alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Manuel A. JUNES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2251

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 05, 2018

Manuel A. Junes, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LOGUE, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, C.J.

*967Manuel A. Junes ("the defendant") appeals the trial court's order treating his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) as a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and denying the motion as untimely filed. Because we conclude that the defendant's motion was properly filed under rule 3.800(a), it was not time-barred. We, therefore, reverse the order on appeal for consideration on the merits under rule 3.800(a).1

Reversed and remanded.

1

Although we ordered and received a response by the State addressing the merits of the defendant's claims, we are without jurisdiction to address the merits in the first instance. We, therefore, remand the motion for proper consideration by the trial court. The State is free to re-submit its response on the merits to the trial court.
[J-40-2020]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF 

ANTON ANDREW FOR THE

DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR 

REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL 

ASSEMBLY, 160TH DISTRICT

APPEAL OF: LINDSAY ELIZABETH 

ROMAN AND SHELLY WILSON 

CHAUNCEY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 22 MAP 2020

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 127 MD 

2020 dated March 17, 2020 

SUBMITTED: March 31, 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: April 7, 2020

AND NOW, this 7

th day of April, 2020, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is 

hereby AFFIRMED. The parties’ joint ancillary application to supplement the transcript 

with exhibits is GRANTED.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

I, Donald F. Volk, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kenexa Corporation;

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a. Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b. Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c. Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

a. All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b. Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| *Date:  May 12, 2006* | */s/  Donald F. Volk* |                       |
|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------|
|                  |                  | *Donald  F. Volk*          |
|                  |                  | *Chief  Financial Officer* |
|                       |                       |                            |  |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-293-CR

SHEKETHA JONETTE SCOTT APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 5 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

On June 28, 2010, Appellant Sheketha Jonette Scott pleaded guilty to 

assault and the trial court sentenced her to nineteen days’ confinement. On July 

20, 2010, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On July 22, 2010, the trial court 

entered its amended Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal in 

accordance with rule 25.2(a)(2). Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The amended 

certification states that this criminal case “is a plea-bargain case, and the 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

defendant has NO right of appeal.” On July 22, 2010, we notified Appellant’s 

counsel that the certification indicating that Appellant had no right to appeal had 

been filed in this court and that this appeal could be dismissed unless Appellant 

or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal on or before August 2, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 

44.3. To date, we have received no response showing any grounds for 

continuing the appeal.

Rule 25.2(a)(2) limits the right of appeal in a plea-bargain case to matters 

that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or to cases in 

which the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification denied permission to appeal, and 

Appellant does not challenge a pretrial ruling on a written motion or the validity of 

his waiver of the right to appeal such a motion. Accordingly, we dismiss this 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 27, 2010
A.G., Mother of G.B., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2860

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 26, 2018

Edward Juan Lynum, of Lynum & Associates, PLLC, of Wildwood, for Appellant.

Kelley Schaeffer, Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.

Thomasina Moore, Joanna Summers Brunell, and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Tallahassee, of Guardian ad Litem Program, for Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
      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 Annual Report of Superlattice Power, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ayaz Kassam, Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 and result of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Ayaz KassamAyaz
                KassamChief
                Executive Officer andOctober
                29, 2008
            Principal
                Financial Officer
Changes are Blacklined (====)

EXHIBIT 32.0
                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with Amendment No. 3 to the Quarterly Report of AquaCell
                                      =
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the third fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the
        Company.


Date: August 12, 2005                         /s/ James C. Witham
             ==                      -----------------------------------
                                           Name:  James C. Witham
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 12, 2005                         /s/ Gary S. Wolff
             ==                      -----------------------------------
                                           Name:  Gary S. Wolff
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer
Therese SCHULTZ, Guardian of the Property of James C. D' Orsi, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Karen C. D' ORSI, Individually and as Guardian of James C. D' Orsi, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4594

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 08, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
(a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure the 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    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
 (d)
    
    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 (the
Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
     /s/ James W. Creamer, IIIJames W. Creamer, III
Jennifer F. CHRISTENSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1720

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We have issued our reports dated March 25, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statements(which report expressed an unqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating tosubstantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern) and management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in theAnnual Report of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in theRegistration Statements of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333141509,effective March 22, 2007 and File No. 333112277, effective January 28, 2004).**/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP**Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Jack BOUDREAUX

NO. 2018-KK-0501

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part to allow for an in camera inspection.

CRICHTON, J., would grant in part to allow for an in camera inspection.

GENOVESE, J., would grant in part to allow for an in camera inspection.
F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 7, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI

NATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 03-3218

JOAN WAGNON, Secretary of the

Kansas Department of Revenue,

Defendant-Appellee,

_______________________________

D.C. No. 99-CV-4071-JAR

(D. Kansas)

(241 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Kan. 2003))

WINNEBAGO TRIBE OF

NEBRASKA, HCI DISTRIBUTION,

THE KICKAPOO TRIBE OF

INDIANS OF THE KICKAPOO

RESERVATION IN KANSAS, THE

IOWA TRIBE OF KANSAS AND

NEBRASKA, AND THE SAC AND

FOX NATION OF MISSOURI,

Amici Curiae.

