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

No. 88-449.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 11, 1988.

PARKER, Judge.

This is Miller’s second appeal to this court. Miller’s first appeal1 was from a trial court order denying Miller’s motion to correct his sentence, where he contended *371that his sentencing guidelines scoresheet was prepared in violation of *Miller v. Florida,*— U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987), *appeal after remand,*512 So.2d 198 (Fla.1987). Because the scoresheet was not included in the record, this court could not determine which were the effective sentencing guidelines that applied to Miller, and remanded the matter to the trial court for further consideration.

Miller again appeals the trial court’s order dated January 15, 1988, which denied Miller’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm the trial court’s order.

The sentencing guidelines which were applicable to Miller were effective October 1, 1983. They contained a recommended sentencing range of 4V2 to 5*/2 years. On September 26, 1985, Miller was sentenced to five years. There was no error.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

1

. *Miller v. State,*515 So.2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00385-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-005304-1

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

RUSSELL MAIR, Appellant

V.

ARTURO LOZANO, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Before the court is Appellee Arturo Lozano’s motion to dismiss Appellant 

Russell Mair’s appeal. Attached to the motion and filed with the clerk of this court is 

a document signed by both parties in which they agreed to dismiss the appeal. 

Appellant did not respond to the motion. See Chan Il Pak v. Ad Villarai, LLC, No. 05-

17-01182-CV, 2019 WL 1090407, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 8, 2019, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (dismissing appeal where an appellee filed a motion to dismiss along with 

a signed agreement to dismiss the appeal and the appellant did not respond to the 

motion). In accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and 

filed with the clerk, we may render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement. Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); Fusion Indus., LLC v. Edgardo Madrid & Assocs., LLC, 624 

S.W.3d 843, 849 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, no pet.).

This court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). All costs are taxed against 

Appellant. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 3, 2022
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-51185

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TONY EDWARD POWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CR-4-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tony Edward Powell, federal prisoner #61525-080, seeks leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Powell has failed to

demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. His motion for IFP

is therefore DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Powell’s motion to amend or supplement his appeal brief is

DENIED. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
#### Howard WARNER, as Administrator of the Estate of Daniel O’Brien v. HERO WALL COMPANY, INC.

No. 86-C-2548.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Warner, Howard; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA 5397; Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 26324.

Prior report: La.App., 498 So.2d 304.

Denied.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06305

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06305\06305_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06305\06305_Completeness_Checklist.XLS EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06305\06305_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06305\06305_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

06305\Certification Statement_Plant ID_06305.pdf Plant certification statement

06305\06305_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 32.1





COUNSEL RB CAPITAL INC.





OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)





The undersigned Allan C. Silber, duly appointed and incumbent officer of Counsel RB Capital Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Corporation”), in connection with the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), does hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.
The Report is in full compliance with reporting requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation of the Corporation.





August 31, 2011





/s/ Allan C. SilberAllan SilberChairman of the Board and PresidentPrincipal Executive Officer
#### Cathy Jane St. Clair SMITH v. Henry Grady SMITH, Jr.

No. 87-C-0728.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Smith, Cathy Jane St. Clair; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA-86-1111; Parish of East Baton Rouge, Family Court of East Baton Rouge, Div. “A”, No. 69374.

*64Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 1200.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF U.S.
BIOSCIENCE, INC. FOR THE PERIOD(S) INDICATED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                   6,771,000
<SECURITIES>                            35,177,900
<RECEIVABLES>                            2,456,600
<ALLOWANCES>                               727,000
<INVENTORY>                              2,873,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        30,224,500
<PP&E>                                  12,166,100
<DEPRECIATION>                           6,732,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          52,721,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   11,544,500
<BONDS>                                  2,444,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   243,600
<OTHER-SE>                              38,489,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            52,721,900
<SALES>                                 20,729,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        29,470,900
<CGS>                                    5,787,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           38,375,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         148,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (9,053,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (9,053,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                            (9,053,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.37)
                                             
                                

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF 3D IMAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          59,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,339,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,813,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,280,489
<PP&E>                                       2,131,294
<DEPRECIATION>                                 541,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,870,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,529,949
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,625
<OTHER-SE>                                     320,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,870,293
<SALES>                                      5,297,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,297,084
<CGS>                                        3,452,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,452,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,884,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             283,295
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,323,869)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,323,869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,323,869)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1



Certifications



I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro, Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



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



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



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



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: November 12, 2004

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|Chief Executive Officer and President
#### Mansel J. LaFLEUR v. P & S WELL SERVICE NO. 5, INC. et al., (Bo-Mick Construction Company Inc., et al.)

No. 89-C-0425.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Bo-Mick Construction Co., Inc., applying for rehearing of this Court’s order of March 27, 1989, 540 So.2d 323; 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 88CA-0686; 25th Judicial District Court, Div. A., Parish of Plaquemines, No. 28-208.

Rehearing denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,867,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,985,031
<PP&E>                                       6,327,520
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,761,138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,551,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          316,223
<BONDS>                                        307,479
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,927,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,551,413
<SALES>                                      1,816,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,617,671
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               945,663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,656,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,656,646
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,656,646
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Flooring Zone, Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Jimmy Lee, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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.



Date: December 28, 2005                                /s/  Michael Carroll
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Michael Carroll,
                                                     Principal Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SEAN RODNEY ORTH, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest. No. 84180


# FILE
APR 1 4 

### 20n
ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK9f SUPREME COURT By DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS This pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges actions of the district court in continuing petitioner's preliminary hearing, denying petitioner's motion to suppress evidence, and violating double jeopardy. Petitioner also alleges the State manipulated the suppression proceedings by withholding material information.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4;D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). A writ of mandamus is not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. The opportunity to appeal a final judgment typically provides an adequate legal renaedy. Williams 127

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 447A se*. -I! ,

### "egi )C.1-.0 , J. Stiglich Hardesty J. Nev. at 524, 262 P.3d at 364 (2011); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844 ([An] appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief.") Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy.

Additionally, we note that petitioner has not provided this court with all the necessary exhibits or documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
OM 1947A oCilDico 2cc: Sean Rodney Orth Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(01 1947A .6i2N0 3
Motion GRANTED and Order filed October 29, 2015. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00698-CV

____________

IN RE JENNIFER BRADEN, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

328th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-DCV-216657

ORDER

On August 19, 2015, relator Jennifer Braden filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Ronald 

Pope, Judge of the 328th District Court, in Fort Bend County, Texas, to set aside 

his amended order of enforcement by contempt and suspension of commitment

dated February 27, 2015, in trial court number 14-DCV-216657, styled In the 
Interest of I.R.B., a Child. Relator claims respondent abused his discretion by 

finding her in contempt.

Relator also filed a motion for temporary stay of the proceedings below. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. Relator asks this court to stay the amended order 

of enforcement by contempt and suspension of commitment dated February 27, 

2015, and any proceedings related to its enforcement pending a decision on the 

petition for writ of mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s 

request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced 

unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s 

motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER the amended order of enforcement by contempt and suspension 

of commitment dated February 27, 2015, and any proceedings related to its 

enforcement in trial court cause number 14-DCV-216657, In the Interest of I.R.B., 

a Child, STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ 

of mandamus, or until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Brown.