alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michael MCALKICH, DOC #T75693, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4675

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew D. Bernstein, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bilal Ahmed Faruqui, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and Allison C. Heim, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Michael McAlkich appeals his convictions and sentences following a jury trial, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing a prison releasee reoffender sentence on his conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer.1 The State properly conceded error on appeal.2*See**Elmore v. State*, 172 So.3d 465, 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ("It is undisputed that battery on a law enforcement officer is neither a qualifying nor an enumerated offense under the PRR statute. Moreover, the erroneous imposition of PRR status renders a sentence illegal." (first citing *State v. Hearns*, 961 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 2007), then citing *Kirkland v. State*, 71 So.3d 254, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ) ). Accordingly, we affirm McAlkich's convictions and sentences on counts one and three without further comment, but we reverse McAlkich's sentence on count two and remand for the trial court to strike the PRR designation.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

KELLY, KHOUZAM, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

1

McAlkich filed a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion challenging his PRR sentence on count two as unlawful before filing the initial brief in this case. Because the trial court failed to timely rule on the motion, it was deemed denied. *See* Fla. Crim. R. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).

2

The State also argued that McAlkich's sentence on count three for resisting an officer with violence should be reversed and remanded for imposition of a PRR sentence. However, because the State failed to cross-appeal McAlkich's sentence, the issue is not properly before us. *See**Pope v. State*, 884 So.2d 328, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (explaining that the State's failure to file a cross-appeal waived its argument that the trial court was required to impose a certain sentence).
**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 Annual Report of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, William R. Floyd, 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, thatto my knowledge:
 1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
/s/ WILLIAM R. FLOYD
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, David R. Malmstedt, Chief Executive Officer of Vincera, Inc. (Principal Executive Officer), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Vincera, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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) [paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instruction contained in SEC Release 34-47986]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  November 14, 2006  /s/ David R. Malmstedt Name: David R. Malmstedt Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)     1
Exhibit 32.2






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






Certification of Chief Financial Officer




In connection with the Annual Report of Apolo Gold & Energy Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Dinning, Chief Financial Officer 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 results of operations of the Company.




October 5, 2010
/s/ Robert DinningRobert DinningChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1





                                   EXHIBIT 12

                              COMPUTATION OF RATIOS



     COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                      3/31/01      3/31/00    3/31/99     3/31/98     3/31/97
                                                      -------      -------    -------     -------     -------
<S>                                                   <C>          <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>
Income (loss) before income taxes                     ($86,362)    $16,822    $ 6,106     $10,324      $2,614
ADD:
Portions of rents representative
  of interest factor                                     7,235       1,666      1,428       1,736         440
Interest on indebtedness                                40,844      31,350     20,903      10,710       3,388
                                                     ---------     -------    -------     -------      ------
                                                      ($38,283)    $49,838    $28,437     $22,770      $6,442
                                                     =========     =======    =======     =======      ======

FIXED CHARGES
Portions of rents representative
  of interest factor                                     7,235       1,666      1,428       1,736         440
Interest on indebtedness                                40,844      31,350     20,903      10,710       3,388
                                                     ---------     -------    -------     -------      ------
                                                     $  48,079     $33,016    $22,331     $12,446      $3,828
                                                     =========     =======    =======     =======      ======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          NM         1.5        1.3         1.8         1.7
                                                     =========     =======    =======     =======      ======

Deficiency of earnings over fixed
   charges                                           ($ 86,362)
                                                     =========

</TABLE>
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL QUALCOMM’S PRETRIAL BRIEF

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL 

QUALCOMM’S PRETRIAL BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 1059

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court DENIES Qualcomm’s motion to seal 

Qualcomm’s pretrial brief, ECF No. 1059. Qualcomm shall file an unredacted version of its 

pretrial brief publicly by January 15, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1319 Filed 01/15/19 Page 1 of 1
# L_2017273EN.01001101.xml

| 24.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 273/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 273/11

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/1935

of 23 October 2017

amending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1).

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova should be extended until 31 October 2018. The Council will carry out a review of the situation with regard to the restrictive measures after six months. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova should be extended until 31 October 2018. The Council will carry out a review of the situation with regard to the restrictive measures after six months.

| (3) | Decision 2010/573/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2010/573/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 4(2) of Decision 2010/573/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:

‘2.   This Decision shall apply until 31 October 2018. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed or amended, as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 23 October 2017.

For the Council

The President

K. IVA

---

(1)  Council Decision 2010/573/CFSP of 27 September 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova (OJ L 253, 28.9.2010, p. 54).

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of GTA-IB, LLC.

|Date: August 15, 2005 |  | /s/W. BRADLEY BLAIR, IIW. Bradley Blair, II President and Chief
Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 15, 2005 |  | /s/SCOTT D. PETERSScott D. Peters Secretary and Chief Financial Officer          

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, David Oman, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Elite Artz, 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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer=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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer=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 small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer=s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer=s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer=s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer=s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer=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 small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting.    Date: October 31, 2006 /s/ David Miles Oman David Miles Oman Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1


<S>                                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                                16,945,010
<SECURITIES>                                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          7,237,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      24,266,235
<PP&E>                                                                 1,575,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           451,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        25,467,323
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  3,038,894
<BONDS>                                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                                  54,850
<OTHER-SE>                                                            22,343,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          25,467,323
<SALES>                                                               35,215,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      35,215,911
<CGS>                                                                 23,931,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         32,015,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       147,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        3,545,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           1,022,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    2,523,508
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           2,523,508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                            .45<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            .45<F1>
<FN><F1>
----------------
Presented  on a pro forma  basis as if the  Company  had been  fully  subject to
federal and state income taxes for all periods presented.


</FN>





</TABLE>
STATE of Louisiana v. John CHAMBERS

No. 2019-KH-0391

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

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

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Applicant 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. Applicant'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, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

It is never a good idea for a trial judge to enter the jury room during deliberations, even with consent of counsel. The better practice is to bring the jury into the courtroom and put it on the record.
Roberto RAMOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4687

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**McDonald v. State*, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007) ; *Knight v. State*, 808 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2002) ; *Robinson v. State*, 793 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2001) ; *State v. Connelly*, 748 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1999) ; *Cave v. State*, 613 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1993) ; *Lopez v. State*, 135 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ; *McDonald v. State*, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ; *Hughes v. State*, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Calloway v. State*, 914 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Brown v. State*, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; *State v. Wilson*, 203 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; *Williams v. State*, 143 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ;

*1212*Dunbar v. State*, 879 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ; *State v. Reardon*, 763 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (en banc).

SILBERMAN, BLACK, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Keith CRAWFORD, Sr, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50160.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

DECIDED: April 27, 2004.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, Angela S. Raba, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nancy Blair Barohn, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Keith Crawford appeals from his conviction and sentence, following a jury trial, for 11 counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2, and two counts of making false statements for the purpose of influencing the action of a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.

Crawford challenges: the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him on four of the bank fraud counts; the district court’s refusal to grant a mistrial after the Government made allegedly improper statements during jury voir dire; the upward adjustment of Crawford’s sentence because he *211was a leader or organizer of the scheme to defraud; the calculation of the amount of loss resulting from the fraudulent scheme as it affected his sentence; and the calculation of the restitution amount owed by Crawford to Security National Bank.

There is no reversible error, except for the restitution amount. Because Crawford should be credited with the amount he paid Security National Bank in their civil settlement, the restitution amount is reduced by $18,500. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to district court for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED JUDGMENT*

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.