 

OPINION ON REMAND FROM THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

David Prager, III, Tribal Attorney, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Mayetta,

Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John Michael Hale, Special Assistant Attorney General, Kansas Department of

Revenue, Topeka, Kansas, for Defendant-Appellee.
-2-

Before LUCERO, McKAY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

In view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wagnon v. Prairie Band

Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 676 (2005), and after supplemental

hearing, the prior decision of this court is vacated, as is the portion of the district

court’s opinion that applies the interest-balancing test. The order of the district

court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant is AFFIRMED.
Evert Ray CASTLEBERRY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0945

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 102962-102963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29849]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 912 to Competitive Product List. Documents

[[Page 102963]]

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-642, K2025-641.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-29849 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 February 10, 2006
 
 
 ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
  Delaware
    
    001-06357
    
    13-2595091(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation)
    
    (Commission File No.)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 500-108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, Washington 98004(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (425) 453-9400
   o
    
    Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 1.01
    
    Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
     -1-




---



##### 



Item 2.03
    
    Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.
  Item 9.01
    
    Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d) Exhibits .
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.2
    
    Amendment No. 4 to Credit Agreement dated as of February 10, 2006 by and among Esterline
Technologies Corporation, the financial institutions identified therein and Wachovia Bank,
National Association, as Administrative Agent.
 -2-




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIONDated: February 14, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Robert D. GeorgeName:
    Robert D. GeorgeTitle:
    Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Secretary and Treasurer -3-




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.2
    
    Amendment No. 4 to Credit Agreement dated as of February 10, 2006 by and among Esterline
Technologies Corporation, the financial institutions identified therein and Wachovia Bank,
National Association, as Administrative Agent.
 -4-
Robert OULTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D15-3721

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 21, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Aug ust 26, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00534

- CV

EP ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

STOREY MINERALS, LTD, Maltsberger/Storey Ranch, LLC, and Rene Barrientos, Ltd.,

Appellee s

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 05

- 00083

- CVL

The Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Leticia M. Escamilla ’ s notification of late reporter ’ s record is hereby GRANTED. Time

is extended to Sep tember 18, 2019.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 26th day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Stafford Leonard MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3304

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 7, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Rachel Roebuck, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jason M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Deatrick DANIEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1636

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 29, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jessica A. De Vera, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gross, May, JJ., and Caracuzzo, Cheryl, Associate Judge, concur.
Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3840

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 21     Name of Subsidiary Ownership Riverdale Carwash Lot 3A, LLC (“Riverdale”)  100.00%AARD-Stonegate, LLC (“Stonegate”)  51.00%AARD Charmar Arlington Boston Pizza, LLC (“Arlington”)  51.00%AARD MDJ Goddard, LLC (“Goddard”)  51.00%AARD-Cypress Sound, LLC (“Cypress Sound’)  51.00%AARD-TSD-CSK Firestone, LLC (“Firestone”)  51.00%South Glen Eagles Drive, LLC (“West Valley”)  51.00%119th and Ridgeview, LLC (“Ridgeview”)  51.00%53rd and Baseline, LLC (“Baseline”)  51.00%Hwy 278 and Hwy 170, LLC (“Bluffton 278”)  51.00%State and 130th, LLC (“American Fork”)  51.00%Clinton Keith and Hidden Springs, LLC (“Murietta”)  51.00%Hwy 46 and Bluffton Pkwy, LLC (“Bluffton 46”)  51.00%AARD Bader Family Dollar Flat Shoals, LLC (“Flat Shoals”)  51.00%AARD Westminster OP7, LLC (“Westminster”)  51.00%Eagle Palm I, LLC (“Eagle”)  51.00%AARD Econo Lube Stonegate, LLC (“Econo Lube”)  51.00%AARD Bader Family Dollar MLK, LLC (“MLK”)  51.00%AARD-Charmar Greeley, LLC (“Starbucks”)  51.00%AARD-Charmar Greeley Firestone, LLC  51.00%AARD 5020 Lloyd Expy, LLC (“Evansville”)  51.00%AARD ‘2245 Main Street, LLC (“Plainfield”)  51.00%AARD-Buckeye, LLC (“Buckeye”)  51.00%
STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher ALEXANDER

No. 2018-KK-1772

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 3, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted in part. The district court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress his statement. Defendant made his statement after a detective assured him anything he said would stay in the interrogation room and that no one would need to know what he told the detective. The detective's assurance amounted to a false promise of confidentiality that subverted the *Miranda* warning that anything defendant said will be used against him in a court of law, and thus rendered defendant's statement involuntary. *See**Hopkins v. Cockrell* , 325 F.3d 579, 584-585 (5th Cir. 2003) ("An officer cannot read the defendant his *Miranda* warnings and then turn around and tell him that despite those warnings, what the defendant tells the officer will be confidential and still use the resultant confession against the defendant."). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's ruling denying defendant's motion to suppress his statement, and remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

**VACATED AND REMANDED**

Weimer, J., would deny.

Guidry, J., would deny.

Clark, J., would deny.
David DANIELS, a/k/a David Daniels, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3694

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.