alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Kareen Kenneth WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2179

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 1, 2018]

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

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Kuntz, J.

The Defendant appeals his conviction for one count of second-degree murder with a firearm. The Defendant raises several issues, and we affirm with one exception. We agree with the Defendant that the court erred in considering his jailhouse behavior at sentencing.

Our review of a court's sentence is *de novo* , *Norvil v. State* , 191 So.3d 406, 408 (Fla. 2016), but is limited when the court has sentenced the defendant within the minimum and maximum limits established by the legislature. *Nusspickle v. State* , 966 So.2d 441, 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). This limited review includes the consideration of impermissible factors at sentencing. *Charles v. State* , 204 So.3d 63, 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

At sentencing, the State informed the court of the Defendant's prior convictions.

*2The State then argued that the Defendant misbehaved in jail, and stated:

> And he's been a total-constant misbehavior in the jail. Not the victim of other inmates, but, in fact, victimizing the deputies, throwing urine on them and striking them, which leads to these other charges.

After counsel for the State and the Defendant concluded their argument, the court determined the Defendant was subject to the 10-20-Life Statute. The court sentenced him to "forty years' imprisonment, a mandatory minimum imprisonment of forty years imprisonment day-to-day for life punishment," with credit for time served.

Relevant here is the Florida Supreme Court's holding that "a trial court may not consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense." *Norvil* , 191 So.3d at 410. Here, the court stated at sentencing that the "court is also taking into consideration the constant misbehavior in the jail with regards to his improper actions towards the guards and the issues that are going on in the jail with respect to that as well." This was contrary to *Norvil* .

The court considered a factor at sentencing that the Florida Supreme Court has found impermissible. Thus, we vacate the Defendant's sentence and remand for resentencing before a different circuit judge.

*Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing* .

May and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99-1





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Securities & Exchange Commission


450 Fifth Street, N.W.


Washington, D.D. 20549





Gentleman:





I, Michael J. Troup, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Microbest,, Inc., certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Microbest, Inc.;





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 statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the periods 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:


a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation
Date); and


c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;





5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):


a) all significant deficiencies in
the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; 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; and





6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.





December 9, 2002



/s/

Michael J. TroupMichael J. Troup, Chief Executive Officer
Ex-10.6



 





EXHIBIT 10.6




SECOND AMENDMENT TO

CONTRACT SALES AND SERVICE AGREEMENT




     This Second Amendment to Contract Sales and Service Agreement (the “Second Amendment”) is
entered into this 1st day of June, 2007 by and between Inventiv Commercial Services, LLC
(“Inventiv”) and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Cumberland”).



     WHEREAS, Cardinal Health PTS, LLC (“Cardinal Health”) entered into that certain Contract Sales
and Service Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Cumberland on May 16, 2006; and



     WHEREAS, Cardinal Health and Cumberland previously executed a First Amendment to Contract
Sales and Service Agreement wherein the parties amended the Agreement and the schedules to the
Agreement; and



     WHEREAS, Cardinal Health sold its Healthcare Marketing Services division and Cumberland
previously consented to an assignment of all of Cardinal Health’s rights, title, interest and
obligations under the Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, to PG Holding Corporation; and



     WHEREAS, Inventiv, as successor in interest to PG Holding Corporation, desires to assume all
of PG Holding Corporation’s rights, title interest and obligations under the Agreement, as amended
by the First Amendment, and Cumberland desires to consent to such assignment.



     NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:



     1. Inventiv shall assume all rights, title, interest and obligations under the Agreement of
Cardinal Health, as amended by that certain First Amendment and herein, arising from and after June
1, 2007.



     2. Capitalized terms not defined in this Second Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in
the Agreement. It is mutually agreed that all covenants, conditions and agreements set forth in
the Agreement (as amended hereby) shall remain binding upon the parties and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.



Signature page follows.




