alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Joshua W. STAMM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1009

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 13, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Because Appellant was extradited to Ohio, his underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus has been rendered moot and the appeal is dismissed. *See* *Young v. State* , 104 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (unpublished disposition) (dismissing appeal, holding the fact that the defendant *559was extradited rendered his underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus moot); *see also* *M.M. v. Wood* , 152 So. 3d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (concluding that "while the issue [of first impression] may conceivably recur, it will not necessarily evade review if it does so" and declining "to exercise our jurisdiction to address a question that has been rendered moot by petitioner's release from secure detention").

DISMISSED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Bilbrey and Jay, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JEROME HOPES,

Petitioner,

VS.

WARDEN DAN JOSLIN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-2424-G

)

) ECF

)

ORDER

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The district court reviewed

the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding

none, the court ACCEPTS the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED.

June 29, 2006.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02424-G Document 15 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 100
Andres Sultan OSECHAS, Petitioner, v. Sarah Correa ARCILA, Respondent.

No. 3D18-1897

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019.

Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A. and Alyssa M. Reiter and Brandon J. Hechtman (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Michael T. Flanagan; James C. Blecke, for respondent.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petition denied.

SCALES, J. specially concurring.

*66I concur in the denial of the petition because the limitations of our review - i.e., the exacting certiorari standard - require this result. At the risk, though, of sounding like a broken record,1 I again encourage the Florida Bar's Appellate Rules Committee to consider adding to the schedule of non-final appealable orders found in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) those orders granting leave to amend a complaint to add punitive damages. Given how such interlocutory orders materially alter the course of civil litigation, I fail to see how the certiorari standard is more appropriate than an appellate standard. *TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky*, 194 So.3d 516, 520 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; *Levin v. Pritchard*, 258 So.3d 545, 548 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

1

Primitive people used to listen to music on things called "records" made of vinyl. The record revolved on a platter called a "turntable," and a "stylus" would magically convert into music the hidden indentations in the grooves of such records. Upon encountering a dust particle embedded in such a groove, the stylus would become temporarily unseated from the groove. Because of the turntable's revolution, when the stylus reconnected with the groove, the listener would hear the same portion of the music heard immediately prior to the stylus encountering the dust particle. Hence, the same music repeated over and over until the dust particle became dislodged or the listener manually adjusted the stylus. The aggravated listener often referred to the record containing dusty grooves as a "broken record."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6246
MITCHELL WRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-1646-2-19AJ) Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mitchell Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wright v. Ward , No. CA-95-1646-2-19AJ (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Wanda Ward HUTCHINSON v. Reuben D. RUSSELL and Russell Management Group LLC

2170203

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 15, 2018

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Horizon Lines, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 25, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Charles G. Raymond, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/    CHARLES G.
RAYMOND                                                             
|Charles G. Raymond President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

July 28, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

VICKI PANNELL §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. §

§ NO. 3-05-CV-1726-K

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, §

Commissioner of Social Security §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this

case, and the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed

on September 8, 2006, and Plaintiff's Objections thereto, filed on September 22, 2006,

the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Recommendation of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge are accepted.

SO ORDERED this 25 day of September, 2006.

th

 _____________________________________

 ED KINKEADE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01726-K-BD Document 23 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 79
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A KOREAN 

CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, 

SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 

LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1802

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, 

Judge Lucy H. Koh.

______________________ 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 
2 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

O R D E R

Appellees Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed a petition for 

rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by 

the court and filed by appellant Apple, Inc. The petition and 

response were referred to the panel that heard the appeal. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1) Samsung’s petition for rehearing is granted by a majority 

of the panel for the limited purpose of modifying the previously filed majority opinion. Page 17 of the original 

opinion reads: “Apple did not establish that that these 

features were the exclusive or significant driver of customer demand, which certainly would have weighed 

more heavily in its favor. We conclude that this factor 

weighs in favor of granting Apple’s injunction.” The 

corrected opinion reads: 

Apple did not establish that these features 

were the exclusive driver of customer demand, which certainly would have 

weighed more heavily in its favor. Apple 

did, however, show that “a patented feature is one of several features that cause 

consumers to make their purchasing decisions.” Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1364. We 

conclude that this factor weighs in favor of 

granting Apple’s injunction. 

The dissenting opinion was also amended. Samsung’s 

petition is denied in all other respects.

2) The prior opinions in this appeal, which issued on 

September 17, 2015, and were reported at Apple Inc. v. 

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 801 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 

2015), are withdrawn and replaced with the revised 

opinions accompanying this order.
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 3

 FOR THE COURT

 December 16, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court
Order entered August 31, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 20 - 00717 - CV STEVE HUFFMAN AND PR ESTON THOMPSON, Appellant s V. LONESTAR TRANSFER, L LC, Appellee On A ppeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1 - 19 - 0074 ORDER Before the Court is appellants’ August 27, 2020 unopposed motion for extension of time to file their brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than September 22, 2020.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Case 3:04-cv-02597-P Document 54 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1280
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02597-P Document 54 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1281
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02597-P Document 54 Filed 08/31/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1282
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02597-P Document 54 Filed 08/31/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1283
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02597-P Document 54 Filed 08/31/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1284
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 this Report of VALLEY HIGH MINING COMPANY (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Michael Coombs, hereby 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 and belief:  (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.  VALLEY HIGH MINING COMPANY    Date:October 29, 2008By:/s/John Michael CoombsJohn Michael CoombsChairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)  Date:October 29, 2008By:/s/John Michael CoombsJohn Michael CoombsChief or Principal Officer (CFO), and Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary and Treasurer,
G.O., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2028

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:06-cv-00297-K Document 18 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 79
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Respondent/Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:03-CR-078-N

) No. 3:05-CV-1993-N 

EDWARD EARL LEATCH, ) ECF

ID # 29808-177, )

)

Movant/Defendant. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED January 24, 2008.

