alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CORRECTED BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-15-00329-CV

Michael E. Geiger

v.

Paul A. Hampel

(NO. 2013-CI-13615 IN 407TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

$152.00

$195.00

UNKNOWN

INDIGENT

N/A COST BILL

AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this October 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

_____________________________

Luz Estrada

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53219

FILE COPY
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd M. Wormuth, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 907]

Spain, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Estes, J), rendered December 14, 2001, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant was serving a five-year term of probation following his June 2001 conviction based upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree (having seriously injured the 13-month-old child of his then girlfriend by inflicting, among other injuries, a fractured skull). In September 2001, defendant was charged with violating certain terms of his probation by, inter alia, associating with individuals under the age of 18 without direct adult supervision authorized by the Probation Department and by being arrested on charges of endangering the welfare of a child and menacing in the second degree (having allegedly threatened two children with a butcher knife so that he could be alone with their 16-year-old babysitter). A violation of probation hearing before County Court resulted in the revocation of defendant’s probation and his resentencing to a prison term of seven years.

Defendant appeals, contending that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated by the legal representation provided by his assigned defense counsel during the probation revocation proceedings. We have reviewed this contention and find it to be without merit. Under the circumstances presented here, defense counsel’s representation was meaningful and competent *(see People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 798-799 [1985]; *People v Coy,*279 AD2d 794, 795 [2001]). The record reveals that defense counsel challenged every aspect of the prosecution’s case, cross-examining the People’s witnesses (including the three minors who testified), and made a forceful argument against a sentence of incarceration in a state correctional facility *(see People v Roberge,*293 AD2d 913, 915 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 680 [2002]; *People v Barber,*280 AD2d 691, 693 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 825 [2001]).

*597We are similarly unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that the seven-year prison sentence imposed by County Court is harsh and excessive. Given defendant’s history of violence and threatened violence toward young children and his inability to refrain from such conduct, even during the first three months of his period of probation, the prison term imposed by County Court was appropriate *(see People v Roberge, supra*at 915). Moreover, a review of the record discloses no extraordinary circumstances which would warrant a reduction of defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Van Valkenburgh,*304 AD2d 986, 986-987 [2003]). The remaining arguments raised by defendant have been examined and determined to be without merit.

Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 19, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00046

- CV

XTO ENERGY INC. and Mobil Producing Texas and New Mexico, Inc.

, Appellant s

v.

EOG RESOURCES, INC., et al.,

Appellee s

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 08

- 0645

- CVA

Honorable Russell Wilson, Ju dge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee ’ s Request for Leave to F ile Letter Brief is GRANTED.

Entered this 19 th day of January , 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk of Court
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 32 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 2- cr-0 06 19 -UU-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MARK A. MAYNE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Mark A. Ma yne , a pr o s e fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is pe ti ti on fo r a wri t o f au di taqu erel a, fi le d p ur su an t t o t he All Writ s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 65 1.Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . 1

Mayne’s p et it io n c ol la te ral ly atta ck s h is sen te nc e in li gh t o f Uni te d S ta te s v . Bo ok er, 5 43 U.S. 22 0, 1 25 S. Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ). Becaus e th e rel ie f Mayne se ek s—th e v acaturof h is ori gi na l s en te nc e o n c on st itut io na l g ro un ds —i s co gn iz ab le un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5, the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y de ni edhi s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f au di taqu erel a. See Un it edSta te s v . Hol t, 4 17 F.3d11 72 , 11 73 -7 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Add it io na ll y , Mayne p rev io us ly file d a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, wh ic h was de ni ed , an d M ayne di d n otob ta in au th or iz at io n fr om th is Co urt t o fi le a se co nd§ 2 25 5 m ot io n. Th us , th e d is tri ctco urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w Mayne’s pr o s e pe ti ti on as asec on d o r su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Se e id . at 1 17 5. Fu rth er, we wou ldno t h av e au th or iz eda se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n b ecau se th e co ns ti tu ti on al rul e an no un cedinBo ok er d oe s n otap pl y retro act iv el y

on co ll at eral rev ie w. See Inre An de rs on , 39 6 F .3d13 36 , 13 39 -4 0 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) . AFFIRMED.

“We re view de novo the question of whethe r a prisoner may challeng e his sentenc e by 1 filing a motion for a writ of audita quer ela.” United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th Cir. 2005). 2
Peter STACK, Petitioner, v. LANDMARK OAKS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and HUD, Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-4393

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,
Christopher Neimeth, certify that:





1.
            I
      have reviewed this Form 10-K of Salon Media Group,
  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 officer(s) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 officer(s) 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 and material weaknesses 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.





/s/ Christopher
      NeimethJune
      27, 2007
              Christopher
      NeimethChief
      Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,941
<PP&E>                                         284,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                 156,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,412
<BONDS>                                          8,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           554
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   328,669
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,780
<CGS>                                           81,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,195
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,042
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,804
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,804
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Krystal M., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Suffolk County Department of Social Ser*499vices, Respondent; Richard C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Richard C. and Others. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Richard C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[769 NYS2d 757]

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Richard C. appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), entered October 15, 2001, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that Krystal M. was an abused child and that her two siblings were derivatively neglected children, and (2) a dispositional order of the same court, entered November 27, 2001, which, after a hearing, upon the fact-finding order, inter alia, placed Krystal M. and her two siblings in the custody of the mother.

Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the dispositional order; and it is further,

Ordered that the dispositional order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination was supported by a preponderance of the admissible evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). Where as here, the Family Court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings are entitled to considerable deference on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see Matter of Commissioner of Admin. for Children’s Servs. of City of N.Y. [Marcel A.],*254 AD2d 416 [1998]; *Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. [Charity G.] v John G.,*208 AD2d 844 [1994]). Under the circumstances presented here, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination that Krystal M. was an abused child, or that her two siblings were derivatively neglected children *(see Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v Douglas E., Jr.,*191 AD2d 694 [1993]; *Matter of Rasheda S.,*183 AD2d 770 [1992]; *Matter of Lynelle W.,*177 AD2d 1008 [1991]; *see also*Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, he was afforded the effective assistance of counsel *(see Matter of Alfred C.,*237 AD2d 517 [1997]; *Matter of Erin G.,*139 AD2d 737, 739 [1988]). Altman, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
No. 32.1
 
 
 Form
10-KSB
 Echo
Resources, Inc.
 File No.
000-26703
 
 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  of  Echo
Resources,  Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,
Pieter
DuRand,  Chief  Executive  and  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, 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 Date: May
2,
2008                                                      
By:           /s/ 
PieterDuRand
 Pieter
DuRand
 Chief Executive Officer
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 ---------------
 A
signed  original of
this  written  statement  required by Section 906
has been provided  to  Echo
Resources,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Echo
Resources,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Jerald E. TANNER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0931

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's March 13, 2018 fee order.

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
H. R. 6116 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14280 

South Military Trail in Delray Beach, Florida, as the ‘‘Benjamin Berell Ferencz 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BENJAMIN BERELL FERENCZ POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, 

Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Benjamin Berell 

Ferencz Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  following  Financial  Data  Schedule contains restated data  for  the  nine
months  ended October 5, 1997.  Diluted Earnings per share have been restated to
conform with the implementation of  SFAS  128  in  the  fourth quarter of fiscal
1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            OCT-05-1997
<CASH>                                          54 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                89881 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   719 
<INVENTORY>                                  42560 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            133560 
<PP&E>                                       16052 
<DEPRECIATION>                                6018 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              159888 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        75034 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       113 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   81911 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                159888 
<SALES>                                     349313 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            349313 
<CGS>                                       291741 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               291741 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             648 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              17916 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  6449 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          11467 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 11467 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.05 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.02 
        

</TABLE>
#### Dennis C. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FAYETTE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT; Richard Moring, Chief Appraiser; Linda Wagner, Mineral Data Clerk; Perdue Brandon Fielder Collins & Mott, L.L.P.; John T. Banks; A. Dylan Wood, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-20337 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 5, 2017

Dennis C. Davism, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dennis C. Davis, Texas prisoner # 1597434, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. We review the dismissal de novo. *Hart v. Hairston,*343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2003).

The district court shall dismiss a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or an employee of a governmental entity if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. However, a plaintiff generally is to be given notice of the perceived inadequacy of the complaint and an opportunity to respond. *Brown v. Taylor,*829 F.3d 365, 370 (5th Cir. 2016). Here, the district court dismissed Davis’s complaint without first alerting him to any deficiencies in the pleading or affording him the opportunity to amend it or to dispute the characterization that it was insufficient. *See id.*Also, the record suggests that the district court failed to review all of the claims in Davis’s complaint, including, inter alia, his claims under various federal statutes. On appeal, Davis suggests that he could have amended his complaint to allege more specific facts if he had been informed of his complaint’s inadequacies and had an opportunity to respond.

Thus, although we express no opinion on the merits of Davis’s complaint, we VA*187CATE the district court’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and REMAND for further proceedings.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 0151

_____________________________
W ENDY H ABEGGER , Appellant,

v.

U NIVERSITY OF W EST F LORIDA , B OARD OF T RUSTEES , D AVID D ICKEY , and WEAR TV C HANNEL 3 , Appellee s

.

___ __________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. W. Joel Boles , Judge

. April 3, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , R OBERTS , and W ETHERELL , JJ., concur

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

.

_____________________________

Cecile M. Scoon of Peters and Scoon, Panama City
, for Appellant.

Larry A. Matthews and Raymond F. Higgins, III of Matthews & Higgins, LLC, Pensacola
, for App ellee s

.
**EXHIBIT 15**

**Letter from Ernst & Young LLP Regarding Unaudited Interim Financial Information**

The Stockholders and Boardof Directors of First Data Corporation 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-125588,333-101883, 333-90180, 333-90182, 333-66368, 33-47234, 33-48578, 33-82826, 33-87338, 33-90992, 33-62921, 33-98724, 33-99882, 333-09017, 333-09031, 333-28857, 333-68689, 333-81691, 333-85715, 333-90719 and 333-93703; Form S-3 No. 333-120214; andForm S-4 Nos. 333-15497 and 333-105432) of First Data Corporation of our report dated November 6, 2006 relating to the unaudited consolidated interim financial statements of First Data Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2006. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

November 6, 2006
Jacob Airon CARREL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0518

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied.

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