alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Richard Albert ROBERTS, DOC #C09992, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-3499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

Michael Ufferman, of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

BADALAMENTI, Judge.

Richard Albert Roberts appeals his jury conviction for capital sexual battery and the resulting life sentence and sexual predator designation imposed by the trial court. Roberts contends that the trial court erred by designating him a sexual predator pursuant to the Florida Sexual Predators Act.1 After careful review and the benefit of oral argument, we accept the State's concession that the sexual predator designation was error and reverse that portion of Roberts's sentence.

The sexual predator designation applies to an offense committed on or after October 1, 1993. *See* § 775.21(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015). Here, the felony information charges that the offense occurred approximately a decade prior to October 1, 1993. The trial court nevertheless designated Roberts a sexual predator pursuant to section 775.21 in a written order dated July 1, 2015, and indicated the same in Roberts's judgment.2 As the State properly concedes, this was error. *See**Wade v. State*, 728 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("Because [the defendant's] offenses were committed prior to October 1, 1993, we conclude that he did not meet the criteria for a sexual predator designation."), *receded from on other grounds by**King v. State*, 911 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ; *see also**Dennis v. State*, 32 So.3d 79, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

On remand, the trial court shall strike Roberts's sexual predator designation imposed for the conviction in this case and enter an amended judgment omitting this designation. *See**Dennis*, 32 So.3d at 81 ; *Wade*, 728 So.2d at 285. We affirm his conviction and resulting life sentence in all other respects.3

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

1

*See* ch. 93-277, § 1, at 2621, Laws of Fla.

2

Prior to filing his initial brief in this appeal, Roberts timely filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion, requesting that the trial court correct his sentence by removing the sexual predator designation. Because the trial court failed to rule on this motion within sixty days, the motion was deemed denied by the trial court. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).

3

We have carefully reviewed all arguments raised by Roberts in this appeal. We reject his remaining arguments without comment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         102,445
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  648,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     42,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,300,753
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,447,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,420,708
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,459,186
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,460,721
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,092,047
<CGS>                                          740,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  908,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (549,527)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 131/25 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 131 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6025 April 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 131

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6025 April 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 131/01 | Common Catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — third supplement to the 35th complete edition | 1 |
| 2017/C 131/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fourth supplement to the 35th complete edition | 37 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 131/01

Common Catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — third supplement to the 35th complete edition

1

2017/C 131/02

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — fourth supplement to the 35th complete edition

37

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Tiffany Frasier HOGAN, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Matthew David HOGAN, Former Husband, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1783

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# /)or-dSTW^^7-2'?5 b Schlemmer , Kevi n (OST ) I .i'u!-l'j | U l From : Sent : To : Cc : Subject : Crai g Griffi n [craig@laneyscollision.com ] Wednesday . Jul y20 . 201 1 2:0 8 P M EA S (OST ) 'Weaver . Jeffre y E l Dorado , Arkansa s [ _ J I' - ". > L T o Who m I t Ma yConcern :

RE : EA S Servic e a t Sout h Arkansa s Regiona l Airport , SeaPort Airline s Th e peopl e o f th e Cit yo f E l Dorad o an d surroundin g communitie s hav e bee n ver yw/el l please d wit h th e EA S servic e provide d bySeaPor

t Airline s a t Sout h Arkansa s Regiona l Airpor t (ELD) . W e encourag e th e DO T t o allo wSeaPor

t th e opportunit yt o continu e t o servic e EL D unde rth e EA

S progra m movin g forward . SeaPor t bega n servic e t o Dalla s Love Fiel d Jul y15 , 201 1 an d i t has bee n wel l receive d byth e community . W e expec t ou rdail yboardin g averag e t o increas e accordingl yove rtime . Last nigh t SeaPor t Airline s hoste d ou rmonthl yChambe ro f Commerc e Busines s Afte rHour s even t an d w e ha d ove r17 5 peopl e i n attendance , byfa rth e bes t attende d BA H even t o f th e year . Th e suppor t fro m th e communit yi s apparent . Than k yo u fo ryou rconsideratio n an d pleas e le t m e kno wi f w e ca n provid e yo u wit h an yfurthe rinformation . Kindes t Regards , E l Dorad o Chambe ro f Commerc e Chairma n
f 

Sharie Niblock 

6753 W. Howe Rcl.» DeWiU, MI 48820* 

E-Mail: sliaiieiiiblock@gmail.com 

:i.ii:lMTuF 

mmm 

Dale: Februaiy 9, 2012 00 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket No. FAA-20124)089 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

West Buflding Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

WashLogtoa, DC 20590 

Deal: Docket Management Facility, 

I am writing to you on behalf of Sun Country Airlines nonstop Lansing to Washington DC route to ask you to consider 

extending the slot exemption reference Docket #FAA-2012-0089. We fly this ili^t often and it is very convenient and 

reasonable flight for our family. Please reconsider. 

