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

No. 85-2171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1986.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1986.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

*132Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Eddie J. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge,

concurring specialty-

I write so the remaining members of this court and the other district courts of appeal can compare the factual underpinnings of our decision to those of seemingly similar cases that come before them for review.

The trial court’s order recites, in part:

> 1. The Court, in sentencing the Defendant pursuant to his request to be sentenced pursuant to the new sentencing guidelines, hereby determines that the Court must depart from the recommended guidelines range in sentencing this Defendant.

> 2. The Court is of the opinion that a departure is necessary because the Defendant committed a crime while out pending the disposition of the charges in this case, thus establishing a pattern of committing new crimes. See *Fleming v. State,*456 So.2d 1300 (2 DCA 1984); *Swain v. State,*455 So.2d 533 (1 DCA 1984).

> 3. The Court has also considered as a reason for departing the increasing seriousness and violence of the acts for which the Defendant has been convicted.

> 4. Additionally, the Court is of the opinion that the Defendant has shown complete disregard for the juvenile system, the State correctional system, and the criminal justice system as a whole by his repeated criminal activity, including the crime committed during the pendency of this case.

We are following the lead of the Second District Court of Appeal in *Dorado v. State,*482 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and similar cases thereafter. We may well be in conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal in *Battles v. State,*482 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
#### Jacob J. CHATELAIN v. PROJECT SQUARE 221, a Louisiana Partnership In Commendam, Gerald D. Hines & Associates and Gerald D. Hines, Individually.

No. 87-C-1100.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

Reconsideration Denied July 1,1987.

In re Project Square 221; Gerald D. Hines & Associates; Hines, Gerald D. Indi-vid.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, or supervisory writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5422; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “C”, No. 83-5001

Prior report: La.App., 505 So.2d 177.

Denied.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00397

- CV

BETTY JANE GOSSETT

, Appellant

v.

THE ESTATE OF DONA L EE STOVALL,

DECEASED, AND LISA JAMIESON AS THE

PERSONAL REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE

ESTATE OF DONA LEE S TOVALL

, Appellee s

From the County Court at Law No

. 2

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. P200719377

- A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of the Court notif ied the parties in a n August 3, 2016 letter that the

appellant must provide a written status report within seven days or the appeal would be

dismissed for want of prosecution without further notice. A status report has not been

filed.Betty Jane Gossett v. The Estate of Dona Lee Stovall, Deceased Page 2

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.3(b).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opini on delivered and filed August 17, 2016

[CV06 ]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                          FINANCIAL 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 March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Michael Carroll, Principal Financial 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: October 2, 2006                            By: /s/ Michael Carroll
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Michael Carroll, Principal
                                                    Financial Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00633

- CV
Sandra Maribel Arroyo v. Cristo Rey Garza
On Appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 5767

- 15

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observan ce. July 26, 2018
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, David J. Keefe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;

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 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 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 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: May 15, 2007



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David J. Keefe                  
|    |  | David J. Keefe                      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50607 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SANTIAGO NKO-SIAKA, a/k/a Siaka Nko Santiago, a/k/a Sam Nko Siaka Smith, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CR-16-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - December 19, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Santiago Nko-Siaka challenges his sentence for his conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). He raises the following issues: 1) U.S.S.G. § 2L2.2 contemplates bribery within the heartland of cases covered by the guideline, and therefore, bribery could not support the district court’s upward departure; 2) the court’s other reason for theNo. 96-50607 - 2 -

** Nko-Siaka raised for the first time on appeal the following issues: 1) the evidence did not establish that he committed bribery under state law; 2) even if he did commit bribery, such bribery would have been relevant conduct of the offense of conviction; 3) the Government failed to demonstrate that Nko-Siaka would have been deported if he had attended the deportation proceedings; and 4) the deportation proceedings were not related to the offense of conviction. upward departure, Nko-Siaka absconding from deportation proceedings, was unclearly stated so that it could not be grounds for the departure; 3) the Sentencing Commission considered deportation in several offense guidelines and in § 2L2.2, and this consideration precludes the court’s use of absconding as grounds for a departure; and 4) the extent of the departure was based on the court’s legal error in its analogy to another offense guideline without consideration of Nko-Siaka’s acceptance of responsibility in the analogy. From our review of the appellate record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its upward departure. See United States v. Ashburn , 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995). Further, Nko-Siaka’s remaining issues ** do not rise to the level of plain error. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).
AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 15

- 00187

- CR Dianna Wyrick RODRIGUEZ aka Dianna Emmarose Ring, Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 227th Ju dicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR6190 Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 13, 2015
DIS MISSED The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed d id not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of t he Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part04

- 14

- 00187

- CR

of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d). On April 9, 2015, we ordered that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by May 7,
2015. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No response was filed. In the absence of an amended trial court certification showing that the appellant has the right of appea l, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 38 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 38

    To waive the Standing Rules of the Senate in order to permit a 
  resolution authorizing Senate committee expenditures for the period 
               March 1, 1999 through September 30, 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1999

   Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Dodd) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To waive the Standing Rules of the Senate in order to permit a 
  resolution authorizing Senate committee expenditures for the period 
               March 1, 1999 through September 30, 1999.

    Resolved, That, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Rules and Administration 
is authorized to report a continuing resolution authorizing Senate 
committee expenditures for the period March 1, 1999 through September 
30, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
Avenal power plant

to: R9AirPermits 04/12/2011 10:52 PM

History: This message has been forwarded.

> To who it may concern:

> 

> As a concerned citizen of the San Joaquin Valley I am troubled by the fact

the EPA is grandfathering in the power plant in Avenal, CA. The San Joaquin 

valley is a region that already has high cases of asthma and has multiple 

cities in the top 10 of bad air quality in the nation. With this being the 

case, the highest and newest standards must be adhered to in order to keep its 

citizens healthy. Please reconsider and DO NOT grandfather in the Avenal power 

plant. 