1









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment to Contract Sales and
Services Agreement as of the day and year first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	INVENTIV COMMERCIAL

SERVICES, LLC

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Paul Mignon
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Paul Mignon 	 
	 	 	Its: President & COO [illegible] 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CUMBERLAND PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Jean W. Marstiller
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Jean W. Marstiller 	 
	 	 	Its: Senior Vice President,

      Administrative Services 	 
	 




2
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41272 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUSTAVO SANCHEZ-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-341-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gustavo Sanchez-Rivera pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to serve 70 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Sanchez-Rivera argues that the district court erred by concluding that his prior conviction for burglary of a habitation constituted a crime of violence and by assessing a 16-level adjustment for this conviction. This argument is, as Sanchez-Rivera concedes, foreclosed. See United States v. Valdez-Maltos , 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied ,No. 05-41272 -2- 2006 WL 2094539 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006) (No. 06-5473); United States v. Garcia-Mendez , 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006). Sanchez-Rivera also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Sanchez-Rivera’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Sanchez-Rivera contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). SanchezRivera properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Sanchez-Rivera has shown no error in connection with his conviction or sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Gregorio H. PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICER
OF
LENNAR PARTNERS, INC

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2001
(the "Agreement"), by and among GE Capital Commercial Mortgage Corporation,
as Depositor, GEMSA Loan Services, L.P., as Servicer, LaSalle Bank, N.A., as
Trustee, ABN AMRO Bank N.V., as Fiscal Agent, and
Lennar Partners, Inc., as Special Servicer
(GECCMC 2001-3)


The undersigned, Ronald E. Schrager, as Vice President of LENNAR PARTNERS, INC., a Florida Corporation (the "Company"), in accordance with Section 3.13 of the  Agreement, hereby certifies on behalf of the Company that (i) a review of the activities of the Company during the year ended December 31, 2001 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision, (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has performed and fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such period ended December 31, 2001, (iii) the Company has not received notice regarding qualification, or challenging the status, of the Lower-Tier REMIC or Upper-Tier REMIC as a REMIC from the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmental agency or body.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Certificate as of the 1st day of March, 2002.

Ronald E. Schrager Vice President   Lennar Partners, Inc.
May 29, 2015

Mr. Lou Hall, Sr. 18 King Street Warrensburg, NY 12885

Dear Mr. Hall, Sr.:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 28, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1271), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Comets

Filters

              - science_faqs(1)
              - (-)science_science(2)
              - products_publications(56)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149214(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(2)

## By Year

Research        October 7, 2022        Planetary Defense

Featured Films and Shorts        July 17, 2014        USGS Gave NASA the Right Stuff

Program        October 1, 2018        IAU - WGCCRE
# C_2020286EN.01000201.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/2

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9560 – Gränges/Impexmetal)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 286/02)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Gränges AB (publ) (‘Gränges’, Sweden), |
| --- | --- |

—

Gränges AB (publ) (‘Gränges’, Sweden),

| — | Impexmetal S.A. (‘Impexmetal’, Poland). |
| --- | --- |

—

Impexmetal S.A. (‘Impexmetal’, Poland).

Gränges AB (publ) (‘Gränges’, Sweden) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Impexmetal S.A. (‘Impexmetal’, Poland). The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Gränges: manufacture and supply of aluminium flat rolled products (‘FRPs’) to customers in the automotive industry, the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (‘HVAC’) industry and niche sectors such as transformers and food packaging, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Gränges: manufacture and supply of aluminium flat rolled products (‘FRPs’) to customers in the automotive industry, the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (‘HVAC’) industry and niche sectors such as transformers and food packaging,

| — | for Impexmetal: manufacture and supply of aluminium FRPs for the automotive industry, closure manufacturers, and companies within electronics. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Impexmetal: manufacture and supply of aluminium FRPs for the automotive industry, closure manufacturers, and companies within electronics.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9560 – Gränges/Impexmetal

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
STATE EX REL. Malcolm SCOTT v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1266

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 2, 2019

NO. 03-18-00285-CR

Ignacio Sanchez Moreno, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BAKER

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: CoreCast

Filters

              - multimedia_audio(2)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(2)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - montana(2)
              - north carolina(5)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - (-)washington(3)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        May 10, 2010        Mount St. Helens: May 18, 1980

Podcasts        May 21, 2008        Where did the name "Mount St. Helens" come from?

Podcasts        June 9, 2009        How far did the ash from Mount St. Helens travel?
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 97056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3615-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency disaster 
declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-3615-EM), dated September 
24, 2024, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this emergency is closed effective October 7, 2024.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-28639 Filed 12-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of FPB Bancorp, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Nancy E. Aumack, Chief
Financial Officer of FPB Bancorp, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by §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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Peoples Bank as of and
for the period covered by the report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Nancy E. Aumack                     
|                     |  |     |  | Nancy E. Aumack, Chief Financial Officer
Maurice HOWARD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1458

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.