alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D15-3134

_____________________________

PATRICK SCOTT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

December 14, 2018

PER CURIAM.

In this direct appeal, we affirm Appellant’s convictions and 

sentences for sexual battery and possession of cocaine. We write 

only to address Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in 

scoring his prior Georgia burglary conviction as burglary of an 

occupied structure. 

Below and on appeal, the parties disagree whether the 

underlying facts establish that the store in Georgia was occupied 

when Appellant burglarized it. However, “neither the trial court 

nor this court is permitted to consider underlying facts in 

determining the existence of an analogous Florida offense.” Snipes 

v. State, 793 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Instead, only 

the elements of the out-of-state crime should be considered in 
2

determining whether a conviction is analogous to a Florida crime. 

Dautel v. State, 658 So. 2d 88, 91 (Fla. 1995); Bracey v. State, 109 

So. 3d 311, 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Michaud v. State, 2 So. 3d 375, 

376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Montoure v. State, 880 So. 2d 793, 794 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Knarich v. State, 866 So. 2d 165, 168 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2004); Snipes, 793 So. 2d at 1108; Holybrice v. State, 753 So. 

2d 621, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Lee v. State, 675 So. 2d 682, 683 

(Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Appellant has not argued below or on appeal that the trial 

court erred in relying on underlying facts to score the Georgia 

burglary conviction or that the elements of the out-of-state crime 

were not analogous to the Florida offense of burglary of an occupied 

structure. Here, the court will not reverse the trial court’s ruling 

on grounds neither raised nor argued by the parties. Accordingly, 

we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1704/2006

of 17 November 2006         

fixing the maximum aid for concentrated butter for the 20th individual invitation to tender opened under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 20th individual tender under the standing invitation to tender opened in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 the maximum amount of the aid for concentrated butter with a minimum fat content of 96 %, as referred to in Article 47(1) of that Regulation, is fixed at 19,27 EUR/100 kg,

The end-use security provided for in Article 53(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005 is fixed at 21 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 November 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 November 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

(2)OJ L 308, 25.11.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2107/2005 (OJ L 337, 22.12.2005, p. 20).

----
#### Marvin REDDISH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hank GALETKA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-4154.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 2003.

Marvin Reddish, Draper, UT, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Salt Lake City, UT, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.

*532Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Marvin Reddish, the *pro se*petitioner in this case, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal may be taken from the denial of a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). Reddish is not entitled to a COA unless he can make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” *Id.*§ 2253(c)(2). Reddish can make this showing by demonstrating that the issues raised are debatable among jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions presented deserve further proceedings. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

This court has read Reddish’s request for a COA and accompanying brief and has conducted a *de novo*review of the district court’s order and the entire record on appeal. That *de novo*review clearly demonstrates the district court’s dismissal of Reddish’s § 2254 petition is not deserving of further proceedings or subject to a different resolution on appeal. Accordingly, this court denies Reddish’s request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1676 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1676

      To permit the current refunding of certain tax-exempt bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 16, 1996

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To permit the current refunding of certain tax-exempt bonds.

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

SECTION 1. CURRENT REFUNDINGS OF CERTAIN TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 10632 of the Revenue Act 
of 1987 (relating to bonds issued by Indian tribal governments) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
amendments made by this section shall not apply to any obligation 
issued after such date if--
            ``(1) such obligation is issued (or is part of a series of 
        obligations issued) to refund an obligation issued on or before 
        such date,
            ``(2) the average maturity date of the issue of which the 
        refunding obligation is a part is not later than the average 
        maturity date of the obligations to be refunded by such issue,
            ``(3) the amount of the refunding obligation does not 
        exceed the outstanding amount of the refunded obligation, and
            ``(4) the net proceeds of the refunding obligation are used 
        to redeem the refunded obligation not later than 90 days after 
        the date of the issuance of the refunding obligation.
For purposes of paragraph (2), average maturity shall be determined in 
accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to refunding obligations issued after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2057 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2057

To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent the authority 
 of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs guarantee loans with adjustable 
                            rate mortgages.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 5, 1996

  Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Thurmond) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent the authority 
 of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs guarantee loans with adjustable 
                            rate mortgages.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO GUARANTEE ADJUSTABLE RATE LOANS.

    Section 3707(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking out ``shall carry out a demonstration project'' and all that 
follows through ``guaranteeing loans'' and insert in lieu thereof 
``shall guarantee loans''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Phoenix (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Joseph Scott Wilson, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

/s/            Joseph Scott            Wilson                        
Joseph            Scott Wilson

President            and Chief Accounting Officer

May          12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THERMO OPTEK CORPORATION'S
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 1,2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                                 41,172
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         106,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                            4,281
<INVENTORY>                                            64,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      281,633
<PP&E>                                                102,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                         43,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        568,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 207,853
<BONDS>                                                    84
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  518
<OTHER-SE>                                            347,826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          568,129
<SALES>                                               453,870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      453,870
<CGS>                                                 245,239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         245,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       28,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      4,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        64,658
<INCOME-TAX>                                           25,218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    39,440
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           39,440
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.74


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.36

 

2012 Cash Incentive Plan

 

Purpose:

 

The terms of the 2012 Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) have been established to reward the executives and other employees of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for assisting the Company in achieving its operational goals through exemplary performance. Under the Plan, cash bonuses, if any, will be based on both the achievement of corporate goals and a review of personal performance, which is determined at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) and/or the Board of Directors (the “Board”).  The overarching intent in setting and achieving the goals is to build long-term shareholder value.

