alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5 D 2 2

- 2665 LT Case No. 2020

- 303667

- CFDB

_____________________________
N ICHOLAS C. H ARRIS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

. Raul A. Zambrano , Judge.

Matthew Metz

, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach , for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee

.

February 2 3 , 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

In this Anders * appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court but remand for the trial court to : (1) correct the written judgment in 2020

- 303667

- CFDB to reflect that

* Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).2

Appellant was tried and found guilty by jury of, and is adjudicated guilty of, manslaughter (a lesser included offense), with a weapon, under sections 782.07(1) and 775.087(1)(b), Flori da Statutes; (2) correct the written order of probation to reflect that Appellant was found guilty by jury verdict of , and is adjudicated guilty of, manslaughter (a lesser included offense) , with a weapon; and (3) correct the scoresheet to list the descrip tion of the primary offense as manslaughter (a lesser included offense), with a weapon, and list the corresponding Florida Statutes of the primary offense, sections 782.07(1) and 775.087(1)(b)

.

A FFIRMED ; R EMANDED for correction of scrivener’s errors

.

M AKAR and W ALLIS , J J., concur

. P RATT , J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

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

.

___________________________ __3 Case No. 5D22

- 2665 LT Case No. 2020

- 303667

- CFDB

P RATT , J., concurring in part

, dissenting in part.

I concur in the panel’s affirmance of the judgment and sentence, but I respectfully dissent from the panel’s sua sponte correction of scrivener’s errors in this Anders appeal. See Flowers v. State , No. 5D23

- 844, 2024 WL 387177, at *1

– 2 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 2 , 2024) (Eisnaugle, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-8      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 1 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-8      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 2 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-8      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 3 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-8      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 4 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-8      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 5 of 6

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 67-8      Filed 08/20/2004     Page 6 of 6
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 Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph P. Caruso, and I, Paul S. Weiner certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.








Dated: May 9, 2011











By:  /s/ Joseph P. Caruso


Joseph P. Caruso


President and Chief Executive Officer








Dated: May 9, 2011











By:  /s/ Paul S. Weiner


Paul S. Weiner


Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,834
<SECURITIES>                                     1,190
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,897
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,880,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,953,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,193,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         23
<COMMON>                                           875
<OTHER-SE>                                    (97,565)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,953,141
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               438,027
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,144
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                149,513
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            149,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   149,513
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42


</TABLE>
#### William HOLLAND, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18400.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 18, 1964.

Mr. Francis C. Browne (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Jerome Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Paul A. Renne, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Mr. Martin R. Hoffmann, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for ap-pellee.

Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Fahy, Washington, Danaher, Bastían, Burger, Wright and McGowan, Circuit Judges, in Chambers.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to file his lodged petition for rehearing *en banc,*it is

ORDERED by the court *en banc*that appellant’s aforesaid motion be granted and the Clerk is directed to file appellant’s lodged petition for rehearing *en banc,*and on consideration whereof, it is

FURTHER ORDERED by the court *en banc*that appellant’s petition for rehearing *en banc*is denied.

BAZELON, Chief Judge, would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing *en banc.*.See his dissenting statement in Hardy and Ferguson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C.-, 343 F.2d 233.

FAHY, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order in so far as it pertains to the denial of appellant’s petition for rehearing *en banc.*

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, prior to his retirement on October 15, 1964, voted to deny appellant’s aforesaid motion and petition.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

Brittany N. Clark 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Cherryhill Management, Inc. 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 3:17-CR-0074 

Judge Thomas Rose 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: 

TERMINATION ENTRY 

 

 The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above 

matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, 

with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the parties may, upon good 

cause shown within 30 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. 

 Parties intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the 

settlement should be aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 

S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate appropriate language in any substituted 

judgment entry. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

June 10, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ____________________________________ 

 Honorable Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 27, 2010 

s0920 

Order 

 

September 27, 2010 

141240 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141240 

 COA: 288442 

 Jackson CC: 07-004839-FH 

JAKE WILLIAM JEWELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Nicole Dawn Holland

Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel 1 CASE NO. 03

- 14

- 00577

- CR

NICOLE DAWN HOLLAND § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

§

v. § 3RD SUPREME JUDICIAL

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § DISTRICT AT AUSTIN

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

This Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel is brought by Tracy D. Cluck

,

Appellate Counsel for Nicole Dawn Holland . Movant requests the Court to grant

Movant permission to withdraw as attorney for Appellant, Nicole Dawn Holland

.

In support thereof , Movant respectfully shows:

I.

