alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Alan Wayne DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3250

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Alan Wayne Davis, Altamonte, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court's order determining that Davis violated his probation. However, we remand for a correction of a scrivener's error so that the costs order, *1014rendered after the probation hearing, properly reflects that the trial court had previously assessed a $100 public defender's fee and $100 for prosecution costs.

AFFIRMED. REMANDED for correction of scrivener's error.

PALMER, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Alliente, Inc. 

Alliente Limited (UK) 

Alliente Ireland Limited 

Ariba Argentina S.R.L. 

Ariba Australia Pty Ltd. 

Ariba Belgium N.V. 

Ariba (China) Limited (Hong Kong) 

Ariba Czech s.r.o. (Czech Republic) 

Ariba Deutschland GmbH (Germany) 

Ariba France, SAS 

Ariba Holdings, Inc. (Cayman Islands) 

Ariba Iberia, S.L. (Spain) 

Ariba India Pvt. Ltd. 

Ariba International Inc. (Delaware) 

Ariba International Singapore Pte. Ltd. 

Ariba Korea, Ltd. 

Ariba Latin America, Inc. (Delaware) 

Ariba Singapore Pte. Ltd. 

Ariba Slovak Republic s.r.o. 

Ariba Switzerland GmbH 

Ariba Technologies India Private Limited 

Ariba Technologies Ireland Limited 

Ariba Technologies Netherlands B.V. 

Ariba UK Limited 

FreeMarkets GmbH (Germany) 

FreeMarkets GmbH (Switzerland) 

FreeMarkets International Holding Inc. de Mexico, de S. deR. L. de C. V. (Mexico) 

FreeMarkets International Holdings, Inc. (Delaware) 

FreeMarkets Investment Company, Inc. (Delaware) 

FreeMarkets, Ltd. (UK) 

FreeMarkets Ltda. (Brazil) 

FreeMarkets s.a./n.v. (Belgium) 

FreeMarkets S.r.L. (Italy) 

Goodex Iberia (Spain) 

Nihon Ariba KK (Ariba Japan) 

Nihon Ariba U.K. (Free Markets Japan) 

Softface, Inc. 

SupplierMarket.com, Inc. 

Surplus Record, Inc. (Delaware) 

TradingDynamics, Inc. 

Tradex Technologies, Inc.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Rose M. Thompson, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Craftsman Custom Upholstery, Respondent. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Rose M. Thompson, appellant pro se.Craftsman Custom Upholstery, respondent pro se (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Andrew Borrok, J.), entered March 7, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,117.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $5,000, alleging defective</p><br>workmanship on her chairs which defendant had reupholstered. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that she had brought her chairs to defendant to be reupholstered, that she had paid defendant a total of $1,117 and that she had been unhappy with how they turned out. She subsequently had the chairs reupholstered by another upholsterer. Plaintiff submitted photographs of the chairs and stated that the cushions did not look as if they had been "professionally done." Defendant's owner, Garth Lennon, testified that he has been in the upholstery business for over 35 years and that he had reupholstered plaintiff's chairs in a workmanlike manner. Lennon testified that plaintiff saw the finished chairs prior to their delivery and her tendering payment. Lennon further testified that while plaintiff subsequently indicated to him that she was unhappy with the chairs that he had delivered, plaintiff never called <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>him again. The Civil Court viewed the photographs of the chairs and dismissed the action.<p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; <i>see</i> CCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).</p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that the court's dismissal of the action upon its implicit conclusion that the chairs had been reupholstered in a workmanlike manner was not supported by the record and thus failed to provide the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (<i>see</i> CCA 1804, 1807;<i> Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126). Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that substantial justice requires that plaintiff be awarded the principal sum of $1,117, the amount that she had paid to defendant.</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,117.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 08, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8224

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DANIEL ORIAKHI, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District 

Judge. (1:92-cr-00283-MJG-1; 1:05-cv-02317-MJG) 

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: May 7, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Daniel Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Daniel Oriakhi seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of 

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The notice of 

appeal was received in the district court after expiration of 

the appeal period. Because Oriakhi is incarcerated, the notice 

is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to 

prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does 

not conclusively reveal when Oriakhi gave the notice of appeal 

to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the 

case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to 

obtain this information from the parties and to determine 

whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and 

Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be 

returned to this court for further consideration. 

