alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T.M., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-894

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Special Assistant Public Defender, and Luis A. Arguelles and Eric Rojo Dotel, Certified Legal Interns, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ., and LEBAN, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

T.M. appeals a withhold of adjudication for throwing a deadly missile and for second-degree criminal mischief. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State's objection to the introduction into evidence of an audio recording of the victim's 911 calls, under the excited utterance hearsay exception. The juvenile argues that this was harmful error. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

On appeal, a ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *Daniels v. State*, 634 So.2d 187, 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In this case, the trial court was within its discretion in precluding introduction of the recording based on the lack of authentication for this evidence.

Audio recordings may be played for the jury "if the audible parts are relevant, authenticated, and otherwise properly admissible." *Odom v. State*, 403 So.2d 936, 940 (Fla. 1981). The audio can be authenticated and admitted if the party speaking on the recording testifies that the audio is an accurate representation of the conversation. *McCoy v. State*, 853 So.2d 396, 403 (Fla. 2003) ("Nothing more than this confirmation, by a participant in the conversation, that the tape fairly and accurately memorialized the discussion at issue is required to properly authenticate the recording.").

In the present case, the court excluded the recording because it was presented at trial on a disc containing three recordings of three separate calls with different content in each. The victim had previously listened to a digital recording of the particular call he had made to the 911 operator, but had not listened to the contents of the disc offered for admission by the defense. The victim was not asked to testify that the version on the disc was the same recording he had heard previously. After realizing the victim's uncertainty about the contents of the disc, defense counsel indicated that he had "another way to go about doing this." The subsequent questioning was directed to the victim's eyewitness account, thus abandoning authentication of the audio recording itself as a prerequisite to its admission into evidence.

Affirmed.
Bruce Wayne CARTER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2985

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 9, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, EISNAUGLE and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Financial Condition

September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008

(unaudited)

September 30

2009

December 31

2008

Assets

 Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 19,981,009 $ 61,991,616

 Investments in U.S. Treasury Obligations 2,915,201,310 2,588,889,577

 Accrued Interest Receivable 19,502,297 21,061,643

 Premiums Receivable 259,173,000 242,970,000

Total Assets $ 3,213,857,616 $ 2,914,912,836

Liabilities and Insurance Fund

 Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses $ 340,735 $ 289,863

 Farm Credit Insurance Fund

 Allocated Insurance Reserve Accounts 39,888,431 39,888,431

 Unallocated Insurance Fund Balance 3,173,628,450 2,874,734,542

 Total Insurance Fund 3,213,516,881 2,914,622,973

Total Liabilities and Insurance Fund $ 3,213,857,616 $ 2,914,912,836
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Revenue and Expense

For the Period Ended September 30, 2009

(unaudited)

Calendar Year To Date

September 30, 2009

Income

 Premiums $ 259,173,000

 Interest Income on Investments 41,897,821

 Loss on Disposition of Investments (4,408)

Total Income $ 301,066,413

Expenses

 Administrative Operating Expenses $ 2,172,505

Total Expenses $ 2,172,505

Net Income $ 298,893,908
Thomas W. HUSSEY, D.D.S., Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, as public corporate body of the University of Florida, through the College of Medicine, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1262

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Terry Lee MCKINNEY

1170012 (CR-16-0586)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Discounts & Bundles

Visit the link below for available billing discounts and pricing 

options for broadband service bundled with other services like 

video, phone, and wireless service, and use of your own 

equipment like modems and routers.

https://www.example.com/discounts

Additional Charges & Terms

Provider Monthly Fees

One-Time Purchase Fees 

Early Termination Fee 

Government Taxes 

Device Installment Payment $66.67

Device Insurance Coverage

Voicemail

$3.99

$1.00

Activation Fee $36.00

Included

n/a

Monthly Price

This monthly price is an introductory rate 

Time the introductory rate applies

Monthly price after the introductory rate

Length of contract 

Link to Terms of Contract 

$75.00

n/a

n/a

n/a

https://www.example.com/terms-of-contract

No

Broadband Facts

Acme Wireless

50 Gigabit Data Plan 

Mobile Broadband Consumer Disclosure

Speeds Provided with Plan

Typical Download Speed 

Charges for Additional Data Usage

Data Included with Monthly Price

Typical Upload Speed

Typical Latency 

Mbps

Mbps

ms

$5/GB

GB

35

5

30

https://www.example.com/data-usage

Network Management Policy 

Customer Support 

Learn about the terms used on this label. Visit the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Consumer Resource Center.

