alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Antwaine J. GRAYS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3437

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 4, 2018

Antwaine J. Grays, Clermont, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Antwaine Grays appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, alleging newly discovered evidence. The alleged newly discovered evidence was the sworn statement of a fellow inmate admitting to the commission of the crimes for which Grays had been convicted. In the sworn statement, the affiant also details circumstances surrounding the alleged crimes, states that Grays had no involvement in the crimes, and sets forth reasons why the information had not been disclosed earlier. Although the trial court understandably viewed the affidavit as suspect,1 it was error to determine the propounded evidence to be "non-credible" without an evidentiary hearing.

We review the trial court's order de novo. *Utile v. State* , 235 So.3d 1045, 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Summary denial will be upheld if the motion was either facially invalid or the claims were conclusively refuted by the record. *Id.*

Here, the postconviction court was tasked with considering all newly discovered evidence that would be admissible at trial and determining whether such evidence, had it been introduced at trial, would have probably resulted in an acquittal. In reaching this conclusion, the judge would necessarily have to evaluate the weight of both the newly discovered evidence and the evidence that was introduced at trial. *Nordelo v. State* , 93 So. 3d 178, 185 (Fla. 2012) (citing *Jones v. State* , 591 So.2d 911, 916 (Fla. 1991) ). As a result, these types of factual matters generally require an evidentiary hearing to allow the court to test the credibility of the newly discovered evidence "unless the affidavit is inherently incredible or obviously immaterial to the verdict and the sentence." *Id.* (quoting *Davis v. State* , 26 So.3d 519, 526 (Fla. 2009) ).

In the present case, the fellow inmate's affidavit provided evidence that would have been material to the question of whether Grays committed the charged crimes. Furthermore, the postconviction court did not find the affidavit to be "inherently incredible," nor would it have been appropriate for the court to have done so. *See**Simpson v. State* , 100 So.3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that characterizing exculpatory affidavit as inherently incredible merely due to contradictory trial testimony is improper basis for summary denial of postconviction claim, as this requires credibility determinations *522that only evidentiary hearing can resolve). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's summary denial order and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED for evidentiary hearing.

EVANDER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

1

The affiant is serving several life sentences.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

PETER GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF S.G., A

MINOR, AND ON BEHALF OF THE

ESTATES OF STEPHANIE GARZA, 

TAYLOR GARZA, PETER JAMES 

GARZA, AND JESSE GARZA, 

DECEASED, and JIM FISK and 

MARY FISK,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00193-CV

Appeal from the

83rd District Court

of Pecos County, Texas

(TC# P-7725-83-CV)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss 

the appeal. We further order costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring same, and 

this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6950** 

KELVIN J. MILES , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. MEDICAL SERVICES; ABAYOMI ADEYINKA , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv - 03011

- AW )

Submitted : December 2, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kelvin J. Miles appeals the district court ’ s order returning documents to Miles because the case was closed in 2010 . We have reviewed the re cord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Miles v. Med. Servs. , No. 8:10

- cv - 03011

- AW (D. Md.
June 14, 2016)
. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We grant leave to proceed in for ma pauperis and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of Louisiana v. Matthew DAUZAT

NO. 2018-KK-0972

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 25, 2018

Denied.
#### SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Comcast IP Phone, LLC, Defendants-Appellees

2015-1989

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 11, 2017

John D. Gaeretson, Shook, Hardy *&*Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Basil Trent Webb: David Morehan, Rob Reckers, Houston, TX.

Matthew B. Lehr, Davis Polk *&*Ward-well LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued' for defendants-appellees. Also represented by David Lisson, Gareth DeWalt, Micah *975Block, Anthony I. Fenwick; Michael Louis Brody, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL.

(Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Pei* Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
John Patrick INGAR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2641

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jason REZENDES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3208

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, Docket No. FAA-2012-0781 

vs. 

Case No. 2011 SO 700298 

BRAILLE BATTERY, INC., Judge J. E. Sullivan 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

10 2: i 3 

The law firm of Gray Robinson, P .A., hereby notifies the Court and counsel of record of a 

change of address effective October 1, 2012. Please direct all correspondence, pleadings, 

notices, orders, etc. in the above-styled action to the following address: 

GrayRobinson, P.A. 

401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2700 

Tampa, FL 33602 

RECEIVED 

_DEC- 3 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 
./il 

r', 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished 

via facsimile transmission and U.S. Mail to the following this on this 2£ ~ day of 

November, 2012: 

Gerald A. Ellis, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

Fax: (404) 305-5223 

Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

\372607\20- # 3563149 vi 

2
Ronald RICKS v. STATE

CR-16-0006

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

Affirmed.
#### Emma Del Carmen ROMERO-MEJIA; Diego Alejandro Alfaro-Romero, Petitioners v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60380 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 1, 2017

Zachary Spratt Smith, Norton Rose Fulbright US, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Petitioners

Benjamín J. Zeitlin, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Virginia M. Lum, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Divisiop/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Emma Romero-Mejia and her grandson, Diego Alfaro-Romero, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum. Section 1158(a) *315of title 8 of the United States Code permits the Attorney General to grant asylum to a refugee, i.e., a person who is outside her country and “unable or unwilling to return because of [past] persecution or a wéll-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” *Jukic v. INS,*40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To demonstrate the requisite motivation for the alleged persecution, the alien must establish that “race, religion, nationality; membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least *one central reason for 'persecuting*[her].” *Shaikh v. Holder,*588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