 

Determination of 2012 Cash Bonuses:

 

Target bonuses for participants in the Plan will range from 5% to 60% of such recipient’s 2012 base salary, with a range for executives of 40% to 60% of such executive’s 2012 base salary. The maximum bonus that a participant will be eligible to receive is 120% of such participant’s 2012 base salary and in no event will a bonus be paid later than March 15 of the year following the year in which the bonus was earned. The objective Company performance goals for each participant will be based on meeting certain goals with respect to the Company’s financial and operational performance, including building the pipeline of potential product candidates (weighted at 10%), initiating clinical development of product candidates (weighted at 15%), advancing the development of product candidates already in t he clinic (weighted at 60%), and the Company’s cash position at December 31, 2012 (weighted at 15% ), as well as other Company performance goals to be determined by the Compensation Committee. The Board and Compensation Committee reserve the right to modify these goals and criteria at any time or to grant bonuses to the participants even if the performance goals are not met.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41677

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN DONIS-ARREDONDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-484-ALL

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Martin DonisArredondo raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1966

To extend the legislative authority for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots

Foundation to establish a commemorative work.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 17, 1996

Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. CHAFEE, and Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To extend the legislative authority for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to establish a commemorative work.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR

4 MEMORIAL ESTABLISHMENT.

5 The legislative authority for the Black Revolutionary

6 War Patriots Foundation to establish a commemorative

7 work (as defined by the Commemorative Works Act (40

8 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)) shall expire October 27, 1998, not9 withstanding the time period limitation specified in section
2

•S 1966 IS

1 10(b) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 1010(b)) or in section 1 of

2 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Commemorative

3 Works Act, and for other purposes’’, approved August 26,

4 1994 (42 U.S.C. 1003 note).

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Te xas

July 27, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00207

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.I.W., A MINOR CHILD

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

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 14181 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A ppellant filed his brief on July 12, 2017, before the official reporter’s record was filed in this court

. The official reporter’s record was filed in this court on July 21, 2017. We have reviewed appellant’s brief in conjunction with the appellate record filed in this court. After review, we find appellant’s brief does not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appe llate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 .1 in that it does not include : (1) record references in the statement of facts; or ( 2 ) argument with appropriate citation to the appellate re cord. Id. R. 38.1(g) (requiring statement of facts with record reference), 38.1 (i) (requiring argument with appropriate citation to authority and record ). We note appellant has no citations to the clerk’s record , no citations to the record in his statem e n t of facts, and his citations to the reporter’s record in the argument portion of his brief are inaccurate. For example, on page s 9

– 10 of appellant’s brief, he cites to page 33 , lines 1

– 3 of the reporter’s record for the following:

Q: Okay. So was your apartment in Cedar Park

— was that your primary residence? A: Yes.

However, our review of the official reporter’s record shows this question and answer actually appear on page 32 , lines 19

– 21. There are similar citation discrepancies throughout appella nt’s brief.

Although substantial compliance with R ule 38 .1 is generally sufficient, this court may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates R ule 38. 1. See id.
R. 38.9(a). We conclude that the formal defects described above constitute flagrant violations of
R ule 38. 1.
Accordingly

, we ORDER appellant’s brief stricken and ORDER a ppellant to file an amended brief in this court on or before August 7, 2017

. The amended brief must correct theviolations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See, e.g.

, id. R. 38.1 (g), (i)

. If

the amended brief does not comply with this order , we “ may strike the brief

, prohibit [ a ppellant ] from filing anoth er , and proceed as if [ a ppellant] had failed to file a brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss appeal if appellant fails to timely file brief).

If a ppellant timely files a brief that complies with this order, a ppellee’s brief will be due thirty days after a

ppellant’s brief is filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b).

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
First Republic Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                           |  |                                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 10, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ WILLIS H. NEWTON, JR.
|                        |  |  |  | Name:                     |  | Willis H. Newton, Jr.                                
|                        |  |  |  | Title:                    |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23
Consent of Independent Accountants

                                SUSA Partnership, L.P.

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements of
SUSA Partnership, L.P. (the "Partnership") on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-3344,
333-21991 and 333-44641), of (1) our report dated January 26, 2000, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Partnership as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1999, which report is incorporated by reference in the
Partnership's 1999 Form 10-K and (2) our report dated January 26, 2000, on the
financial statement schedule of the Partnership as of December 31, 1999, which
report is incorporated by reference in the Partnership's 1999 Form 10-K. We
also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Registration Statements.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Memphis, Tennessee
March 23, 2000