alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BENJAMIN H. LEE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA and THE 

CITY OF GAINESVILLE POLICE 

DEPARTMENT,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1834

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction.

Robert A. Rush of Robert A. Rush, P.A., Gainesville, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent State of Florida; Lee C. Libby, Assistant City Attorney, 

Gainesville, for Respondent City of Gainesville.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

MAKAR, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
JAVARRIS LANE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-1006

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 5, 2016. 

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Adrian G. Soud, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Javarris Lane was sentenced to life without parole for murder and an aggregate 

eighty years in prison for child abuse and sexual battery. In an earlier opinion, we 

affirmed his life sentence but reversed the term-of-years sentence. Lane v. State, 151 

So. 3d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The Florida Supreme Court has now quashed that 

decision to the extent it affirmed the life sentence. Lane v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly 
2

S454 (Fla. Sept. 21, 2016). Consistent with the supreme court’s decision, we remand 

for resentencing. The trial court is directed to comply with the Florida Supreme 

Court order.

REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

LEWIS, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17

- 2085 Filed October 24, 2018

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. ERIC McINTOSH JR. , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Joel D. Yates , Judge.

Eric McIntosh Jr. challenges his conviction for delivery of methamphetamine. AFFIRMED.

Eric D. Tindal of Keegan & Farnsworth , Iowa City , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson and Tyler J. Buller , Assistant Attorney s General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J. , and Bower and McDonald, JJ.2

BOWER , Judge

. On November 15, 2017, Eric McIntosh Jr. was convicted by a jury of a class “B” felony , delivery of methamphetamine , in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(b)(7) (2017) and 124.413. McIntosh’s sole claim on appeal is his trial counsel was ineffective f or not asserting an affirmative defense of sentencing entrapment. Sentencing entrapment is a federal defense where a defendant who would
otherwise have commit ed a lesser offense is entrapped into delivering a higher quantity of drugs , resulting in an incr eased sentence. See United States v. Booker , 639 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2011). McIntosh concedes Iowa courts have not recognized sentencing entrapment as a valid affirmative defense and that counsel cannot be held ineffective for not raising an issue not available under Iowa law. See State v. Artzer

, 609 N.W.2d 526, 532 (Iowa 2000); State v. Phillips , No. 99

- 444, 2000 WL 328074, at *1

– 2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2000). We agree, and counsel therefore did not breach a duty by not asserting sentencing en trapment as an affirmative defense. Even if sentencing entrapment were recognized by Iowa courts, it would fail in McIntosh’s case. McIntosh offered to sell law enforcement four ounces of methampthetamine, approximately 112 grams, and law enforcement t hen requested five ounces, approximately 140 grams. McIntosh delivered approximately 125 grams of “ice” methamphetamine to law enforcement in a controlled buy. The quantities of four ounces and five ounces both fall within the class “B” felony for delive ry of methamphetamine under Iowa law and carry the3

same sentence. 1 The quantity increase requested by law enforcement had no effect on McIntosh’s offense or sentence. We hold McIntosh’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by not asserting sent encing entrapment as an affirmative defense.
AFFIRMED.

1 The class “B” felony quantity range for methamphetamine is five grams to five kilograms. Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(b)(7).
Order entered November 22, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00513-CR

FERNANDO SANCHEZ-LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-75749-V

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s November 18, 2016 third motion to extend time to file 

his brief.

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 
ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
1

 

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Eduardo Fuentes Y., Individually, and 

derivatively on behalf of Fox Holding 

Company, and derivatively on behalf of 

Texas International Gas & Oil Company, 

and derivatively on behalf of Centro 

Administrativo F-Siete, S.A. de C.V., and 

derivatively on behalf of Complejo 

Industrial Fuentes, S.A. de C.V.,

 Appellants, 

v.

Cesar Fuentes, Individually and 

Derivatively on behalf of Texas 

International Gas & Oil Company, Fox 

Holding Company, Rosa Yamel Fuentes 

Y., individually and as Independent 

Executrix of the Estate of Rosa Magali 

Fuentes Yanar a/k/a Rosa Magali Fuentes 

Yanar, Centro Administrativo F-Siete, 

S.A. de C.V., and Complejo Industrial 

Fuentes, S.A. de C.V.,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00093-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2016DCV0781)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellants’ Motion to Re-establish the Appellate Timetable.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable suspension 

is lifted and the record is due on October 2, 2020. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1






CERTIFICATION 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 PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ralph H. Schmitt, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
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.
  This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
  Date: May
8, 2009
  By: /s/ Ralph H.
Schmitt
 Ralph H.
Schmitt
 Chief
Executive Officer
  38
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 iVoice, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Jerome R Mahoney,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, 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 results of operations of the Company.


