alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 30741

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

WILLIAM S. ELLIS, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE SHACKLEY F. RAFFETTO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI # I, BG INCORPORATED, a Hawai # i Corporation; BRYAN FUNAI and CYNTHIA J. FUNAI, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Civil No. 05-1-0232(2))

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge Ahn, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner William S. Ellis, Jr.'s petition for a writ of prohibition and the papers in support, it appears that: (1) the facts appeared by affidavit to the satisfaction of the respondent judge that petitioner, after due diligence, could not be personally served with process, and (2) it was shown to the satisfaction of the respondent judge that service by certified mail could not be made and was in fact refused by petitioner. Therefore, HRS § 634-23(2) permitted service by publication on petitioner. Permitting service by publication was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion by the respondent judge.

It further appears that the failure to post a copy of the summons on the real property did not invalidate the service by publication inasmuch as the provision of HRS § 634-23(3) requiring a posting of a copy of the summons on the real property pertains to notice of the summons, not service of the summons. Electronically Filed Supreme Court 30741 19-OCT-2010 03:32 PMAccordingly, petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief.

See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court has discretion to act, prohibition will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act.). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 19, 2010.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Karen S.S. Ahn

2
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Ronald J. Ivans,
Chief Financial Officer of the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor TrustSeries C (Series C), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series Cs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series C.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                             |  |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/    RONALD J. IVANS                                                       |  |  |  | 
|                                                                             |  |  |  | 
|Ronald J. Ivans Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner March 29, 2004 |  |
#### MILLIGAN v. STATE.

No. 25467.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 14, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, the jury having assessed the punishment at 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The State’s evidence shows that appellant, while driving an automobile on a public highway in the early morning, -ran through a detour barricade where a railroad crossing was under construction.

Several witnesses testified that appellant was intoxicated and a bottle partly filled with whiskey was taken from his person.

Appellant did not testify and offered no evidence in his behalf.

Objections to the court’s charge were directed to the opening paragraph thereof wherein the jury was informed of the nature of the charge, the defendant’s plea and the presumption of innocence.

In support of such objection, this being a misdemeanor case, appellant requested a special charge to be given in lieu of paragraph 1. Appellant excepted to the overruling of his objection and to the refusal of his requested charge.

The requested charge is confined to an application of the law to the facts. The *582court’s charge applied the law in paragraph 4 of his charge and not in, paragraph 1. The requested charge was therefore on another and different subject, and the trial court correctly declined to substitute the requested charge for his paragraph 1. Had he done so, the charge would have twice instructed the jury on the application of the law to the facts, and would have omitted any reference to the nature of the charge, the defendant’s plea or the presumption of innocence.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
Exhibit 12
 ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three Months Ended($ in thousands)
    
    March 31,2009
    
    2008Net (loss) income
    
    $
    (75,905
    )
    
    $
    18,362Income tax (benefit) expense
    
    
    (40,868
    )
    
    
    11,328(Loss) earnings before income taxes
    
    
    (116,773
    )
    
    
    29,690Fixed charges:Interest on debt, deposits and other borrowings
    
    
    28,495
    
    
    
    25,827Interest on subordinated debt payable to preferred
securities trust
    
    
    2,317
    
    
    
    2,317One-third of all rentals
    
    
    467
    
    
    
    467Total fixed charges
    
    
    31,279
    
    
    
    28,611(Loss) earnings before income taxes and fixed charges
    
    $
    (85,494
    )
    
    $
    58,301Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1)
    
    
    (2.73
    )x(2)
    
    
    2.04
    x
 (1)
    
    For purposes of computing these ratios, earnings represent income before income
taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and one-third
(the portion deemed representative of the interest factor) of rental expense on
operating leases. Fixed charges do not include interest expense related to
unrecognized tax benefits, which we classify as income tax expense.(2)
    
    The ratio calculated for the three months ended March 31, 2009 is less than 1.00. In
order to achieve a ratio of 1.00, earnings before income taxes and fixed charges would
need to increase by $116,773 for the three months ended March 31, 2009.
EXHIBIT
      32











CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of The Bombay Company, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2005 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
      of
      the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their
      knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.




















/S/
                JAMES D. CARREKER
            /S/
                ELAINE D. CROWLEY-----------------------------
            ------------------------------James
                D. Carreker
            Elaine
                D. CrowleyChairman
                of the Board and
            Senior
                Vice President, Chief FinancialChief
                Executive Officer
            Officer
                and Treasurer

















Dated:
      December 8, 2005      Dated:
      December 8, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27267]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-44-000]


Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., Notice of Filing of 
Request for Exemption

October 18, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 13, 2000, Iroquois Gas Transmission 
System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing a request for an exemption 
from the imbalance trading requirement established in Order No. 587-L.
    Iroquois states that its request is made pursuant to the 
Commission's September 28, 2000 Order in Docket No. RM96-1-016 (92 FERC 
para. 61,266).
    Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before October 25, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www/ferc./fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27267 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 15

- 5477

_____________________________
J AMES H. T IPLER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. T. Patterson Maney , Judge

. May 23 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ETHERELL , R OWE , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Crystal McBee Frusciante, Sunrise; and Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Amanda D. Stokes and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted form Florist's
Transworld Delivery, Inc. 3 months ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such Financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,762
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,834
<INVENTORY>                                     13,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,602
<PP&E>                                          45,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,459
<BONDS>                                         58,235
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,454
<SALES>                                         14,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,429
<CGS>                                           10,223
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (817)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (842)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3047 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3047

   To authorize borrowers of loans under the William D. Ford Federal 
  Direct Loan Program to modify the interest rate of such loans to be 
 equal to the interest rate for such loans at the time of modification.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

  Mr. Pocan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize borrowers of loans under the William D. Ford Federal 
  Direct Loan Program to modify the interest rate of such loans to be 
 equal to the interest rate for such loans at the time of modification.

