alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-1037

_____________________________

ALANA SAVELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Shonna Young Gay, Judge.

November 15, 2023

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Alana Savell appeals her convictions and sentences,

after a jury trial, for two counts of aggravated battery with a 

firearm. She raises four issues challenging the trial court’s rulings 

on an alleged discovery violation, certain evidentiary rulings, and 

allowing certain questions by the State during cross-examination 

of Appellant. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we 

affirm on these issues. See Smiley v. State, 295 So. 3d 156, 166 

(Fla. 2020) (citing Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283, 293 (Fla. 2018))

(applying an “abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court’s 

ruling on an alleged discovery violation”); Mitchum v. State, 345 

So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (citing Penalver v. State, 926 

So. 2d 1118, 1132 (Fla. 2006)) (“Generally, an appellate court 

reviews a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an 

abuse of discretion.”).
2

Appellant also raises two issues challenging the trial court’s 

imposition of costs of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida 

Statutes (2016), and denials of her motions to correct these 

portions of her sentence under rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. The court’s imposition of these costs is

affirmed. Parks v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1524, 2023 WL 

4924857 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 2, 2023); Robinson v. State, 256 So. 3d 

217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). 

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2251-2252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00498]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-170, OMB Control No. 3235-0167]


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 15

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of

[[Page 2252]]

Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 15 (17 CFR 249.323) is a certification of termination of a 
class of security under Section 12(g) or notice of suspension of duty 
to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). We estimate that 
approximately 1,302 issuers file Form 15 annually and it takes 
approximately 1.5 hours per response to prepare for a total of 1,953 
annual burden hours (1.5 hours per response x 1,302 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#17474556485a767e7b75786f5764727439707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6f6f4e7f9ebc7cfcac4c9dee6d5c3c588c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00498 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Abrams Realty Corp., Respondent, v Jack Elo et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[717 NYS2d 603]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered December 28, 1999, which, in an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, following a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the total sum of $412,372.25, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial evidence established that plaintiff broker entered into an agreement with the Elo defendants to act as their “sole broker” for the purchase of the subject property and that plaintiff was in fact the procuring cause of the sale of that property to defendant Jack Elo. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to recover a commission for its services *(see, Greene v Hellman,*51 NY2d 197, 205-206). The sued upon agreement was not unenforceable for its failure to specify the rate at which plaintiffs commission would be computed since it is clear that plaintiff did not agree to work without compensation and that the parties understood that plaintiff would be compensated at the prevailing, normal and accepted rates *(see, Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp.,*74 NY2d 475, 483, *cert denied*498 US 816; *Kenneth D. Laub & Co. v Bear Stearns Cos.,*262 AD2d 36). The trial court properly rejected defendants’ attempt to evade their obligation to pay plaintiff a commission by endeavoring to characterize the transaction pursuant to which the subject property was acquired as nothing more than the assignment of a successful bid *(see, Rachmani Corp. v 9 E. 96th St. Apt. Corp.,*211 AD2d 262, 269-270). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 NPC International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Troy D. Cook, Executive Vice-President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of NPC International, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
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: August 14, 2009



/s/ Troy D. CookTroy D. CookExecutive Vice PresidentFinance, Chief
Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7123]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,774]


Anthology, Inc., A Division of R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 
Pre-Media Technologies Division; Arlington Heights, IL; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on December 23, 2008 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of the workers at Anthology, Inc., a Division 
of R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Pre-Media Technologies Division, 
Arlington Heights, Illinois.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-7123 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Todd MCGATHEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1932

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.1





Certification of CEO Pursuant to


Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14


as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Richard Lui, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of China PharmaHub Corp.;





2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;





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





4.   I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly during the period in which this annual 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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  controls 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.





April 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Richard LuiRichard LuiPresident, Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00119-CR

Joseph Mitchell Berman

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1238956D)

May 22, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot_____________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report (report) on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant
Properties II;
 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 officers 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; andc)
    
    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
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 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
function):
 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; andb)
    
    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.
 Date: May 12, 2006
    /s/ Ronald PowellRonald PowellChief Executive Officer
Willie J. HUNTER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0740

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 3, 2018

Willie J. Hunter, pro se, Petitioner.

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

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as unauthorized. *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Wolf, Lewis, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Changyou.com Limited (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tao Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 of the Company as of December 31, 2010 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.



/s/ Tao WangName:

Tao WangTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

February 28, 2011
Sarah BARBER, et al. v. LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY GROUP SELF-INSURED FUND, et al.

NO. 2018-C-0180

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 23, 2018

Denied.
Lillie D. WHEAT v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRACTICAL NURSE EXAMINERS

NO. 2018-OC-0138

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

Denied.
Kenneth HEYWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4613

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Timothy HOMRIGHAUSEN, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D17-2013

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00046

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF BETTY LOU INGRAM, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- 9358

- CCL

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

David J. Ingram and James B. Ingram, app ellants, have filed a motion seeking to dismiss

this appeal. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is

granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 10, 2014

Date Decided: June 11, 2014
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of PRB Energy, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany.

Date: March 29, 2007
| /s/ Robert W. Wright                                                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert W. Wright                                                     |   |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer   (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                                                                 |   |
|                                                                 |   |
| /s/ Daniel D. Reichel                                                |   |
| Daniel D. Reichel                                                    |   |
| Vice President—Finance   (Principal Financial Officer)          |   |

 

 

----
SCAD-13-0003192
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs. DOUGLAS D. OSTERLOH, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 13-043-9113)
ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the October 24, 2013 response filed by Respondent Douglas D. Osterloh in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Osterloh , SCAD-13-0003192, the November 20, 2013 submission by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) in response to this court’s November 14, 2013 order, and the record, it appears (1) Respondent Osterloh’s October 24, 2013 response was intended as a petition to resign in lieu of discipline, pursuant to Rule 2.14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), (2) the notarized affidavit executed by Respondent Osterloh, submitted by ODC as an exhibit to its November 20, 2013 response, has been provided to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai# i, as required Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-13-0003192 27-NOV-2013 10:02 AMby RSCH Rule 2.14(a), (3) the affidavit executed by Respondent

Osterloh makes the necessary averments required by RSCH Rules 2.14(a)(1) through (4), including a recognition of the misconduct which led to his disbarment by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, and (4) Respondent Osterloh, facing the reciprocal disciplinary proceedings, is “[a]n attorney who is the subject of . . . a pending proceeding involving[] allegations of grounds for his . . . discipline,” pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.14(a). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH 2.14, that the petition is granted and Respondent Osterloh’s request to resign in lieu of discipline is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Osterloh’s resignation from the practice of law in this jurisdiction shall become effective 30 days from the date of entry of this order, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.14(d) and 2.16(c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the Clerk shall remove Respondent Osterloh’s name from the role of attorneys licensed to practice law in this jurisdiction and (2) within 30 days after the date of entry of this order, Respondent Osterloh shall submit to the Clerk of this court the original certificate evidencing his license to practice law in this jurisdiction, or an affidavit demonstrating good cause as to why said license cannot be provided.

2IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Osterloh shall

comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(d) by filing an affidavit of compliance with this court within 10 days after the effective date of his resignation.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that ODC’s original petition for reciprocal discipline is denied as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 27, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

3
No. 85-6808.

#### Wright *v.*Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Darryl Deaundra SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-950

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0572

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JAMES LOWELL MYRAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 9, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 4 2022

04/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0572
Jamaal A. HAMEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1262

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Irving JOHNSON

1151337 (2150714)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 10, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.