According to Romero-Mejia and Alfaro-Romero, the BIA applied the incorrect legal standard to conclude that the two failed to show that their membership in a family group was one central reason for then- persecution by the MS-13 gang. *See id.*Romero-Mejia and Alfaro-Romero assert that the BIA’s statement that the MS-13 gang targeted individual family members for “other distinct reasons,” including money, recruitment, and retribution, constituted a new and more stringent nexus requirement. We review this question of law de novo. *See id.*Our review indicates that the BIA used the phrase at issue, not as a new analytical framework, but rather to distinguish the gang’s central reasons for its actions from motivations related to the immutable characteristics of the Romero family. The BIA explicitly referenced the applicable legal standard and, although it did not restate that standard “word-for-word” in the analysis, the decision demonstrates that the BIA understood the standard and determined that Romero-Mejia and Alfaro-Romero failed to meet it. *Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft,*303 F.3d 341, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2002). The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 of the

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Current Technology Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, each of the undersigned Robert Kramer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and George Chen, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:

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.

November 19, 2008

/s/ Robert Kramer

___________________________

Robert Kramer, Chief Executive Officer





November 19, 2008

/s/ George Chen

______________________________

George Chen, Chief Financial Officer
Dennis GRESH, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR MASTR ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2004-13 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-13; Bobby Timbrook; GW Naples, LLC; San Rafael Homeowners' Association, Inc.; Collier County, Florida; and The Vineyards Community Association, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4278

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018.

Dennis Gresh, pro se.

David S. Ehrlich and Nicole R. Topper of Blank Rome LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee U.S. Bank.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 99.1



Certificate 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 Catalina Marketing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel D. Granger, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §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.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/s/ Daniel D. Granger

---

Daniel D. Granger

President, Chief Executive Officer

Chairman
of the Board and

Director (Principal Executive Officer)

February 12, 2003
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 05, 2009

Mr. Michael R. McGown

Benckenstein, Norvell & Nathan, LLP

P.O. Box 551

Beaumont, TX 77704-0551

Mr. M. C. Carrington

Mehaffy & Weber, P.C.

P. O. Box 16

2615 Calder Ave. - Suite 800

Beaumont, TX 77004-0016

RE:Case Number:  09-0408

Court of Appeals Number:  

Trial Court Number:  

Style:IN RE  DIGITEK® LITIGATION

Dear Counsel:

Today the Multidistrict Litigation Panel delivered the enclosed opinion in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 09-0408Page 1**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WALKER
INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          13,675
<SECURITIES>                                    22,981
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,604
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,325
<PP&E>                                          20,489
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,968
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,329
<SALES>                                         45,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,677
<CGS>                                           20,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,091)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       152
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,243)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Abigail Nelson *versus*Dean Burt.

Trover lies for cutting and carrying away corn standing and growing.

Trover for 30 bushels of corn and 500 lbs. of corn-stalks. At the trial on the general issue, in the Circuit Court of Common Pleas, the evidence was, that the corn and stalks were standing and growing on the plaintiff’s land, and that the defendant cut and carried them away at one and the same time; and a verdict being returned for the plaintiff, under the direction of the court, exceptions were filed by the defendant, and the cause came up to this Court under the provisions of the late statute. (1)

*Wood,*for the defendant,

insisted that the plaintiff had miscon ceived her action, and that the injury complained of, having been done to the realty, trespass was the only proper remedy.

*J. M. Williams*for the plaintiff.

(1)

*Stat.*1817, c. 185, § 5.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff had a right to waive her demand foi *191the trespass done to her close, and sue only for the value of, the property taken, in trover. If the defendant * was in fact a trespasser in entering the close, and cutting down the corn, the property of the corn, when cut, was in the plaintiff, and the taking it away was a wrong, for which the actio?' of trover well lay. *(a)*

*Judgment on the verdict*

(a)

 1 *Chitty, Pl.*176, 4th ed. — 2 *Saund.*70, o. — *Cro. Eliz.*824
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 30, 2019

No. 04-18-00776-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Javier MARTINEZ, Jr.,

Appellee

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10205CR

Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on January 30, 2019.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of January, 2019.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
(January 27, 2004)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Cuevas, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 627]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered on or about September 24, 2001, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is *436granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.
Batoul (Darwish) DARWICHE, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a the Bank of New York, As Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWMBS 2003-60; ABDEL (DARWISH) DARWICHE; Unknown Spouse of Abdel Darwish If Any; Unknown Spouse Of Batoul Darwiche If Any; Any And All Unknown Parties Claiming By, Through, Under, And Against The Herein Named Individual Defendant(s) Who Are Not Known To Be Dead Or Alive, Whether Said Unknown Parties May Claim An Interest As Spouses, Heirs, Devisees, Grantees Or Other Claimants; Hibbs Grove Plantation Homeowners Association, Inc.; HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA); John Doe and Jane Doe, As Unknown Tenants In Possession, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1772

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

Nicole R. Moskowitz of Neustein Law Group, P.A., Aventura, for appellant.

Nancy M. Wallace and Ryan D. O'Connor of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee; and William P. Heller of Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, As Trustee For The Certificateholders of CWMBS 2003-60.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT      21.1**

**LIST      OF SUBSIDIARIES OF INCA Designs, Inc.**

| 1.   | International              Purchasing Services, NY, Inc. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| 2.   | Accident              Prevention Plus, LLC |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| 3.   | S2              New York Design Corp. (effect May 21, 2007 as a result of the Security              Exchange Agreement entered into on May 21, 2007 discussed              above) |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----