alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-899

____________

KENNETH HARTLEY,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

[January 26, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Kenneth Hartley’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 

denying Hartley’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Hartley’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on 

remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 

2161 (2017). This Court stayed Hartley’s appeal pending the disposition of 

Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 
- 2 -

After this Court decided Hitchcock, Hartley responded to this Court’s order to 

show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Hartley’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 

State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Hartley is not entitled to relief. 

Hartley was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 

vote of nine to three. Hartley v. State, 686 So. 2d 1316, 1319 (Fla. 1996). 

Hartley’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Hartley v. Florida, 522 U.S. 825 

(1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Hartley’s sentence of death. 

See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Hartley’s 

motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Hartley, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.
- 3 -

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, 

Russell L. Healey, Judge - Case No. 161991CF008144AXXXMA

Linda McDermott of McClain and McDermott, Estero, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa Hopkins, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellee
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-38285) pertaining to the Vision Twenty-One, Inc. 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-67315) pertaining
to the Vision Twenty-One, Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the
Registration Statement (Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 on Form S-3 to Form S-1
No. 333-51437) of our report dated April 7, 2000 (except paragraph 2 of Note 16,
as to which the date is April 21, 2000, and paragraph 3 of Note 16, as to which
the date is May 5, 2000) with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Vision Twenty-One, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Tampa, Florida
May 5, 2000



                                      80
STATE v. John Frank BOWEN.

No. 342P05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Young, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*902The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of July 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Rehearing and En Banc by the North Carolina Supreme Court Duly Elected Justices":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of August 2006."
# L_2016264DE.01004301.xml

| 30.9.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 264/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 264/43

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1215/2012 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 12. Dezember 2012 über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 351 vom 20. Dezember 2012
  )

Seite 11, Artikel 25 Absatz 1

Anstatt:

„(1)   Haben die Parteien unabhängig von ihrem Wohnsitz vereinbart, dass ein Gericht oder die Gerichte eines Mitgliedstaats über eine bereits entstandene Rechtsstreitigkeit oder über eine künftige aus einem bestimmten Rechtsverhältnis entspringende Rechtsstreitigkeit entscheiden sollen, so sind dieses Gericht oder die Gerichte dieses Mitgliedstaats zuständig, es sei denn, die Vereinbarung ist nach dem Recht dieses Mitgliedstaats materiell nichtig.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Haben die Parteien unabhängig von ihrem Wohnsitz vereinbart, dass ein Gericht oder die Gerichte eines Mitgliedstaats über eine bereits entstandene Rechtsstreitigkeit oder über eine künftige aus einem bestimmten Rechtsverhältnis entspringende Rechtsstreitigkeit entscheiden sollen, so sind dieses Gericht oder die Gerichte dieses Mitgliedstaats zuständig, es sei denn, die Vereinbarung ist nach dem Recht dieses Mitgliedstaats materiell ungültig.“

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6167

DARRYL W. LANE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORA HUNT; VICKIE HARDIE; GARY DENOBREGA;

SHARON CARTHEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:05-ct-00770-BO)

Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 23, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl W. Lane, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Darryl W. Lane appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Lane v. Hunt, No. 5:05-

ct-00770-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2006). 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
**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
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of PLM Income Fund I (the “Fund”), on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Manager and of the Fund, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the
Report of the Fund filed today 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 Fund.
 
 
 
 /s/
Richard K Brock
 Richard K
Brock
 Chief
Financial Officer of PLM Financial Services, Inc.
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
 November
11, 2005
STATE v. WILSON.

No. COA05-511.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from New Hanover (03CRS60059, 04CRS2365)

Case without published opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2013 of 6 November 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2013                     

# of 6 November 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 November 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            2579
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             658
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      72328
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            9628
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              9628
<LOANS>                                         240496
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  340381
<DEPOSITS>                                      216910
<SHORT-TERM>                                     69353
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               9373
<LONG-TERM>                                      24159
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                       20565
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  330381
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   5031
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1208
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    35
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  6274
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2960
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4236
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2038
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2946
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (539)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (362)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.70
<LOANS-NON>                                       1030
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    303
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2950
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2950
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2950
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           2646
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99


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



     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                                     By:/s/ John R. Male
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Name:  John R. Male
                                        Title: Chairman of the Board and
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                     By:/s/ C. Keith Swaney
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Name:   C. Keith Swaney
                                        Title:  President, Chief Operating
                                                Officer and Treasurer




Date: May 14, 2003
STATE of North Carolina v. Decarlos MOSS.

No. 421P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Moss.

Buren R. Shields, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joel H. Brewer, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 9th day of August 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of August 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
STATE v. James A.G. BUNCH, Jr.

No. 604P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie M. Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of October 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-28(A)(B):"

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of December 2005."
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-268

_____________________________

JONATHAN WRIGHT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

May 2, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Jonathan Wright appeals an order denying his motion for 

postconviction relief. While we find no error in most of the trial 

court’s disposition, we agree with Mr. Wright that the court’s 

record attachments do not refute his claim of entitlement to 

additional jail credit. 

In 1985, Jonathan Wright was sentenced for two counts of 

attempted second-degree murder, four counts of armed robbery, 

and three counts of attempted armed robbery. In 2007, he was resentenced following this court’s decision in Wright v. State, 941 So. 

538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). 

In the instant motion, Mr. Wright contended that while 

awaiting re-sentencing he was held in Duval County Jail from May 
2

29, 2007 until November 22, 2007. He claimed that he was entitled 

to jail credit for this time. The trial court denied relief, finding that 

the motion was legally insufficient, and that Mr. Wright was not 

entitled to the credit on the merits.

We disagree with the court’s conclusion that the motion was

legally insufficient. Criminal defendants are entitled to credit for 

time spent in county jail awaiting re-sentencing. Middleton v. 

State, 213 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). And Mr. Wright’s motion 

alleged everything that was required pursuant to Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.801. The record attachments do not 

conclusively refute his jail credit claim. See McIntosh v. State, 146 

So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Rule 3.801(e) . . . requires the 

circuit court to attach to its order denying a motion seeking 

additional jail credit records that conclusively refute the motion.”).

On remand, the court should grant relief, unless the jail 

and/or prison records show that Mr. Wright received the credit due 

for the time he spent in jail from May 29, 2007 until November 22, 

2007. If the court denies relief, it must include record attachments 

showing that the defendant is not entitled to relief for this period 

of time. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and 

REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROBERTS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jonathan Wright, Appellant, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1027/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1027/2013 of 23 October 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Skagerrak area            by vessels flying the flag of Sweden         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1027/2013                     

# of 23 October 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Skagerrak area by vessels flying the flag of Sweden

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international                              negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

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

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.
Michael W. McLAMB, and wife Deborah McLamb; Barry Sutton; G. Keith Handy and wife, Donna W. Handy; Michael McKay and wife, Jill McKay; and Steve Owen v. T.P., INC.

No. 663P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Gary K. Shipman, William G. Wright, Wilmington, for McLamb, et al.

William C. Smith, Jr., Raleigh, for T.P., Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th day of November 2005 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
Yvonne STEGENGA v. Jamie Allen BURNEY and Tina Lee Burney and Unnamed Defendant (Allstate Insurance Company).

No. 642P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Robert A. Brinson, Christopher C. Finan, High Point, for Yvonne Stegenga.

Desire E. Carter, for Allstate Insurance Co.

*13*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of November 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."

Justice MARTIN recused.