alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dwayne A. SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-413.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 13, 1986.

*147Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and John H. Lipinski and Arthur Cartel’, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Steven T. Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Scott appeals from the imposition of a sentence outside of the guidelines. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

Scott was convicted for robbery, carrying a concealed weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm, for which he received a fifteen-year sentence, five years concurrent and a suspended sentence, respectively. In departing from the recommended sentence of seven to nine years, the trial court relied on the following reasons:

> 1. The victims have sustained psychological harm as a result of the crime.

> 2. The age of the victims, one 18 years of age, and one 70 years of age, made them extremely vulnerable to this crime.

> 3. The defendant’s total lack of respect for the criminal justice system, as evinced by his testimony in and during the trial.

> 4. The defendant has four prior felony convictions.

> 5. Justice would not be served by imposition of a Guidelines Sentence.

> 6. This was a violent and heinous act.

> 7. The defendant created a life-threatening situation, as evinced by his comment, “I’ll blow you away,” to the victim, while displaying a firearm.

> 8. The defendant, at age 24, has been given many opportunities at rehabilitation and has taken advantage of none of them.

> 9. The defendant’s comment, “I rob for a living,” shows a total lack of respect for the criminal justice system.

> 10. The defendant has shown no remorse for crimes he committed.

The state concedes the invalidity of reasons four, *Hendrix v. State,*475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985); five, *see Decker v. State,*482 So.2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); and ten, *State v. Mischler,*488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986).

The state, though conceding the invalidity of “lack of respect” as a reason for departure, contends that reason three is valid because it is based upon Scott’s perjury at trial. If reason three is indeed grounded in the fact that the trial court believed Scott had been untruthful, it is still an improper basis for departure. *Edwards v. State,*482 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); *see also Beauvais v. State,*475 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (though a finding that a defendant was untruthful at trial is clear and convincing, it is an invalid reason for departure).

Finding that, at a minimum, four of the ten articulated reasons for departure *148are invalid, we cannot be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence absent these reasons. Therefore, we are required to reverse and remand for resentencing. *Albritton v. State,*476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0535. KIM FLORENCE v. BOOT MAN, INC. d/b/a PREMIER

PARKING ENFORCEMENT.

Kim Florence, the plaintiff in this civil action, has filed an application for

discretionary review of the magistrate court’s orders dismissing her complaint and

denying her requests to reconsider the dismissal.

1 We lack jurisdiction.

Generally, “[t]he only avenue of appeal available from [a] magistrate court

judgment is provided byOCGA § 15-10-41 (b) (1), which allows for a de novo appeal

to the state or superior court.” Handler v. Hulsey, 199 Ga. App. 751, 751 (406 SE2d

225) (1991). This Court may only address magistrate court matters that already have

been reviewed by the state or superior court. See Westwind Corp. v. Washington Fed.

S & L Assn., 195 Ga. App. 411 (1) (393 SE2d 479) (1990); see also OCGA § 5-6-35

(a) (1), (a) (11). Here, the only orders in the application materials were issued by the

magistrate court and have not been reviewed bya state or superior court. Accordingly,

this application is hereby DISMISSED.

The defendant has filed a motion for penalty for frivolous appeal. Florence’s

application is improperly filed, and we have previously dismissed an application filed

by her seeking review of magistrate court orders that had not been reviewed by a state

or superior court. See Case No. A18D0504 (dismissed July 5, 2018); see also Case

No. A18D0407 (Apr. 24, 2018) (dismissing application for discretionary appeal

because Florence failed to include a copy of the order complained of). However, we

1 Florence filed her application in the Supreme Court, which transferred it here.

See Case No. S18D1270 (transferred June 11, 2018).

July 27, 2018
decline to punish Florence, a pro se party, for seeking appellate review without

warning her of the consequences of frivolous filings. Accordingly, the motion is

hereby DENIED. We warn Florence that any future filings that are frivolous and

without authority – including applications for review of magistrate court orders that

have not been reviewed by a state or superior court – may subject her to monetary

sanctions. See Court of Appeals Rule 7 (e) (2) (“The panel of the Court ruling on a

case, with or without motion, may by majority vote to impose a penalty not to exceed

$2,500 against any party and/or a party’s counsel in any civil case in which there is

a direct appeal, application for discretionary appeal, application for interlocutory

appeal, or motion which is determined to be frivolous.”). Information on how and

when to seek appellate review can be found in our Citizen’s Guide, which is on our

website at www.gaappeals.us. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/27/2018
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Ming Hsieh, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cogent, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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
quarterly report;



4. The Registrants other certifying
officer 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 we 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 quarterly 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 quarterly 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; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer 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:



(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls
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 controls over financial reporting.



Dated: May 16, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    Ming Hsieh                    
|Ming Hsieh                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  J OSHUA R ICHTER ,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 06-15614
v. D.C. No.



#  CV-01-00643-JKS R. Q. H ICKMAN , Warden; C AL A. T ERHUNE ; E RNIE R OE , ORDER

Respondents-Appellees. 

# 

Filed November 10, 2008

ORDER KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. Judge Callahan did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

15417PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

UNILOC USA, INC., UN ILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.