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

SECTION 1. BORROWER MODIFICATION OF INTEREST RATES UNDER THE WILLIAM D. 
              FORD FEDERAL DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM.

    Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087e(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(10) Borrower modification of interest rate.--
                    ``(A) Modification.--Notwithstanding the preceding 
                paragraphs of this subsection, the borrower of a 
                Federal Direct Stafford Loan, a Federal Direct 
                Unsubsidized Stafford Loan, a Federal Direct PLUS Loan, 
                or a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan may elect to 
                modify the interest rate of the loan to be equal to the 
                interest rate that would be applicable to such loan if 
                such loan were first disbursed (or in the case of a 
                Federal Direct Consolidation Loan, first applied for) 
                on the date on which such borrower elects to modify the 
                interest rate of such loan.
                    ``(B) Fixed rate.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (C), an interest rate elected under 
                subparagraph (A) for a loan shall be fixed for the life 
                of the loan.
                    ``(C) Continuing authority to modify.--A borrower 
                may elect to modify the interest rate of a loan in 
                accordance with subparagraph (A) at any time during the 
                life of the loan.''.
                                 <all>
```
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40988 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. N O RB ER TO TRE VI N O
- RO D RI G U EZ , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 07- C R - 693- 1 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , D AV IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederalP u bl i c D efen der ap poi n t ed to represent N orbert o T revi n oR odri gu ez ha s m oved f or l eave t o w i t h draw an d has f i l ed a bri ef

i n accor da n ce w i t h A n d er s v . C a lif

o rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . T revi n o- R odri gu ez ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of the rec ord an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o n on frivo l ou s is s u e fo r ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 19 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
v. And rew Sp ot te d El k ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe llan t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof S ou th Dako ta- Pie rre

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Aug us t 1 9, 2 01 5 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 4, 2 01 5 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. And rew Sp ot te d Elk di rect ly ap p e a ls th e se nt en ce th at th e di st ric t co ur t 1 im po se d up on rev ok in g hi s supe rv is ed r e l e as e, arg ui ng th at hi s si x- m on th pr is on The Hon or ab le Ro be rto A. Lan ge , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of So ut h Dak ot a.s e n t e n ce is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le
. Upo n care fu l rev ie w, se e Uni te d St at es v .

Mi ll er, 55 7 F.3 d 91 0, 91 5- 16 (8 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( ap pe ll at e rev ie w of rev oc at io n se nt en ce), we co nc lu de th at th e within-G uid el ine s- ran ge se nt en ce is no t subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le , se e Uni te d St at es v. Pet rei ki s, 55 1 F.3 d 82 2, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw. The ju dg m en t i s af firm ed
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2
-
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 5, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128786-9 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128786-9 

 COA: 259345, 259400, 

259401, 259402

HENRY CHARLES DAVIS, Wayne CC: 03-002568-01, 

Defendant-Appellant. 03-001583-01, 03-002554-01,

 03-001582-01 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2005, April 

19, 2005, and May 2, 2005 orders of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to 

MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the 

Wayne Circuit Court for entry of an amended Judgment of Sentence. Defendant’s eight 

concurrent sentences of 13 years 6 months to 20 years violate the two-thirds rule of MCL 

769.34(2)(b). Because the statutory maximum for each of the involved offenses is 20 

years, the longest minimum sentence defendant could receive is 13 years 4 months. See 

MCL 750.213, MCL 750.455, MCL 750.457, and MCL 750.459. The Judgment of 

Sentence is to be amended accordingly. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d1128 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 5, 2005 

Clerk
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON , Respondent,

v. DELBERT LEON NICHOLS , Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 36639

- 1

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

P ENNELL 

### , A.C. J.

— Delbert Nichols appeals his convic tions for felony harassment and violation of an anti

- harassment order

. His court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds there is no good faith argument for review

. Pursuant to State v. Theobald , 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1 970), and Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) , a motion to withdraw
must: [1] be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. [2] A copy of counsel’s brief shoul d be furnished the indigent and [3] time allowed him to raise any points he chooses; [4] the court

— not counsel

— then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. Theobald , 78 Wn.2d at 185 (alter ations in original) (quoting Anders , 386 U.S. at 744). 

### FILED AUGUST 20, 2019 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division IIINo. 36639-1-III State v. Nichols

Mr. Nichols's attorney has complied with this procedure. Mr. Nichols has not filed a statement of additional grounds for review. After independently reviewing the
issues identified in counsel's Anders brief and the State's responsive briefing, we agree that none of the recited issues merits relief on appeal. 1
Because the issues identified by counsel are wholly frivolous, the motion to withdraw is granted, subject to compliance with RAP l 8.3(a)( 4). The appeal is
dismissed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed 

### in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040. 

# Q_ Pennell, A.CJ.
WE CONCUR:

1 Counsel has identified the issues of ( 1) evidentiary sufficiency, (2) double jeopardy, (3) hardship excusal of jurors, ( 4) ineffective assistance of counsel, and ( 5) off ender score calculation as the issues most likely to have merit. 

### 2