understand that such waivers can be granted when the shortage ofenplanements is temporary. There is strong agreement and broad support for a new airline I destination plan that seeks to permanently increase enplanements to acceptable, historical levels. Based onthe beliefthat this planwill succeed, I strongly encourage your sincere considerationto grantingthe requested waiver. The new plan introduces a new airline and returns Pittsburgh as the designated destination. This arrangement will help restore enplanement numbers to the historical levels enjoyed when daily flights were offered between the Venango Regional Airport and the Pittsburgh International airport. As a regional partner the City ofPittsburgh has a relationship with all of western Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh based businesses, hospitals and educational institutions have expanded into our area making the Pittsburgh International Airport the ideal destination for commuter service from the Franklin/Oil City

- Venango Regional Airport service area. Thankyou for your consideration. Sincerely,
Douglas A. Baker, Mayor City ofFranklin, Pa.
#### BERNS, CLANCY & ASSOCIATES, a professional corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF BOULDER, a Colorado corporation, Garnishee-Appellee.

No. 85CA0194.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

March 18, 1986.

Holder & St. Clair, Michael D. Holder, Boulder, for plaintiff-appellant.

*1023French & Stone, P.C., David M. Haynes, Gary S. Mallo, Boulder, for garnishee-ap-pellee.

KELLY, Judge.

The plaintiff, Berns, Clancy & Associate?, appeals the trial court order in favor of the garnishee, Bank of Boulder, holding that the Bank properly answered the plaintiffs writ of garnishment denying indebtedness to the named debtor. We affirm.

The plaintiff is a judgment creditor of R.M. Reeser and Janet Reeser. A writ of garnishment was issued naming the Bank of Boulder as garnishee and it was served upon the garnishee the same day. The caption of the writ identified both R.M. Reeser and Janet Reeser as defendants in the action underlying the writ. The affidavit which followed the caption had space for the following information: “Debtor’s name, last known address and any other identifying information,” wherein the plaintiff provided the following information: “a/k/a Rodney M. Reeser, 685 North Star Court, Boulder, CO 80302.” Janet Reeser maintained an account with the Bank, but Rodney M. Reeser did not. The Bank answered the writ of garnishment denying any indebtedness to the debtor.

The plaintiff filed an affidavit and traverse of garnishment in response to the Bank’s answer to the writ of garnishment. The plaintiff argued, as it does here, that the definition of “debtor” in C.R.C.P. 103(a) encompasses all the defendants identified in the caption of the writ. We disagree, and therefore, we affirm.

A writ of garnishment is a proceeding supplemental to a writ of attachment and is, like an attachment, in derogation of the common law. Any failure to conform to the prescribed procedure is fatal and the writ has no validity. *See Jayne v. Peck,*155 Colo. 513, 395 P.2d 603 (1964).

Where, as here, there are multiple parties defendant, a garnishee has no way of knowing whether the judgment creditor has a judgment against all named defendants or against only some of them. Consequently, there must be sufficient specificity concerning the identity of the debtor in the writ or in its supporting documents to enable the garnishee to verify its. answers to the interrogatories. We hold that the caption of the case does not provide the requisite specificity.

Order affirmed.

VAN CISE and METZGER, JJ., concur.
#### Nita M. DIETRICH v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. Nita M. DIETRICH v. Marilyn CLARK and Allstate Insurance Co.

No. 89-C-0673.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Allstate Insurance Co.; Clark, Marilyn; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. CA87 1271, CA88 0157; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 282-409.

Prior report: La.App., 540 So.2d 358.

Denied.