alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Joel CUPID.

No. 560PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2007.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 173 N.C.App. 448, 618 S.E.2d 874 (2005), finding no reversible error in a trial which resulted in judgments entered 20 August 2003 by Judge Ronald E. Spivey in Superior Court, Guilford County, but remanding the case for resentencing after allowing in part defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 May 2007.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Michael D. Youth, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

M. Alexander Charns, Durham, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm by a felon, and felony fleeing to elude arrest with a motor vehicle. The trial court assigned defendant eight prior record points for previous convictions and one point because the offenses were committed "(a) while on . . . probation, parole, or post-release supervision." The one additional point increased defendant's prior record level from III to IV, and defendant was sentenced accordingly. During defendant's sentencing hearing, he stated to the trial court that he "was on . . . probation" at the time of the offenses.

Defendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury was violated because his probationary status, which was used to increase his sentence, was improperly found by the trial court instead of a jury. *See Blakely v. Washington,* 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). This Court held in *State v. Hurt,* 361 N.C. 325, 330, 643 S.E.2d 915, 918 (2007), however, that a trial court's aggravation of a defendant's sentence on the basis of an admission does not violate the Sixth Amendment if "that defendant personally or through counsel admits the necessary facts."

Here, defendant voluntarily declared, in open court during his N.C.G.S. § 15A-1334(b) presentencing statement, that he "was on . . . probation" at the time of the offenses. This constitutes an admission of the necessary facts relied on by the trial court to increase defendant's sentence. Therefore, we hold that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a jury was not violated.

For the foregoing reasons, the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion allowing defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief in *349part and remanding for resentencing is reversed. However, the portions of the Court of Appeals opinion denying the Motion for Appropriate Relief in part and finding no prejudicial error in defendant's convictions as specified in that opinion remain undisturbed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
**Exhibit 10.8**

 

October15, 2003

 

 

JimNakagawa

PriceLegacy Corporation

17140Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300

SanDiego, CA 92128

 

***Re:          Employment Issue***

 

DearJim:

 

Thisletter will serve to confirm our mutual agreement that in the event you resignyour employment with the Company, you will be afforded the protection andbenefits provided under paragraph 6(d) of your employment contract with theCompany dated April 7, 2003.

 
| Very truly yours,            |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         |
| /s/ Jack McGrory             |   |
| Jack McGrory                 |
|                         |
| JM:bjj                       |
|                         |
|                         |
| Acknowledged and agreed this |
| 15th day of October, 2003    |
|                         |
|                         |
| /s/ Jim Nakagawa             |   |
| Jim Nakagawa                 |

 

----
Exhibit 32


                                  Certification


To my  knowledge,  this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004
(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 this
Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of CKF Bancorp, Inc.



                                    By:    /s/ John H. Stigall
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John H. Stigall
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



                                    By:    /s/ Russell M. Brooks
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Russell M. Brooks
                                           Vice President and Chief Financial
                                            Officer



Date:    May 13, 2004
IN RE J.L.P.

No. COA06-642.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Gates (05J17).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 19
                                   ----------

   Annual report of Accountants with respect to the servicing of the contracts 
         by the Servicing pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement

                          Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Directors
The CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc.:


We have examined  management's  assertion about The CIT  Group/Sales  Financing,
Inc.'s  (the  Company),  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of The  CIT  Group,  Inc.,
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers  as of and  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  1997  included  in the
accompanying  management assertion.  Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on  management's  assertion  about the  Company's  compliance
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the Company has  complied in all
material respects with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of and
for the year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



                                          /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                         --------------------------
                                         KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
March 13, 1998
STATE v. BALLARD.

No. COA06-1439.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from Madison (05CRS50277, 05CRS50278, 06CRS1334).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN RE B.R.H.

No. COA06-606

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Johnston (05J94).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC.,

FANNIE MAE AND NEXBANK, SSB

,

Appellant s

,

v.