Sincerely, 

\SlxOAjJu^Ooh(±j 

Sharie Niblock
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 19

- 00116

- CV Rodulfo MENDEZ , Appellant

v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CODE COMPLIANCE , Appellee From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014TA102976 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 24, 2019
DISMISSED Appellant has not paid the applicable filing fee in this appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

— at the time an item is presented for filing

— whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.”). On March 27, 2019, this court ordered appellant to: (1) pay the applicable filing fee in this appeal, or (2) provide written proof to this court that he is excused by statute or the rules from paying the filing fee. The order advised appellant that his fai lure to do so within fifteen days would04

- 19

- 00116

- CV

- 2

- result in dismissal of this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 42.3(c). Because appellant has failed to pay the filing fee or provide written proof that he is excused from paying the filing fee, we dismiss this appeal. S ee id.
PER CURIAM
```

```

| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Allen D. Goodman                                                                                                               |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Allen D. GoodmanChief Financial OfficerPrice Asset Management, Inc.Managing MemberRICI® Linked – PAM Advisors Fund, LLC |   |
|   |                                                                                                                               |   |
|   |                                                                                                                               |   |
|   | August 30, 2011                                                                                                                    |   |

----
EX PARTE Darren Wayne CAUDLE

1160024 (CR-15-1351)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 10, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Lorin E. Krueger, President and Chief Executive Officer of WinlandElectronics, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Winland Electronics, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuerand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’smost recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee ofsmall business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 22, 2004    /s/ Lorin E. Krueger Lorin E. Krueger Chief Executive Officer
Brandon M. LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-666

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus SAAVEDRA-GRANILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-10358.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 18, 2004.

Daniel G. Bogden, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jesus Saavedra-Granillo, U.S. Penitentiary, Lompoc, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Saavedra-Granillo appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his 210 month sentence, following his jury trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

Saavedra-Granillo contends that he is entitled to a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because the district court should have calculated the drug amount upon which his sentence is based differently pursuant to Amendment 484 to the Sentencing Guidelines. As Saavedra-Granillo has conceded, the amendment does not apply to cutting or diluting substances, but only applies to materials that must be removed from the mixture before the controlled substance could be used. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See *United States v. Sprague,*135 F.3d 1301, 1305 (9th Cir. 1998). On appeal, Saavedra-Granillo raises two additional arguments as to why the district court should have reduced his sentence. Because he did not raise these before the district court, we review for *184plain error and find none. *See*Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(b); *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-23-1997
<CASH>                                         3385000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    3590000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              18102000
<PP&E>                                       143493000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               389215000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         45985000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        276000
<OTHER-SE>                                   106536000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 389215000
<SALES>                                      112598000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             114693000
<CGS>                                         30854000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 30854000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              72539000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4036000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7296000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2554000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4742000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4742000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Richard G. Satin, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Action Industries Inc. (the Registrant).



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-14 and 15(d)-14) for the Registrant and we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and



c) discussed in this quarterly report any change in the Registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting;



5. The Registrants other certifying officer 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 Registrants board of directors:



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 controls over financial
reporting.



Date: October 29, 2004



|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard G. Satin                                                         
|Richard G. Satin Principal Financial Officer Vice President of Operations and
|General Counsel
Nelson BAPTISTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-185

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 10, 2018]

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm the denial of appellant's motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.

However, we remand for resentencing. In *Baptiste v. State* , 165 So.3d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), we held that appellant's convictions for home invasion robbery and burglary arising from a single criminal episode violated double jeopardy. On remand, the burglary conviction was vacated in February, 2016. The record does not reflect whether appellant was resentenced with a corrected scoresheet that does not include the burglary conviction. Appellant is entitled to be sentenced with a new scoresheet. *See* *Fernandez v. State* , 199 So.3d 500, 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). We note that there is no record evidence that the court would have imposed the same sentence with a different scoresheet. *Cf.* *Tundidor v. State* , 221 So.3d 587, 605-07 (Fla. 2017).

*Remanded for resentencing.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and May, JJ., concur.