Phone:

Website:

Unique Plan Identifier: F0005937974123ABC456EMC789

Privacy Policy

(555) 555-5555

https://www.example.com/privacy

https://www.example.com/network-management

https://www.example.com

fcc.gov/consumer

50
Edward WHITTAKER v. STATE

CR-16-0692

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00325-CV

CESAR ORNELES LAW, PLLC and Cesar Ornelas, II,

Appellants

v.

Rachel Rodriguez MEDINA,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-15819

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the parties’ joint motion to dismiss is 

GRANTED, and this appeal and cross appeal are DISMISSED. Costs of the appeal and cross 

appeal are taxed against the party who incurred them.

SIGNED September 16, 2020.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TOMMY PRESTON MARSHBURN,

Petitioner,

VS.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-1451-G

)

) ECF

)

)

)

ORDER

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a

recommendation in this case. 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.

August 31, 2006.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01451-G Document 26 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 108
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-292-CV

ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP	APPELLANT

	V.

TCB FARM AND RANCHLAND 						APPELLEES

INVESTMENTS, GENESIS TAX

LOAN SERVICES, INC., AND 

M. SUZANNE FROSSARD	

	----------

	FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “Joint Motion For Partial Dismissal Of Appeal.”  Because appellees do not oppose the motion, it is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss appellees Genesis Tax Loan Services, Inc. and M. Suzanne Frossard.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(f).  This case shall hereafter be styled “ABN AMRO Mortgage Group v. TCB Farm and Ranchland Investments.”

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal relative to appellees Genesis Tax Loan Services, Inc. and Suzanne Frossard, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

							PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:  GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 8, 2005
Antonio D. DAVIS v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-1206

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.4
                                                                    ------------

                  [LETTERHEAD OF SPECTRUM SCIENCES & SOFTWARE]

24  April  2003                         91  Hill  Avenue
                                        Ft.  Walton  Beach,  FL  32548
                                        (850)  796-0909  -  FAX  (850)  244-9560

Internal  Revenue  Service
125  W.  Romana  St,  Suite  300
Pensacola,  FL  32501

Attention:     Mr.  Gregory  Collier,  Revenue  Officer

Subject:     Notice  of  Levy,  Spectrum Sciences & Software, Inc, 21 April 2003

Dear  Mr.  Collier:

The  purpose  of this letter is to codify the telephone discussions this morning
between  yourself,  Ms.  Gontarek,  and  Mr.  Genovese  and  to  demonstrate the
willingness of Spectrum employees and management to resolve the 3rd Quarter 2000
back  tax  issue  that  is the subject of the levy.  In an effort to protect the
viability of our company, Spectrum management and employees are prepared to make
an  immediate  $25,000  cash infusion (from personal resources) into the company
and  to  make  that  $25,000  immediately available as a payment to the Internal
Revenue  Service  today.  This  initial payment will serve as the beginning of a
payment plan to reduce our overall liabilities.  We are prepared to hand carry a
check  to  your  office  in  Pensacola  before  the  close  of  business  today.

Secondly,  we  would  propose  the  following  payment  schedule  to satisfy the
remainder  of  the  back  tax  liability.  Beginning on May 2003 and carrying on
through  August  2003, Spectrum proposes a payment to the IRS of $5000 per month
to  be  made  no  later than the 10th of each month for a total of an additional
$20,000.  Starting  in  September  2003  and continuing until the finall debt is
settled,  Spectrum  proposes  a payment of $10,000 per month to be paid no later
than  the  10th  of  each  month.

In  consideration  for  this payment plan, Spectrum requests the IRS immediately
notify  First  National  Bank & Trust Co, Ft. Walton Beach, FL of our settlement
actions  and  to  immediately  release  the  funds that they have been forced to
freeze  in  our  operating  and payroll accounts by virtue of your 21 April 2003
notice.  These funds are needed to cover outstanding payroll and supplier/vendor
payments that had been issued prior to the IRS levy.  We further request the IRS
consider  our  request  for  reducing  or  eliminating the overall penalties and
interest  that  have  been  assessed  as this entire back tax issue was incurred
during  the  administration  of  our  previous CFO, Mr. Bob Schmidt who left the
company  about  the  time  the  payment  was  due.


