alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
50189.

#### MULLINS v. THE STATE.

Deen, Presiding Judge.

1. A sentence entered in a criminal case which is unauthorized by law is a nullity and void. *Heard v. Gill,*204 Ga. 261 (49 SE2d 656); *Morris v. Clark,*156 Ga. 489 (119 SE 303); *Wyatt v. State,*113 Ga. App. 857 (149 SE2d 837); *Reynolds v. State,*132 Ga. App. 89 (207 SE2d 630). Where the sentence is void, a valid sentence may be imposed by the court, until which time the defendant stands as though convicted but not sentenced. This is why, although a judge cannot modify a sentence after the term in which it is rendered, he may resentence him, where the original sentence was illegal, at any time. *Bradshaw v. State,*132 Ga. App. 363 (4) (208 SE2d 173); *Wade v. State,*231 Ga. 131, 133 (II) (200 SE2d 271). The trial court here had no right to "amend” the original sentence which, being for a term of years unauthorized by law, was void, but he could call the defendant in for proper sentencing.

2. Code § 27-1404 provides that if a defendant plead guilty "the court shall pronounce upon such prisoner the judgment of the law, in the same manner as if he had been convicted of the offense by the verdict of a jury; but, at any *244time before judgment is pronounced, the prisoner may withdraw the plea of 'guilty,’ and plead 'not guilty,’ and such former plea shall not be given in evidence against him on his trial.” The word "judgment” in this context means "sentence” and obviously refers to a valid one. The defendant here, who had originally plead guilty, attempted by written motion to withdraw such plea prior to the resentencing procedure. The trial court refused to allow him to do so, holding that he was entering up the order "nunc pro tunc” as of the date of the original sentence. This he could not do for two reasons: The sentence being void, there was nothing to amend by; and, the term having passed, he had no authority to modify the sentence in any event.

Argued February 10, 1975

Decided February 20, 1975

Rehearing denied March 11, 1975.

*James C. Bonner, Jr., Thomas M. West,*for appellant.

*George*W. *Darden, District Attorney, B. Wayne Phillips, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

3. A habeas corpus to set aside the original sentence was apparently heard and sustained. We decide this case without reference thereto for the reason that the order does not appear in the record, either in this court or the trial court.

The trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty prior to the resentencing procedure.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Evans and Stolz, JJ., concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CURTIS TYRONE THOMAS, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 266 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No:
33-44036,  33-44035,   33-55094,   33-56856,   33-72512,  33-81314,   333-18237,
333-18239,  333-30597,  333-44407, 333-48635, 333-83035, 333-87561, 333-35578 of
our report  dated  February  28, 2005,  relating to the  consolidated  financial
statements of Simtrol,  Inc., which report includes an explanatory  paragraph as
to an uncertainty with respect to Simtrol, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going
concern, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Simtrol, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP


Marcum & Kliegman LLP
New York, NY
March 28, 2005
EXHIBIT 23


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Allou Health & Beauty Care, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration  statement Nos.
333-36702,  333-36624,  333-67562  and 333-76908 on Form S-3 of Allou Health and
Beauty  Care,  Inc.  of our  report  dated  July 3,  2002,  with  respect to the
consolidated  balance sheet of Allou Health & Beauty Care,  Inc. as of March 31,
2002, and the related consolidated  statements of income,  stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the year ended  March 31,  2002,  and the  related  financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the March 31, 2002, Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Allou Health & Beauty Care, Inc.


                                        /s/ KPMG LLP


Melville, New York
July 3, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         435,161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,202,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,641,914
<PP&E>                                       1,207,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                 345,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,799,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,812,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,036
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,799,727
<SALES>                                     11,254,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,254,894
<CGS>                                       12,092,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,092,710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               605,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,503,474)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,503,474)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,503,474)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,503,474)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 9, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00416

- CV

Robert LOWRY , MD; Neurology and Neurophysiology Associates, PA; JCMLR, PA; and Lynnell Lowry, MD

, Appe llant s

v.

Peter A. TARBOX , MD and/or d/b/a Peter A. Tarbox, MD PA, Appellee s

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- CI

- 20160 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

We grant Luis Duran’s motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We order the record due September 16, 2016.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of September, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of the Final Accounting of the New York Trust Company, as Trustee and as Executor of Maldon K. Geise, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

December 11, 1958.

*543
      *J oseph T. P. Sullivan*for petitioner.

*Benjamin I.*Taylor, as special guardian.

John J. Dillon, S.

Under article *“*ninth ” of her will the testatrix devised and bequeathed her entire residuary estate in trust for a period measured by the life of her husband and she directed that upon his death the remainder of the trust be distributed *“*share and share alike to the following named individuals or the survivor or survivors of them”. The testatrix provided for an alternate disposition of the trust remainder *“*if none of the nine individual beneficiaries named in the immediately preceding paragraph are living at the time this trust terminates ”. At the date of death of testatrix, eight of the nine named remaindermen were living and at the termination of the trust, seven of such persons were living.

In the instant case, a question has been raised as to whether the testatrix intended the words, “ survivor or survivors ” to mean the persons surviving her or the persons surviving the termination of the trust. In construing a will, the courts generally favor an interpretation which results in an early and final vesting of estates. *(Matter of Campbell,*307 N. Y. 29.) However, the paramount canon of construction requires that the court, wherever possible ascertain and give effect to the intention of the testator. *(Matter of Fabbri,*2 N Y 2d 236.) In view of the fact that the testatrix expressly provided for an alternate disposition of the trust remainder only in the event that *all*of the nine remaindermen predeceased the termination of the trust, it is clear that her intention was to postpone absolute vesting of the remainder until the termination of the trust. Accordingly, the court determines that the remainder of the residuary trust is payable in equal shares to the seven named remaindermen who survived the termination of the trust.

