alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Tavares SPELLMAN-FOLMAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3082

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 25, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm appellant's convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of a scrivener's error in the written judgment. Appellant pleaded guilty to all five counts charged in the information, and the trial court orally adjudicated him guilty of all five counts. Count five was included on the fourth page of the written judgment, but omitted from the first page. On remand, the lower tribunal shall enter a corrected written judgment that conforms to the court's oral pronouncement of guilt on all five counts. *See**King v. State* , 201 So.3d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming an *Anders* appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener's errors in the written judgment); *Washington v. State* , 37 So.3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (same).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 24.5
 
 STATE OF TEXAS             §
 COUNTY OF DALLAS      §
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, WILLIAM M. SAMS, a Director of AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint WILLIAM H. HENDERSON and JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant to
the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009 and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report, incorporating such changes as said attorneys-in-fact
deem appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 14th day of July, 2009.
 
 
 /s/ William M. Sams
 WILLIAM M. SAMS
 
 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 
 Before me this 14th day of July, 2009, came WILLIAM M. SAMS, personally known to me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.
 
 
 /s/ Mary Sellner Thomas
 NOTARY PUBLIC
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1165 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to remove the statue to the memory 

and in honor of Albert Pike erected near Judiciary Square in the District 

of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2021 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. RUSH, and Ms. CLARKE of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to remove the statue 

to the memory and in honor of Albert Pike erected 

near Judiciary Square in the District of Columbia, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Albert Pike Statue 

5 Removal Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF STATUE OF ALBERT PIKE. 

7 (a) REMOVAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, acting 

8 through the Director of the National Park Service, shall 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1165 IH

1 remove the statue to the memory and in honor of Albert 

2 Pike erected near Judiciary Square in the District of Co3 lumbia under the ‘‘Joint Resolution Granting permission 

4 for the erection of a monument or statue in Washington 

5 City, District of Columbia, in honor of the late Albert 

6 Pike.’’, approved April 9, 1898 (30 Stat. 737). 

7 (b) RELOCATION.—The Secretary of the Interior may 

8 donate the statue to a museum or other similar entity, 

9 as determined appropriate by the Secretary, to ensure its 

10 preservation and interpretation in an indoor setting. The 

11 recipient of the statue may not store, display, or exhibit 

12 the statue outside. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
Alvin SHARPE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 20, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 31, 2018

Alvin Sharpe, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*526AFFIRMED . *See**Martinez v. State* , 211 So.3d 989, 992 (Fla. 2017) (holding that alleged defect in information, which purportedly deprived defendant of his due process right to notice of potential enhanced sentence, did not result in an "illegal sentence" subject to correction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) ).

Rowe, Ray, and Makar, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Michael BURKHALTER

(In re Danette D. Burkhalter v. Michael G. Burkhalter)

2160200

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
#### Janice Wolk GRENADIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BWW LAW GROUP, LLC, f/k/a Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, LLC; Howard N. Bierman; Equity Trustees, LLC; Mark R. Galbraith; Wells Fargo; Bank of America, f/k/a LaSalle Bank N.A., as successor-in-interest, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Jointly and Severally, in their Official and Personal Capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-1504

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 14, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

*808Janice Wolk Grenadier, Appellant ■ Pro Se. Robert Ryan Michael, BWW Law Group, LLC, Richmond, Virginia; Syed Mohsin Reza, Mary Catherine Zinsner, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Nathaniel Patrick Lee, McGuire-woods, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janice Wolk Grenadier appeals the district court’s order declining to take action on her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Grenadier v. BWW Law Group, No. 1:14-cv-00827-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         2010596
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   624378
<ALLOWANCES>                                     50000
<INVENTORY>                                     718434
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 28814
<PP&E>                                          799723
<DEPRECIATION>                                  470450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6885952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2636883
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         16481
<OTHER-SE>                                     4456276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6885952
<SALES>                                        6076936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6076936
<CGS>                                          4939162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1055097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                300814
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               96068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (277573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (242714)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (242714)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 11.01

                             OCULAR SCIENCES, INC.

  STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE (BASIC AND DILUTED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended                     Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30,                              June 30,
                                                      2000               1999               2000               1999
                                                  -----------        -----------        -----------        -----------
<S>                                               <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>
Net income per share (basic):

   Net income                                     $17,477,000        $ 9,314,000        $24,610,000        $15,969,000
                                                  ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
   Weighted average common shares outstanding      23,112,094         22,809,644         23,058,837         22,718,704
                                                  ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
   Net income per share (basic)                   $      0.76        $      0.41        $      1.07        $      0.70
                                                  ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
Net income per share (diluted):

   Net income (diluted):                          $17,477,000        $ 9,314,000        $24,610,000        $15,969,000
                                                  ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
   Weighted average common shares outstanding      23,112,094         22,809,644         23,058,837         22,718,704
   Weighted average shares of stock options
        under the treasury stock method               213,537            680,141            265,851            684,333
                                                  -----------        -----------        -----------        -----------
   Weighted average common and dilutive
   potential common shares outstanding             23,325,631         23,489,785         23,324,688         23,403,037
                                                  ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
   Net income per share (diluted)                 $      0.75        $      0.40        $      1.06        $      0.68
                                                  ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
</TABLE>
Demetrius SKELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3970

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Knight v. State*, 808 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2002) ; *State v. Cotton*, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000) ; *State v. Roby*, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971) ; *Skelton v. State*, 186 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (table decision); *Franke v. State*, 997 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; *Steward v. State*, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Hillman v. State*, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ; *Brown v. State*, 97 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; *State v. Retalic*, 902 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; *Lopez v. State*, 833 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; *State v. Smith*, 832 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; *Freeny v. State*, 621 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.                                          

Date: May 13, 2003

/s/ Jack H. Brown
Jack H. Brown
Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
May 13, 2003

/s/ Phillip J. Smith
Phillip J. Smith
Senior Vice President, and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
May 13, 2003
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CAROL P. SACHS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA; OBB

HOLDING GROUP; OBB

PERSONENVERKEHR AG,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15458

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01840-VRW

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)

and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

FILED

JAN 25 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 28, 1998 and Unaudited
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Six Months Ended June 28, 1998 and
is qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                          27,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,298)
<INVENTORY>                                     67,006
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,767
<PP&E>                                         878,429
<DEPRECIATION>                               (332,593)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 813,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,039
<BONDS>                                        421,085
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,678
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   813,713
<SALES>                                        269,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               269,335
<CGS>                                          257,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  266,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,874)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,556)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,318)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,318)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.88)
        

</TABLE>
**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 connectionwith the Annual Report of Environmental Remediation Holding Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2003 (the “Report”),as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, IChude Mba, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                           |  /s/ Chude Mba |   |   | December 29,  2003 |
|-------------------------------|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------|
| Chude Mba                     |                |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |                |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |                |   |

 

----
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned hereby 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
undersigned's best knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership I-E ("Issuer") for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 28th day of March, 2003.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP I-E
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
0 

u.s. Department 

of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

November 20, 2012 

Registered Mail-Return Requested 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S,E! 

Waliihlngtan, DC 20590 

L.,, ... ,.l 

.r:::::;·'· 
2 

m interpreted movable 

aisle armrest as meaning an armrest on an seat that completely moves or folds out 

se~ltbJack remains an upright position to a passenger with 

to safely make an unobstructed (With · tl·om 

if physical ability such assistance) from an 

wheelchair to his or her ..,: .. n,.,,A seat 

Department has Asiana's videos the business seats .in its Airbus 

A380~800 aircraft which demonstrate both a carrier-assisted a self-assisted 

with a mobility impairment an aisle or bo11rding wheelchair to 

"'"'u'"''"' class seat utilizing a 44.5 inch seat pitch. 

not to lifted over the 

the business class seats 

equivalent alternative determination request fbt· 

information 

the Department 

I with the 

1 ) This approval is Hmited to the seats in A380-800 

(2) 

the configuration dimensions provided in 

equivalent altemative determination request must obtain the 

'"'"""'"t ... ~,,nl prior approval ibr any seat conflguration changes and/or seat 

dimension changes to made on any aircraft that is subject to thi.s approvaL If 

Asiana implements seat configuration and/or seat dimension without prior 

approval Department, it risks in violation 

tran!:!fer 

employees 

that will 

~lU·:ltUl.\;;;;:lkl class seats 

(3) Asian a must also: provide, or. ensure the provision 

(B) for years individuals' 

to initial 

calendar quarter, 

with copies of complaints, 

Ju=>Jtuc:):l class seats in 

f'or if 80 pei'C<mt of the aisle seats in which oas:;em!e~·s 

are and 20 percent are in first class, then 80 percent 

\Vith 20 percent in lirst class. 

may sit 

armrests musr be in 
3 

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Amna Arsbad or Mi¢hael 

Hallock, of my staff; at (202) 366~9342. 

Sincerely, 

Livaug n Chapman, Jr. 

Chief, Aviation Civil Rights 

Compliance Branch
Daniel E. GIBBS, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3786

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.