alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Mark Victor Dheil, Appellant

No. 06-14-00201-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 4th District Court of Rusk 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR14-089). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Mark Victor Dheil, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 8, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
NO ONE ATTENDED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED DURING THE 30-DAY COMMENTPERIOD
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 12, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1354

Lower Tribunal No. 18-20074-CC

________________

Oracle Elevator Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Omni at Coral Way, Inc., etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria D. 

Ortiz, Judge.

Sheldon R. Rosenthal, for appellant.

ADR Miami, LLC, and Juan Ramirez, Jr., for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. 

FERNANDEZ, C.J.
2

Appellant Oracle Elevator Company (“Oracle”) appeals the trial court’s 

order granting Omni at Coral Way’s (“Omni”) motion for summary judgment. 

Because there is a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment is 

inappropriate. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

“We review the trial court's orders granting final summary judgment de 

novo.” Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 225 So. 3d 974, 976 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2017).

This is a breach of contract action brought by Oracle against Omni. 

The parties provided copies of the same alleged contract to the trial court, 

one signed and one unsigned. There is a genuine issue of material fact on 

the basic question of whether the parties had a signed agreement. This is a 

question for the trier of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. 

See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510; United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Velez, 305 So. 3d 

682, 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the order on appeal for further 

proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Holli C. Nichols, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                                                                      
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2006 |  | By: |  | /S/ HOLLI C. NICHOLS                                                 
|                       |  |     |  | Holli C. Nichols Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Harry Carroll KIRK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20602.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 26, 1963.

Charles R. Wheeler, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.

Robert S. Travis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Barefoot Sanders, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that appellant had the services of counsel chosen by him at the time of his plea and sentence, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

The judgment is affirmed.
## **Exhibit 31.1**

##  

**Section 302Certification**

 

I, Catherine Walker, certify that:

 

1.    I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Seneca Gaming Corporation;

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

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

 

(a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)         Discussed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)         All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: August 14, 2009 | /s/ Catherine Walker           |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                       | Catherine Walker               |
|                       | Chief Operating Officer        |
|                       | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

----
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply501Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Sally  Rose (not verified)PermalinkDecember 11, 2020 - 9:07amVery cool! I had all but forgot about this. I was born in D.C. so I need to keep up. Thank-you for the article.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00296-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.W. §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 324th District Court

of Tarrant County (324-013484-76)

April 14, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Father shall pay all of the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Michael T. Mino, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of T-3 Energy Services, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     */*s/ MICHAEL T. MINO     Michael T. Mino  Chief Financial Officer  July 30, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4591

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOAQUIN TOSTADO-BARRAZA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:13-cr-00056-MOC-6)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joaquin Tostado-Barraza pled guilty without a plea 

agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

cocaine and cocaine base and conspiracy to commit money 

laundering. The district court sentenced him to 120 months’ 

imprisonment. Tostado-Barraza’s counsel has submitted a brief 

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but 

questioning whether the district court erred when it applied a 

two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (2013) because a handgun was possessed. Neither 

Tostado-Barraza nor the Government has filed a brief. We 

affirm.

A two-level increase in a defendant’s offense level is 

warranted “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was 

possessed.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). The defendant bears the burden 

to show that a connection between his possession of a firearm 

and his narcotics offense is “clearly improbable.” United 

States v. Harris, 128 F.3d 850, 852-53 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Given that Tostado-Barraza was found 

in a “stash” trailer, a gun was found on his bed, and numerous 

holes were located directly behind the trailer containing drug 

wrapping materials, we conclude that Tostado-Barraza has not met 

his burden of establishing that a connection between his 
3

possession of a firearm and his offense was clearly improbable. 

Thus, the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Tostado-Barraza, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Tostado-Barraza requests 

that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a 

petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court 

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion 

must state that a copy thereof was served on Tostado-Barraza. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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;(d)
    
    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; and
  (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.
 Dated: January 13, 2011
    /s/ Robert J. DavisRobert J. Davis, Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                 GRANCARE, INC.

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
          (Dollars and Shares in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                   Three months ended    Nine months ended
                                     September 30,         September 30,
                                   ------------------  -------------------
                                     1996      1995      1996       1995
                                   --------  --------  --------   --------
<S>                                <C>       <C>       <C>         <C> 
Primary
     Average shares outstanding....  23,350   23,258    23,250     23,235
     Net effect of conversion of
      stock options (a)............     633        -       546        556
     Net effect of conversion of
      warrants (a).................     219        -       225        435
                                    -------  -------   -------    ------- 

               Total...............  24,202   23,258    24,021     24,226
                                    =======  =======   =======    ======= 

     Net income (loss)............. $ 9,392  $  (518)  $24,162    $13,274
                                    =======  =======   =======    ======= 

     Net income (loss) per
      common share................. $  0.39  $ (0.02)  $  1.01    $  0.55
                                    =======  =======   =======    ======= 

Fully diluted

     Average shares outstanding....  23,350   23,258    23,296     23,235
     Net effect of conversion of
      stock options (a)............     705        -       750        594
     Net effect of conversion of
      warrants (a).................     223        -       277        438
     Net effect of conversion of
      convertible securities (b)...   2,330        -     2,330          -
                                    -------  -------   -------    ------- 

               Total...............  26,608   23,258    26,653     24,267
                                    =======  =======   =======    ======= 

Net income (loss).................. $ 9,392  $  (518)  $24,162    $13,274
Interest on convertible
 securities - net of tax...........     643        -     1,916          -
                                    -------  -------   -------    ------- 
                                    $10,035  $  (518)  $26,078    $13,274
                                    =======  =======   =======    ======= 

Net income (loss) per common
 share............................. $  0.38  $ (0.02)  $  0.98    $  0.55
                                    =======  =======   =======    ======= 
 
(a) Computed using the treasury stock method
(b) Computed using the "if-converted" method
=================================================================================
 
</TABLE>

                                       1