 

 DAVID C. GODBEY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1720

___________ Genesee County Employees’ * Retirement System; Desert * Orchid Partners, L.L.C., * individually and on behalf of * all others similarly situated, * * Appellees, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Dwight G. Hanson; Transaction * Systems Architects, Inc.; William * [UNPUBLISHED] E. Fischer; Gregory J. Duman; * Edward Fuxa; David C. Russell, * * Appellees, * * v. * * James H. Sykora; Thomas G. Foley, * * Interested parties, * * James J. Hayes, * * Appellant, * * Alan Young; Karen Young, * * Interested parties, * * Nancy Rosen, On Behalf of *-2- Herself and All Others Similarly * Situated; Genesee County Employees’ * Retirement System, * * Appellees, * * v. * * Transaction Systems Architects, * Inc.; Dwight G. Hanson, * * Appellees, * * Greg Duman, * * Defendant, * * William E. Fischer; Edward Fuxa, * * Appellees, * * Harlan F. Seymour, * * Defendant, * * James J. Hayes, * * Appellant, * * David Russel, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 2008 Filed: August 13, 2008

___________1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. -3- Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this securities class action lawsuit, class member James Hayes appeals the district court’s 1 order approving a settlement and its judgment of dismissal. Because Hayes did not timely raise (if at all) in the district court the issues he argues on appeal, we do not consider them. A ccordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
STATE of Louisiana

IN the INTEREST OF C.B. and B.M.

NO. 2019-CJ-0495

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Eddie O'Neal GARNER, DOC #990411, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2131

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Ridgewood Energy M
Fund, LLC;


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 officer(s) 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; 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 (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

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 functions):

(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 control over
financial reporting.



Dated:  April 5, 2007


   /s/  ROBERT E. SWANSON
 Name:  Robert E. Swanson

Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
IDEAL PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF NURSING, Appellee.

No. 1D19-580

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 22, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019

Gregory Ochalek, Miami, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Marlene K. Stern, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, this cause is hereby dismissed. This disposition is without prejudice to Appellant's right, if any it has, to seek relief by motion in the lower tribunal.

Wolf, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Timothy Carlos COFFEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D15-1299

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender; Joanna Aurica Mauer and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General; Matthew Pavese and Michael L. Schaub, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

**ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT**

Per Curiam.

The appellant, Timothy Coffey, was charged by amended information with one count of using a computer to facilitate or solicit a parent to consent to the sexual conduct of a child, in violation of section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2013) (Count 1); one count of unlawful use of a two-way communications device, a cellular phone, to facilitate the commission of a felony, traveling to engage in sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2013) (Count 2); and one count of traveling to meet a minor to engage in sexual conduct with consent by a parent, in violation of section 847.0135(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2013) (Count 3). Each crime was alleged to have been committed "on or about November 15, 2013." He was convicted on all counts.

The appellant raised four issues on appeal. In Issue I, he argued his dual convictions in Counts 1 and 3 violated double jeopardy. In Issue II, he argued his dual convictions in Counts 2 and 3 violated double jeopardy. In Issue III, he challenged the denial of a pre-trial motion to dismiss based on subjective and objective entrapment. In Issue IV, he argued the trial court erred by excluding certain trial testimony. This Court accepted the State's concession of error in Issue II and vacated the appellant's conviction in Count 2. We affirmed all other issues on appeal.

In Issue I, we affirmed his dual convictions in Counts 1 and 3 under *279*Lee v. State* , 223 So.3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). In 2018, the Supreme Court quashed our opinion in *Lee* and held that the reviewing court should only consider the charging document to determine whether multiple convictions for solicitation, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling were based upon the same conduct for purposes of double jeopardy. *Lee v. State* , 258 So.3d 1297 (Fla. 2018) ( *Lee II* ). Applying *Lee II* to Issue I in this case, we must also vacate the appellant's conviction in Count 1 as that count is subsumed within Count 3. Accordingly, the appellant's convictions in Counts 1 and 2 are VACATED . The appellant's conviction in Count 3 is AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Roberts, and Ray, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RICKEY LOUIS JACKSON, #692137, ) 

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-2541-N

) ECF

GEO GROUP, INC., et al., ) 

Defendants. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in

this case. Plaintiff/Petitioner filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review

of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. 

The objections are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

SO ORDERED June 16, 2006.

_________________________________

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02541-N Document 18 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 75
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE

INTEREST OF

O.E.R. AND L.F.J., 

CHILDREN.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00176-CV

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas

(TC# 20,814)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment as it pertains to V.M.N. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It is further ordered that there was no error in the judgment as it pertains to L.J. We 

therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It has been determined that Appellants are indigent for purposes of appeal; therefore, this 

Court makes no other order with respect to the payment of costs on appeal. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.