Settle decree.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 43 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 43

 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 1, 1999

   Mr. Lott submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on 
Thursday, July 1, 1999, Friday, July 2, 1999, or Saturday, July 3, 
1999, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 
noon on Monday, July 12, 1999, or until such time on that day as may be 
specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on 
the legislative day of Thursday, July 1, 1999, or Friday, July 2, 1999, 
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on 
Monday, July 12, 1999, for morning-hour debate, or until noon on the 
second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 
2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the 
Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



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 on Form 10-K of Vodavi Technology,
Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Gregory K. Roeper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Gregory K. RoeperGregory K. RoeperChief Executive OfficerMarch 5, 2004
#### Thomas G. CENATE, Appellant, v. Janice C. CENATE, Appellee.

No. 87-760.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 19, 1988.

*962Albert H. Mickler, Jacksonville, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

THOMPSON, Judge.

Appellant husband appeals two orders which restrict his visitation with his minor son by requiring that such visitation may not take place in the presence of members of the opposite sex, or in the presence of Donna Frier in particular. We reverse.

Both orders were entered in response to motions for contempt, one of which was filed by the wife and the other by the husband. The wife’s motion made no mention of visitation whatsoever, and the husband’s motion merely asked for alternating weekend visitation. Neither motion requested any alteration of visitation of the nature ordered by the court.

Absent appropriate pleadings the court did not have jurisdiction to alter or modify the visitation provisions of the final judgment. *Sardinas v. Sardinas,*401 So.2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); *Davis v. Davis,*335 So.2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Even if the matter was raised at any of the hearings on the motions for contempt, an oral motion or request for alteration or modification of visitation does not satisfy the requirement that appropriate pleadings be filed prior to any modification of visitation. *Sardinas v. Sardinas; Purvis v. Carver,*303 So.2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); *Lourcey v. Lourcey,*256 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Accordingly, the lower court’s orders on the motions for contempt are reversed in so far as they restrict the husband’s visitation with his minor son by directing that such visits not take place in the presence of members of the opposite sex, in general, or in the presence of Donna Frier in particular. In all other respects, the two orders are affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.

NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence LEWIS.

No. 87-KK-2129.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re State of Louisiana; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, and supervisory writ; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW87 0641; Parish of East Baton RouSe> 19th Judicial District Court, Div. "M", No. 307749.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
#### Leon P. GILBERT v. Gregory WADDELL and Willard Waddell.

No. 87-C-0595.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Gilbert, Leon P.; 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2361 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2361

   To reduce temporarily the duty on Butylated reaction product of p-
                  cresol and DCPD (dicyclopentadiene).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reduce temporarily the duty on Butylated reaction product of p-
                  cresol and DCPD (dicyclopentadiene).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BUTYLATED REACTION PRODUCT OF P-CRESOL AND DCPD 
              (DICYCLOPENTADIENE).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Butylated reaction  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        product of p-                                                      31/2011.......
                        cresol and DCPD
                        (dicyclopentadien
                        e) (CAS No. 68610-
                        51-5) (provided
                        for in subheading
                        3812.30.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ANGEL NATAL

PETITION OF: FRANCIS W. 

MCCLOSKEY JR., ESQ.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 10 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of the “Praecipe to 

be Removed as Counsel,” this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County for that court to determine whether Angel Natal’s present counsel 

should be permitted to withdraw. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 120 (providing that counsel must 

seek leave of court to withdraw). 

If present counsel is permitted to withdraw, the court is DIRECTED to resolve any 

issues relative to Angel Natal being appointed counsel or granted leave to proceed pro 

se. 

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to enter its 

order regarding this remand within 60 days and to promptly notify this Court of its 

determination.
<PAGE>
 
                                  Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of American Freightways Corporation and Subsidiary of our report dated January
23, 1997, included in the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of American
Freightways Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of American
Freightways Corporation and Subsidiary listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is
the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement
schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-63674) pertaining to the American Freightways Corporation Stock
Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-76788) pertaining
to the American Freightways Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated January 23,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein
by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to
the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
American Freightways Corporation and Subsidiary.


                                 /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Little Rock, Arkansas
March 7, 1997
#### LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. C. Kent BLANCHARD.

No. 87-B-0712.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1987.

In re Blanchard, C. Kent; petition to resign on consent.

Granted. Applicant is permitted to voluntarily resign; it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of members of the Louisiana Bar Association.
#### STATE ex rel. Clarence JASON v. Hon. James F. McKAY, Judge, Criminal District Court, Orleans Parish, Section H.

No. 86-KH-1758.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Jason, Clarence; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “H”, No. 306-520.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2423 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2423

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain non-women's leather 
                               footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Brownback introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain non-women's leather 
                               footwear.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN NON-WOMEN'S LEATHER FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Other footwear      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        with outer soles                                                   31/2011.......
                        of rubber,
                        plastics,
                        leather, or
                        composition
                        leather and
                        uppers of
                        leather, not
                        covering the
                        ankle, for
                        persons other
                        than women
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6403.59.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```