REMANDED
Bryant COMMANDER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-36

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 2018

Rudolph C. "Rusty" Shepard, Jr., Jean Marie Downing, and Chad R. Templeton of Shepard Law, Panama City, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Bryant Commander was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm based on an incident that occurred in a Walmart parking lot in November 2016. He filed a motion to dismiss the charges under the Stand Your Ground law ( § 776.032, Fla. Stat.) in July 2017. The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.

Commander sought review of the trial court's ruling by filing a petition for writ of prohibition in this court. In the petition, Commander argued that the trial court erred by imposing the burden of proof on him to establish his immunity from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law. We ordered the state to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and in response, the state conceded error based on the prosecutor's agreement at the evidentiary hearing that the state had the burden to prove that Commander was not immune from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law.

We accept the state's concession of error because it is supported by the record and *1304is consistent with the statute in effect at the time of the evidentiary hearing. *See* § 776.032(4), Fla. Stat. (2017) (created by chapter 2017-72, Laws of Florida, effective June 9, 2017); *see also* *Martin v. State* , --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 2074171 (Fla. 2d DCA May 4, 2008) (holding that the 2017 amendment changing the burden of proof under the Stand Your Ground law was procedural in nature and, thus, could be applied retroactively in cases involving offenses committed prior to the amendment's effective date); *but see* *Love v. State* , --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 2169980 (Fla. 3d DCA May 11, 2018) (certifying conflict with *Martin* and holding that the 2017 amendment changing the burden of proof under the Stand Your Ground law was substantive in nature and could not be applied retroactively). Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the order denying Commander's motion to dismiss, and remand for the trial court to reconsider the motion based on the evidence presented at the hearing and the state's burden of proof under section 776.032(4).

PETITION GRANTED .

Roberts, Wetherell, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
UNITED STAT E S OF AMERICA 

### Department oflransportation Federal Aviation AdminSiation 

## MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THIRD CLASS This certifies that (Full

### nam e a n d a ddress): 

### THOMAS Michael KANE 179 East Positano Avenue St Augustine FL 32092 USA Date ofBirth 

### Sex M has met the medical standards prescribed in part67, Federal Aviation Reaulations . for this class of Medica l Certificate .



# ... Q) 

### c 

# · e lQ X 

### w 

### Must wear corrective lenses .

A

IRM A N'S SIG NA TURE F AA Form 8500 - 9**~'=I** s oporn"'' '"""" Blnx>o
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-130877, 333-127339, 333-71860, 333-71862, 333-93715, 333-93717, 333-89529 and 333-89533) of ourreports dated March 28, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Tween Brands,Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expressed an unqualified opinion and includes explanatoryparagraphs relating to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.123(R), *Share Based Payment,*on January 29, 2006 and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of FASBStatement No. 109” (FIN48) on February 4, 2007) andthe effectiveness of Tween Brands’internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TweenBrands, Inc. and subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2008./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPColumbus, Ohio
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Secondary Data Analysis Applications (R21).                    