PETER LABRADO AND ROSEMARY

LABRADO

,

Appelle e s

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00 278

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCV4757 )

O R D E R

The Court has considered the joint motion to abate the appeal pending settlement and

concludes the motion to abate the appeal should be granted. We therefore ORDER that the appeal

be abated until March 2 5, 2021, to complete the settlement process and file the appropriate motion

in this Court to dispose of this appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 5 th day of March , 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC
FORM 10-Q DATED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
<CURRENCY>               POUNDS STERLING

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.5785
<CASH>                                         212,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,079
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,980
<PP&E>                                         612,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 821,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          154,168
<BONDS>                                        866,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,478
<OTHER-SE>                                     206,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   821,585
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,869
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (22)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 99,066
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,066
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
STATE v. Lloyd Douglas MOSS.

No. 617P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Alvin W. Keller, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of December 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

*375"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2007."
STATE v. GRAY.

No. COA06-1240.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Lincoln (01CRS4156, 01CRS4158).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR TANISYS TECHNOLOGY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE THIRD QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE
NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         701,551
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,912,558
<ALLOWANCES>                                   333,703
<INVENTORY>                                  3,554,099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,810,881
<PP&E>                                       5,044,443
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,409,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,627,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,978,899
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,872,181
<PREFERRED>                                  1,872,181
<COMMON>                                    31,729,174
<OTHER-SE>                                (30,878,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,627,053
<SALES>                                     40,553,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,553,075
<CGS>                                       32,997,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,997,915
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,814,120
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               333,703
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             966,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,147,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,147,072)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,147,072)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3050 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain isotopic separation machinery 

and apparatus, and parts thereof, for use in the construction of an 

isotopic separation facility in southern New Mexico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2008 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. DOMENICI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain isotopic separation 

machinery and apparatus, and parts thereof, for use 

in the construction of an isotopic separation facility in 

southern New Mexico. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3050 IS

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ISOTOPIC MACHINERY AND APPA2 RATUS, AND PARTS THEREOF, FOR USE IN 

3 THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ISOTROPIC SEPA4 RATION FACILITY IN SOUTHERN NEW MEX5 ICO. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.84.05 Isotopic separation machinery and 

apparatus, and parts thereof, for 

use in the construction of an isotopic separation facility located in 

southern New Mexico known as 

the ‘National Enrichment Facility’ 

(provided for in subheading 

8401.20.00) ................................... 2.2% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

12 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 16, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-582

Lower Tribunal No. 12-21765 SP

________________

United Automobile Insurance Company, etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

Millennium Radiology, LLC, 

d/b/a Millennium Open MRI, 

a/a/o Jennifer M. Alvarez,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Linda 

Singer Stein, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); and 

Marks & Fleischer, P.A., and Gary Marks (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

We reverse and remand consistent with our recent decision in United 

Automobile Insurance Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly 

D175 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022) (“Millennium’s ‘identity’ is not the same 

in each of these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws its identity 

from its assignor from case to case. The identity element of collateral 

estoppel, therefore, is not satisfied.”).

Reversed and remanded.
# FEB 07  0729AM

CDR420

Line-In Record

Other

809.28455
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
J. B. WILLIAMS HOLDINGS, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
<CURRENCY>                              US$
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                        1
<CASH>                                                             6,160
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      9,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         550
<INVENTORY>                                                       11,977
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  27,657
<PP&E>                                                             2,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     1,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    77,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              9,385
<BONDS>                                                           50,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                          10,796
<OTHER-SE>                                                         5,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      77,364
<SALES>                                                           15,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  15,777
<CGS>                                                              5,727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      5,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   9,146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 1,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (534)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        (208)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (326)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 0 2 3

- 279 0

_____________________________ C HARON T ERRANCE M OSS ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

— Original Jurisdiction

.

November 15, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
D ENIED

.
R OWE , R AY , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Stacy A. Scott, Public Defender, and Rachael O’Brien, Assistant Public Defender, Gainesville
, for Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
Exhibit 32


                                  Certification


To my knowledge,  this Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
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
this Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of CKF Bancorp, Inc.



                                     By: /s/ John H. Stigall
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         John H. Stigall
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer



                                     By: /s/ Russell M. Brooks
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Russell M. Brooks
                                         Vice President and Chief Financial
                                          Officer



Date:    November 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             443
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,960
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,467
<PP&E>                                          82,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,046
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              146
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,874
<SALES>                                        146,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,975
<CGS>                                          143,458
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  266,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (126,078)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (21,729)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (104,349)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (104,349)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (9.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (9.53)


</TABLE>