> 

> Sincerely,

> 

> 

>
**Exhibit** **32.2**

 

**Certification of President**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of HyperSpace Communications, Inc. (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “*Report*”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|         | /s/ Mike Adkins |
|--------------|-----------------|
| May 15, 2006 | Mike Adkins     |
|         | President       |
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
§1350

We hereby certify that this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, to the best of my knowledge, fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Allied Waste Industries, Inc.



| |                              
| | -----------------------------
| | ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.



| |     |                          
| | --- | -------------------------
| | By: | /s/ THOMAS H. VAN WEELDEN

| |                                       
| | --------------------------------------
| |                                       
| | Thomas H. Van Weelden                 
| | Chairman of the Board of Directors and
| | Chief Executive Officer               
|
| | ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.         



| |     |                      
| | --- | ---------------------
| | By: | /s/ PETER S. HATHAWAY

| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| |                             
| | Peter S. Hathaway           
| | Executive Vice President and
| | Chief Financial Officer     

Date: March 15, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: APPEAL OF HAVEN AT ATWATER
VILLAGE LLC FROM THE DECISION OF
THE CHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, MUNICIPALITY OF EAST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP, CHESTER COUNTY, PA FOR THE TAX
YEAR 2017 TAX PARCEL NO. 42

- 02

- 0008.03.A0

PETITION OF: HAVEN AT ATWATER VILLAGE, LLC :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 67 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
the Order of the Commonwealth
Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of June, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Letter agreement dated March 19, 2004



  
 Exhibit 10.2

  

			
	 	  	 Ampex Corporation
 135 East 57th Street
 New York, New York 10022
 Telephone (212) 935-5144


  
 

 
  
 March 19, 2004 
  
 Mr. Joel D. Talcott 
 Ampex Corporation 
 Vice President and Secretary 
 1228 Douglas Street 
 Redwood City, California 94063 
  
 Dear Joel, 
  
 This letter confirms our discussion regarding the royalty collection incentive opportunity for the 24-month period commencing January 1, 2004. Schedule A sets forth the
percentage of net royalties received (after deduction of withholding taxes and any similar costs) that you and your team would be eligible to receive. 
  
 Calculation of incentives at the applicable rates will be made at the end of each six-month period and paid promptly thereafter. Royalty incentive payments to team
members, other than yourself, aggregating the percentage amounts set forth in Schedule A will be divided in accordance with your recommendations should management exercise its discretion to do so. 
  
 Recognizing that we may negotiate one-time settlements for past royalties or paid up licenses
for future royalties, please note that such sums will be treated separately from recurring royalties in accordance with the note to Schedule A. 
  
 I wish you great success in your royalty collection efforts. 
  

	
	Yours sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Edward J. Bramson

	 Edward J. Bramson

	Chairman










 Schedule A 
  
 Amount of running royalties received during 6-month periods ending 
 ($ millions) 
  

																							
	June 30, 2004

	 	 	December 31, 2004

	 	 	June 30, 2005

	 	 	December 31, 2005

	 
	Amount

	  	 Incentive
 Rate

	 	 	Amount

	  	 Incentive
 Rate

	 	 	Amount

	  	 Incentive
 Rate

	 	 	Amount

	  	 Incentive
 Rate

	 
	$	0-4	  	1.0	%	 	$	0-4	  	1	%	 	$	0-4	  	1	%	 	$	0-4	  	1	%
	 	4-8	  	1.5	%*	 	 	4-8	  	1.5	%*	 	 	4-8	  	1.5	%*	 	 	4-8	  	1.5	%*
	 	8+10	  	2.0	%*	 	 	8+10	  	2.0	%*	 	 	8+10	  	2.0	%*	 	 	8+10	  	2.0	%*
	 	10+	  	3.0	%**	 	 	10+	  	3	%**	 	 	10+	  	3	%	 	 	10+	  	3	%

  
 Incentive percentages apply separately
to each band of royalty receipts. For example, in the period ending June 30, 2004 receipts of $5 million would result in a payment of $55K. 
  
 Amounts received in respect of negotiated settlements, for past or paid up royalties, will accrue an incentive rate of 1.5%* in all periods and such receipts will be
excluded from running royalties. 
  

	*	Includes 0.25% which may be distributed, at discretion of management, to team members other than J. Talcott. 

  

	**	Includes 0.50% which may be distributed, at discretion of management, to team members other than J. Talcott.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 99

March 21, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are filing our Form 10K today with financial statements audited by Arthur
Andersen LLP (Andersen). Andersen's audit opinion on our December 31, 2001
financial statements is dated February 8, 2002, and the date of their Consent of
Independent Public Accountants is March 20, 2002. In accordance with Temporary
Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X we have received certain required
representations from Andersen in a letter signed by them and dated March 20,
2002.

Andersen has represented to us that the audit was subject to Andersen's quality
control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards. They further represented that there was appropriate
continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of
national office consultation. Andersen represented that availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen LLP is not relevant to this
audit.


Sincerely,


Thomas W. Ryan
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7801]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than April 17, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Bobbie R. Needham, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma; Matthew K. Needham 
and Amanda L. Needham, both of Basehor, Kansas; Michael L. Needham and 
Andrea M. Needham, both of Olathe Kansas; and Russ A. Hoffman and Megan 
L. Hoffman, both of Wichita, Kansas, all as members of the Needham 
Family Group, to retain control of Overbrook Bankshares, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly retain control of The First Security Bank, both in 
Overbrook, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 28, 
2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-7801 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P