, UNILOC 2017 LLC, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

BIG FISH GAMES, INC.

, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2018

- 2186

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in No. 2:17

- cv

- 01183

- RAJ, Judge Richard A. Jones.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J AMES J. F OSTER

, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. Also represented by P AUL J. H AYES

, A ARON J ACOBS

.

D OUGLAS F RED S TEWART

, Bracewell LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by

T IMOTHY G EIGER , Houston, TX; D AVID J OHN B ALL , New York, NY.

______________________T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, D YK

, and R EYNA

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 13, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
50182.

#### PASTIS v. HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES, INC.

Submitted February 3, 1975

Decided February 14, 1975.

*Doyle C. Brown,*for appellant.

*Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, Bruce H. Beerman,*for appellee.

Webb, Judge.

Defendant Johnny Pastis, the losing party in the court below, filed his motion for new trial upon the usual general grounds only. The motion was overruled, and Pastis now appeals from that order with error enumerated solely on the denial of the motion for new trial on the general grounds. There is no transcript of the proceedings in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed under decisions exemplified by *Ward v. Nat. Dairy Products Corp.,*224 Ga. 241 (161 SE2d 305); *Woods v. Canady,*126 Ga. App. 389 (2, 3, 4) (190 SE2d 920) and cases cited; *Puckett v. Nettles,*131 Ga. App. 3 (205 SE2d *28);Freedle v. Galloway,*133 Ga. App. 424 (211 SE2d 29) and cases cited; and *Sherron v. Craddock,*133 Ga. App. 926.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*
#### STATE ex rel. James N. McCOY v. Hon. James F. McKAY, III, Judge, Criminal District Court.

No. 88-KH-0162.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re McCoy, James N.; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “H”, No. 252-127.

Denied. Moot.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Annual Report) for the purposes of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Antonio Brufau Niubó, the Chief Executive Officer and Fernando Ramírez Mazarredo,
the Chief Financial Officer of Repsol YPF, S.A., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Repsol YPF, S.A.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 29, 2009



By:

/s/ Antonio Brufau NiubóName: Antonio Brufau NiubóTitle: Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Fernando Ramírez MazarredoName: Fernando Ramírez MazarredoTitle: Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>




                                                                     EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
------------------------------


       NAME OF SUBSIDIARY AND                        JURISDICTION
     OTHER NAMES UNDER WHICH                              OF
  THE SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS                       INCORPORATION
  ----------------------------                       -------------

The Care Group of New York, Inc.                      New York
    dba* Care Group

Care Line of New York, Inc.                           New York
    dba* Care Line

The Care Group of Georgia, Inc.                       Georgia
    dba* Care Group

Care Line of Georgia                                  Georgia
    dba* Care Line

The Care Group of Texas, Inc.                         Texas
    dba* Care Group

Care Line of Dallas, Inc.                             Texas
    dba* Care Line

Care Line of Houston, Inc.                            Texas
    dba* Care Line

The Care Group of Los Angeles, Inc.                   California

Advanced Care Associates, Inc.                        Pennsylvania

Mail Order Meds, Inc.                                 Texas
    dba* MOM

Commonwealth Certified Home Care, Inc.                New York




----------------
* "dba" means "doing business as"
# MEDI A

MARKETIN G GRAPHI C DESIG N PUBLI C RELATION S EVENTS

H 

## E i n < U J 

# 9 

# i Jul y30 , 201 0

Dea rMr . DeVany : A s a loca l busines s wit h man yclient s tha t fl yfo rbusines s I a m writin g i n supporto f 'Optio n 1 ' o f Gulfstrea m International' s proposa l t o continu e offerin g essentia l a^ C servic e t o th e Oi l City/Frankli n community . I hav e bee n involve d i n helpin g th e airpor t marke t thei rne wcommercia l ai rservice . I t ha s bee n verydifficul t fo rman ybusinesse s t o flycustomer s an d colleague s i n t o th e are a a s wel l a s fl you t fo rbusiness . Recentl yOC Bel l o f th e Venang o Regiona l Airpor t me t wit h Speria n Fal l Protection . Speria n i s a loca l busines s wit h internationa l locations . Mr . Bel l addresse d th e nee d fo r Speria n worker s t o suppor t th e loca l ai rservice . Speria n has tol d u s tha t the yhop e t o fl ymor e an d wil l mak e a n effor t t o alway s chec k trave l option s throug h th e Venang o Regiona l Airport . W e wer e withou t commercia l ai rservic e fo rlon g enoug h tha t traveler s go t us e t o flyin g ou t o f othe rlarge rmarke t airports . No ww e ar e finall ystartin g t o se e a chang e i n habit s an d a recognitio n tha t ou rai rservic e i s needed . I n 200 9 th e airpor t wa s recognize d as th e Venang o Chambe ro f Commerce' s Busines s o f th e Year . Communit yleader s realiz e tha t th e airpor t i s a n asse t an d th e ai rservic e i s a importan t t o ou reconomi ccompetitivenes s an d qualit yo f life . W e ar e prepare d t o figh t fo rth e ai rservice . I an d m ycolleague s wil l commi t t o alway s checkin g trave l throug h th e loca l ai rservic e firs t an d flyin g fro m Frankli n wheneve rpossible . I wil l als o wor k