An Anders brief has been filed in this matter

, and therefore I am requesting

to be relieved of my representation.

II.

A true and correct copy of this motion has be en delivered to Appellant at her

current addre ss: Nicole Dawn Holland, #01962247, Linda Woodman State Jail,

1210 Coryell City Rd., Gatesville

, TX 76528

.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays that the Court

enter an Order discharging Movant as attorney of record, in Cause No. 03

- 14

-

00577

- CR , for Appellant, Nicole Dawn Holland

. ACCEPTED

03-14-00577-CR

5360262

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

5/20/2015 2:02:14 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKNicole Dawn Holland

Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel 2 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tracy D. Cluck

TRACY D. CLUCK

Texas Bar No. 00787254

1450 West Hwy. 290, #855

Dripping Springs, TX 78620

Telephone: (512) 264

- 9997

tracy@tracyclucklawyer.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

NICOLE DAWN HOLLAND

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correc t copy of the foregoing Motion for Withdrawal

of Counsel, has been served o n the attorney listed below by e

- serve and e

- mail, on

May 20, 2015 :

424 th & 33 rd District Attorney’s Office

Mr. Gary Bunyard

g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.us

/s/ Tracy D. Cluck

_______________________________ TRACY D. CLUCKNicole Dawn Holland

Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel 3 CASE NO. 03

- 14

- 00577

- CR

NICOLE DAWN HOLLAND § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

§

v. § 3RD SUPREME JUDICIAL

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § DISTRICT AT AUSTIN

ORDER ON MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL

On this day of , 20 , the

Court considered the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel of Tracy D. Cluck

,

M ovant.

The Court finds that good cause exists for withdrawal of Movant as counsel.

IT IS , THEREFORE, ORDERED that Tracy D. Cluck is withdraw n as

counsel of record for Appellant, Nicole Dawn Holland

, and is hereby

DISCHARGED from his representation of Appellant, Nicole Dawn Holland

, in

Cause No. 03

- 14

- 00577

- CR.

SIGNED this day of , 20

.

_____________________________ JUDGE PRESIDING
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

[CTI Letterhead] 
 October 30, 2015 

Nathan Habegger 
 Chief Financial Officer 

CTI Group (Holdings), Inc. 
 333 North Alabama Street, Suite 240

 Indianapolis, IN 46204 
 Dear Nate, 

This letter sets forth an agreement between you and CTI Group (Holdings) Inc. (the “Company”). You will resign immediately on closing of the
acquisition of CTI by Enghouse and contract with Enghouse as a contractor for 3 months at US$20,000 per month, expenses which are pre-approved in writing, and a one-time special bonus of US$100,000 (the “Special Bonus”) to be paid within
10 business days of closing of the acquisition of the Company. 
 The Special Bonus is compensation for both the extra effort put forth by you in connection
with the sale of the Company and assistance with transition activities for Enghouse. This financial arrangement and payment will be for settlement of all obligations of the Company to you in connection with your assistance with the transaction and
your employment. In the event Enghouse does not complete its acquisition of the Company, the three months contract with Enghouse and the Special Bonus shall not be due and payable. There will be no other financial obligations due to you hereunder.
For greater certainty, you agree that you are entitled to no further amounts from the Company, Enghouse or their affiliates other than as provided herein, including without limitation any notice, severance, bonus amounts, change of control,
termination, work or success fees or any other amounts whatsoever under contract, statute common law or otherwise. 
 Sincerely, 

CTI Group (Holdings) Inc. 

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Manfred Hanuschek
	Name:	 	Manfred Hanuschek
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer and President

 AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED: 

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Nathan Habegger
	Nathan Habegger
	Date:	 	October 30, 2015

 Enghouse Systems Limited 

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Todd May
	Name:	 	 Todd May

	Title:	 	 Vice President and General Counsel

	Date:	 	October 30, 2015
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00232-CR

NO. 03-07-00233-CR

Kenneth J. Faircloth, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 6499 & 6500, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk received and filed Kenneth J. Faircloth’s pro se “appeal of denial of motion

to proceed with out of time appeal.” Despite its style, the document is a motion asking this Court

to grant out-of-time appeals in these two causes, 1995 convictions for aggravated sexual assault of

a child. The proper procedure by which to obtain an out-of-time appeal in a felony case is to apply

to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to article 11.07. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.