                             By /s/ Jerome R Mahoney
                             ---------------------
                             Jerome R Mahoney
                             President, Chief Executive Officer and
                             Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1

                          CERTIFICATION

     I, Hugh J. Garchinsky, Chief Executive Officer of Peoples
First, Inc., certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Peoples First, Inc.;

     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 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 officers 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 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
     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 officers 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 functions):

          (a)  All significant deficiencies 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:  August 13, 2003
                              /s/Hugh J. Garchinsky
                              ----------------------------------
                              Hugh J. Garchinsky
                              Chief Executive Officer
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03713

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

03713\03713_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03713\03713_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03713\03713_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03713\03713_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03713\03713_partA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03713\03713_partE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03713\03713_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03713\Supporting documents\03713_coverletter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03713\Supporting documents\Aerial shot of plant.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03713\Supporting documents\SCGC A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03713\Supporting documents\Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7615
JAMES F. TERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN TUCKER; RON ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Ric hard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-511-R) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James F. Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom , 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny leave to proceed informa pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.4

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                  KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Glenn P. Dickes, Joseph P. Page, Scott L.
Seybold and Barry F. Schwartz or any of them, each acting alone, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and
in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the
PANAVISION INC. (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1999 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form
10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the
undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to
the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in
connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including
this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any
applicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority
to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be
done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents
this 22nd day of March, 2000.

                                          /S/ HOWARD GITTIS
                                          -----------------
                                          HOWARD GITTIS
Order filed December 6, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00854-CV

____________

J. WILSON, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK FSB, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1072166

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 17, 2016. To date, the filing 

fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the clerk 

of this court on or before December 16, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 

fails to timely pay the fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S)1350

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

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report of Dynegy
Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Bruce A. Williamson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for 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: May 14, 2003
                                             /s/ Bruce A. Williamson
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Bruce A. Williamson
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Black and Edwards to different apartment complexes around the areas

testified to by the victims. The men, who were wearing hooded jackets, exited her vehicle multiple times and returned with stolen goods. Downey and another witness, Tara Godfrey, described the stolen goods, which matched the items reported stolen by some of the victims.

We conclude that the jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented that Black committed the charged crimes. See NRS 199.480(3); NRS 200.380(1); NRS 193.165(1). "[I]t is the function of the jury, not the appellate court, to weigh the evidence and pass upon the credibility of [a] witness," Walker v. State, 91 Nev. 724, 726, 542 P.2d 438, 439 (1975), and the jury's verdict will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by sufficient evidence, see Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981); see also McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992). Second, Black contends that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We decline to consider this assertion because it is not supported by cogent argument. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947Acc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Sanft Law, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1907A c(ieP
#### RICHMOND W. HOWLAND and EUGENE HOWLAND, Plaintiffs in Error, *vs.*THOMAS C. JENKS, Defendants in Error.

ERROR TO RACINE CIRCUIT COURT.

When a party is called as a witness in his own behalf, in pursuance of the statute the regular course of examination must be pursued, as in respect of other witnessess.

A party calling a witness has, as a general rule, the right to examine him without interruption from the opposite party.

Exceptions to this rule noted.

On the trial of this case, Richmond W. Howland, one of the defendants, was called and sworn as a witness on the part of the defendants. During the examination of the witness by the deiendants’ counsel, the counsel for the plaintiff interrupted the examination by propounding to the witness a question relative to the subject matter of inquiry, but not relating to his interest, or in any manner pertaining to cross-examination. The defendants’ counsel objected to the interruption because he was not through with the direct examination of the witness.

The Court decided, that when the parties are on the stand as witnesses, they may be fully examined by the opposite party, whether such examination is a legitimate cross-examination, or otherwise; to which decision the counsel for the defendants excepted.

*Paine*& *Mittett*for the plaintiffs in error.

*Lyon*& *Jidams*for the defendant in error.

*58*By the Court,*

Smith J.

We have been furnished with no briefs and but meager argument, probably for the reason that counsel did not think the question of sufficient importance to require a brief of points or reterence to authorities. But we have looked into the record, and upon its inspection are of the opinion that the court below erred, in permitting the counsel for the plaintiff in error to be interrupted in the examination of the party called as a witness. The statute allows a party to be examined as a witness. Being a witness the regular course of examination must be pursued. If it were otherwise, inextricable confusion would result. There are some occasions on which the opposite party will be permitted to arrest, or rather interrupt the examination of an adverse witness, such as the inquiry as to written evidence as to the same matter sought to be elicited oi ally; suchas the interest of the witness, and the like. But this case is not of that character. The court below erroneously allowed the witness to be taken from the examination of the party calling him. The effect of this error may have been fatal to the rights of the plaintiffs in error. At all events we cannot hold it to be immaterial.

Judgment reversed with costs.