*Date:*                         March 28, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ashley Fortress, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Ste. 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-2020,                         *ashley.fortress@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 15, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03668 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                             494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                       810
<INVENTORY>                                     55,575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          15,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        20,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,123
<SALES>                                         13,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,766
<CGS>                                            7,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,180
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,180
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         876
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                   798
<INVENTORY>                                    53,931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         12,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,813
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 96,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21,040
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   96,992
<SALES>                                        5,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               28,033
<CGS>                                          3,041
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             801
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,047
<INCOME-TAX>                                   790
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,257
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .28
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frances JEUDY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11831 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

January 26, 2017

Stephen Schlessinger, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Carol Herman, Emily M. Smachetti, Brooke C. Watson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John William Wylie, IV, John W. Wylie, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Frances Jeudy appeals his sentence of 92 months of imprisonment imposed following his pleas of guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 286; conspiring to possess and possessing 15 or more unauthorized access devices, *id,*§ 1029(a)(3), (b)(2), and possessing stolen mail, *id.*§ 1708. Jeudy does not challenge his sentence to a mandatory consecutive term of 24 months for aggravated identity theft, *id.*§ 1028A. Jeudy argues that his sentence of 92 months is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. We expect a sentence within the *675advisory guideline range to be reasonable. *United States*v. *Croteau,*819 F.3d 1293, 1309-10 (11th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 254, 196 L.Ed.2d 192 (2016). Jeudy’s sentence is at the low end of his advisory guideline range of 92 to 115 months and well below the maximum statutory penalties for his crimes of fraud and possession of access devices. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 286, 1029(a)(3), (c). The district court reasonably determined that a 92-month sentence accounted for Jeudy’s “good family support,” “[h]is age,” and his minimal “role in the offense” and.balanced that against the need for his sentence to address the seriousness of his offense, to “act[] as a deterrent [to future similar crimes, and to] promote[ ] respect for the law.” *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2). Jeudy and his 'coconspirators operated a sophisticated fraud enterprise in which they stole identification information from real persons, and used that information to file false tax returns and to obtain millions of dollars in tax refund payments. And in his written plea agreement, Jeudy stipulated that his offense involved ten or more victims and that he was responsible for a loss of. $25 to $65 million.

Jeudy argued that his criminal category of V overrepresented his criminal history, but the district court was entitled to make a contrary finding. Jeudy had amassed felony convictions for criminal mischief, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, twice eluding a police officer, and unlawful driving as a habitual traffic offender and several misdemeanor convictions for resisting arrest without violence and for driving with a suspended license. During the conspiracy, Jeudy served a brief jail sentence but returned to. the illegal enterprise upon his release. That resumption of criminal activity was consistent with Jeudy’s history of having his sentences of probation revoked for violating the law- Jeudy’s sentence is reasonable.

We AFFIRM Jeudy’s sentence.
#### Gene M. MUNSON, Appellant, v. Richard T. MURPHY and Charles B. Bunch, Appellees.

No. 10615.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1966.

Decided Nov. 30, 1966.

Henry Kowalchick, Norfolk, Va. (Israel Steingold and Steingold, Steingold & Chovitz, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellant.

Charles R. Dalton, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Seawell, McCoy, Winston & Dalton, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee Richard T. Murphy.

Wayne Lustig, Norfolk, Va. (Gordon E. Campbell and Albert R. Turnbull, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee Charles B. Bunch.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this automobile accident case, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment for the defendants entered upon the verdict of a jury.

The plaintiff undertook to make a left turn on a multi-lane highway across the path of approaching traffic. He was struck successively by the cars of the two defendants, who were traveling in adjoining lanes, approximately abreast.

The case was fairly submitted to the jury. Those instructions requested by the plaintiff which were not given were improper and misleading. Otherwise, no exception was taken to the charge, which we now find neither misleading nor unfair.

 It is plain that the jury, with abundant reason, founded its verdict on a finding of negligence on the plaintiff’s part. In reaching that conclusion, in light of the many items of substantial damages, it could not have been misled or influenced by the statements in reference to the government’s lien for hospital charges, about which the plaintiff now complains.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32(b)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                       OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB
                         OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
                       FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 28, 2003

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.
(the "Issuer"). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2003.

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended June 28, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.

This certification is executed as of August 12, 2003.

                              /s/ Michael R. Sayre
                              ---------------------------
                              Chief Financial Officer

                                      -26-