wit h Gulfstrea m o n th e ne wSav e ou rServic e campaig n t o continu e t o pus h fo rincrease s i n ai rtrave l byth e public . Pleas e allo wu s t o kee p ou rai rservic e an d implemen t ou rne wmarketin g effort s fully . 214. 1 AliOgiien yBlvd . Suit e 2 POBo x18 ? Reno , P A1634 3 Than k yo u fo ryou rconsideration . Sincerely , (814 ) 671.8S9 8 (814 ) 678.779 9 IVloxieMediaCreat^ve.co m Emil yE.Gil l Creativ e Directo r
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0528

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY PARKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 23 2023

08/23/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0528
#### Timothy S. STRICKLAND and Renee Strickland v. Marvin D. FOWLER, Rodney Eugene Fowler, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company and Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., In Solido. A.D. JONES and Ruth Jones v. Ben WEBBER and Smith & Wesson, In Solido.

No. 86-C-2353.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1986.

In re Strickland, Timothy S.; Strickland, Renee; Jones, A.D.; Jones, Ruth; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 18113-CA, 18163-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, Nos. 294699, 297198.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 199.

Denied. The result is correct.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 304

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the development of educational

programs on veterans’ contributions to the country and the designation

of the week that includes Veterans Day as ‘‘National Veterans Awareness

Week’’ for the presentation of such educational programs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9, 2000

Mr. BIDEN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the development of educational programs on veterans’ contributions

to the country and the designation of the week that

includes Veterans Day as ‘‘National Veterans Awareness

Week’’ for the presentation of such educational programs.

Whereas tens of millions of Americans have served in the

Armed Forces of the United States during the past century;

Whereas hundreds of thousands of Americans have given

their lives while serving in the Armed Forces during the

past century;
2

•SRES 304 IS

Whereas the contributions and sacrifices of the men and

women who served in the Armed Forces have been vital

in maintaining our freedoms and way of life;

Whereas the advent of the all-volunteer Armed Forces has resulted in a sharp decline in the number of individuals and

families who have had any personal connection with the

Armed Forces;

Whereas this reduction in familiarity with the Armed Forces

has resulted in a marked decrease in the awareness by

young people of the nature and importance of the accomplishments of those who have served in our Armed

Forces, despite the current educational efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations; and

Whereas our system of civilian control of the Armed Forces

makes it essential that the country’s future leaders understand the history of military action and the contributions and sacrifices of those who conduct such actions:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) the Secretary of Education should work

3 with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Veterans

4 Day National Committee, and the veterans service

5 organizations to encourage, prepare, and disseminate

6 educational materials and activities for elementary

7 and secondary school students aimed at increasing

8 awareness of the contributions of veterans to the

9 prosperity and freedoms enjoyed by United States

10 citizens;
3

•SRES 304 IS

1 (2) the week that includes Veterans Day be des2 ignated as ‘‘National Veterans Awareness Week’’ for

3 the purpose of presenting such materials and activi4 ties; and

5 (3) the President should issue a proclamation

6 calling on the people of the United States to observe

7 such week with appropriate educational activities.

Æ
<PAGE>   1







                                   EXHIBIT 22
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<PAGE>   2


                                   EXHIBIT 22

                             Haverfield Corporation
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                              at December 31, 1996

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name of Banking Subsidiary      Jurisdiction of Incorporation   Percent of Ownership (1)
--------------------------      -----------------------------   ------------------------

<S>                            <C>                             <C> 
Home Bank, F.S.B.               United States                   100%


<CAPTION>
Name of Nonbanking Subsidiary   Jurisdiction of Incorporation   Percent of Ownership
-----------------------------   -----------------------------   --------------------

<S>                            <C>                             <C>                      
Home Financial, Inc.            Ohio                            100% by Home Bank, F.S.B.

Ridgewood Financial Company     Ohio                            100% by Home Bank, F.S.B.

Home Community Development      Ohio                            100% by Home Bank, F.S.B.
  Corporation

<FN>
(1)  Subsidiaries are owned by Haverfield Corporation unless otherwise noted.


</TABLE>
#### William LEWIS v. WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC.

No. 87-C-0008.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

IN RE: Willamette Industries Inc.; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number 18,188-CA; Parish of Jackson 2nd Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 21,200.

Prior report: 499 So.2d 506.

Motion to remand denied. Writ denied.

LEMMON, J.,

would grant the motion to remand. The exceptions were apparently tried with the Court and both counsel addressing the agreement that the Court of Appeal found missing from the record. The Court of Appeal should have sought to have counsel stipulate to the supplementation of the record or remanded for completion of the record in order that the merits of the appeal could be addressed. The present disposition leaves unaddressed the merits of the trial court’s judgment on jurisdiction and requires the trial court and the parties to go through the same motions already completed (perhaps with inadvertent failure to formally introduce the agreement).

COLE, J., would grant the motion for reasons assigned by LEMMON, J.