11.07 (West 2005) (post-conviction habeas corpus). This Court does not have original habeas corpus

jurisdiction in criminal cases and is without authority to grant Faircloth’s motion. See Tex. Gov’t

Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004).
2

The causes are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

___________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 3, 2007

Do Not Publish
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








In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of China Sky One Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stanley Hao, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary 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,
that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Date:  March
16, 2010




By:
                          /s/
      Stanley HaoName:  Stanley
      HaoTitle:  Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

 Case No. 5D23-2134

LT Case Nos. 2014-CF-491

 2014-CF-821

 2014-CF-822

 2014-CF-823

_____________________________

IRWIN HICKS, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Irwin Hicks, Jr., Arcadia, pro se.

No Appearance for Respondent.

November 17, 2023

PER CURIAM.

Having considered Petitioner’s response, filed October 27, 

2023, to this Court’s order, and finding that it fails to show cause 

why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Petitioner 

is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further 
2

pro se filings concerning Lake County Circuit Court Case Nos.

2014-CF-491, 2014-CF-821, 2014-CF-822, and 2014-CF-823.

Therefore, because Petitioner’s repetitious, frivolous filings 

have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that Petitioner 

is barred from future pro se filings in this Court concerning Lake

County Circuit Court Case Nos. 2014-CF-491, 2014-CF-821, 2014-

CF-822, and 2014-CF-823. The Clerk of the Court is directed not 

to accept any future filings regarding the referenced cases, unless 

they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. 

This includes any post-disposition motion filed in response to this 

order. 

FURTHER PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

MAKAR, EISNAUGLE, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
#### Lesser v. Norman.

Replevin: *Damages recoverablein.*

In an action of replevin the plaintiff may recover not only the damages sustained by the detention of the property before the suit is commenced, but also such as accrue thereafter and to the date of the verdict.

APPEAL from *Lee*Circuit Court.

M. T. Sanders, Judge.

*1McCulloch ■& McCulloch*and *Janies P. Brown,*for appellant.

In the absence of a supplemental or amended complaint, a plaintiff in replevin is entitled to recover only such damages as were the subject of a valid subsisting claim *at the time of the institution of the suit,*and not such as may thereafter accrue pending the litigation. Such is the law in all manner of suits, in the absence of statutory provisions. Mansf. Dig., secs. 5145, 5181, S084; ch. 128, acts 1885, p. 17. See *37*Ark., 544.

*H. N. Hutton,*for appellee.

Plaintiff was entitled to damages, that is, the usable value from the time of the taking to the rendition of the verdict. 34 Ark., 188; 361b., 260; 391b., 438.

COCKRILL, C. J.

In an action of replevin the damages recoverable for the detention of the property are not limited to such as have accrued when the suit is instituted, but may be estimated to the date of the verdict. *Hanf v. Ford,*37 Ark., 5441*Kelly v. Altemus,*34 Ib., 184; *Dunnahoe v. Williams,*24 Ib., 264. Such damages follow the recovery as interest does the principal or as rent the recovery of real estate.

That is the plain meaning of the statute, for it is provided that when the plaintiff recovers judgment for the property which the defendant retains by virtue of a retaining bond, *302he may also recover “all damages sustained by the detention’ ’ of the property; and when the recovery is by the defendant from a plaintiff who holds the property by virtue of possession obtained under an order of delivery, damages for the detention maybe assessed. Mansf. Dig., secs. 5145, 5181, and acts of 1885, p. 16. In the latter case, when the defendant recovers, damages have accrued only after suit is brought, because the detention by the plaintiff does not antedate the action; while in the other case the plaintiff would not recover “all the damages for the detention,’’ unless he was permitted to recover for the entire period of the detention, whether after or before suit.

Affirm.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 25, 2013

h0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146489

_________________________________________

In re GWENDOLINE LOUISE STILLWELL

TRUST.

_________________________________________

DAVID N. McPHAIL, Trustee of the

Gwendoline Louise Stillwell Trust,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 146489

COA: 307822

Clinton Probate

CHRISTINE ANN DUDLEY-MARLING, IAN Ct: 11-027722-TV

DUDLEY-MARLING, and ANNE DUDLEY- MARLING,

Respondents-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

JERRY DAVIS 

 Plaintiff,

:

:

CASE NO. 3:18cv192 

v. :

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE 

ECOLAB INC., et al. 

 Defendants. 

:

:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY 

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been 

settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, 

provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if 

settlement is not consummated. 

Parties intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be 

aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate 

appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry. 

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if 

necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WSSHU-XGJH5LFHDXWKRUL]DWLRQDIWHUKLV

UHYLHZ

Case: 3:18-cv-00192-WHR-MJN Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/19/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 500