                                       79
<PAGE>

If  you  have  any  questions  concerning  this  request,  please  contact  the
undersigned;  at  (850)  796-0909.


Respectfully,

/s/ William H. Ham

William  H.  Ham
Vice  President


                                       80
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Ex Parte: Carlos Orozco, 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00127-CR

Appeal from the

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20000D05432-384-1)

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right 

of appeal. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with the 

trial court clerk within twenty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s 

right of appeal as required by TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The trial court clerk shall 

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no later 

than July 6, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6

th day of June, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Jason RIMERMAN v. Heather LAWSON

2170465

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 14, 2018

Dismissed.
T.A.D. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160709

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

Reh. denied.
Case 3:06-cr-00030-L Document 53 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 154
Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Najeeb
Ghauri, certify that:





(1) I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2009 of NetSol Technologies, Inc., ("Registrant").





(2) Based
on
my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does
not  contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact  necessary to make the 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 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  procedure,  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 changes 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of the 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):










(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.





6.           The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
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.





Date:
      September 15, 2009
                /s/Najeeb GhauriNajeeb
      GhauriChief
      Executive Officer
Case 3:05-cv-01688-B Document 1 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1
Case 3:05-cv-01688-B Document 1 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2
Case 3:05-cv-01688-B Document 1 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3
Case 3:05-cv-01688-B Document 1 Filed 08/23/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4
Case 3:05-cv-01688-B Document 1 Filed 08/23/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5
Case 3:05-cv-01688-B Document 1 Filed 08/23/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 6
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 19 (Thursday, January 30, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01911]

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

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: January 30, 2025.

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 
January 21, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1319 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1146, K2025-1146.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-01911 Filed 1-29-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2017

No. 04-17-00692-CV

COMAL AG OPERATIONS, LLC,

Appellants

v.

Justin KELLEY, Emily Kelley, Valmark Chevrolet, Federated Insurance,

Appellees

From the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-0910-CV-A

Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal, the reporter’s record was due on October 30, 2017. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 35.1(a). On October 24, 2017, court reporter Lori Schmid filed a notification of late 

reporter’s record. It stated Appellant has not requested or paid for the record and is not entitled 

to a free reporter’s record on appeal. 

We ORDER Appellant to provide written proof to this court within TEN DAYS of the 

date of this order that (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay 

the reporter’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If 

Appellant fails to respond within the time provided, Appellant must file a brief with this court 

within TWENTY DAYS after the clerk’s record is filed, and the court will only “consider and 

decide those issues or points [raised in Appellant’s brief] that do not require a reporter’s record 

for a decision.” See id. R. 37.3(c).

If Appellant timely complies with this order, the reporter’s record will be due not later 

than TEN DAYS from the date Appellant files written proof showing compliance with this order. 

See id. R. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension of time to file the record in an accelerated appeal to ten 

days). 
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 26th day of October, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Joseph  Candelario,  hereby certify that I am the First Vice President,  Loan
Administration  of  Countrywide  Home  Loans,  Inc.,  fka,  Countrywide  Funding
Corporation, and further  certify with respect  to  the  Pooling  and  Servicing
Agreements for Series 1990-2 (Inv.# 251) by and among Ryland Mortgage Securities
Corporation and Countrywide Funding Corporation, as Servicer, as follows:

I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Servicer during the fiscal
year  ended  February  28,  1997  under the  Agreements  and,  to the best of my
knowledge,  based on my review,  the Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its duties,
responsibilities or obligations under the Agreements throughout the fiscal year.




                                              /s/Joseph Candelario    5-23-97
                                              Joseph Candelario         Date
                                              First Vice President
                                              Loan Administration
Anibal GARCIA, Appellant, v. ALL CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-913

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 13, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 05, 2019

Vargas Gonzalez Hevia Baldwin, LLP, and Stephanie C. Hopple, Miami, for appellant.

Conroy Simberg, and Seth R. Goldberg (Hollywood) and Diane H. Tutt (Hollywood), for appellees Leticia H. Grendene and Michele Grendene.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).