alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Paul CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D03-1347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 30, 2003.

*827Appellant John Paul Clark, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit. We reverse because the trial court failed to attach to its order portions of the record conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim. *Chitty v. State,*834 So.2d 909, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); *Collins v. State,*835 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The appellant presented a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under Rule 3.800(a) by providing the dates for which he is seeking credit, the date of his sentence, and alleging that his jail cards show that he is entitled to additional credit. *See State v. Maneino,*714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); *Thomas v. State,*634 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In support of its denial of the appellant’s motion, the trial court attached a “Time Served Calculator” apparently prepared by the court clerk. However, the “Time Served Calculator” and accompanying annotations, attached to the trial court’s order were merely clerk’s notes and are insufficient to conclusively refute the appellant’s claim. *Collins,*835 So.2d at 373; *Mayo v. State,*825 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

The jail cards provided by the appellant showed an entitlement to 197 days of jail credit while the “Time Served Calculator” suggested that the appellant was entitled to only 161 days. The apparent discrepancy arose from one of three separate periods of jail time which ran from December 11, 2001, to April 11, 2001. On March 7, 2001, the appellant was sentenced to community control but he remained in jail until April 11, 2001. The clerk noted upon the “Time Served Calculator” that he “believed” that the county jail time from March 7, 2001, to April 11, 2001, was “for the county jail sentence [appellant] was serving in case 00-1533.” However, the appellant’s jail card makes no reference to case number 00-1533. Instead, that jail card refers only to the case in which the appellant now seeks jail credit.

The trial court’s reference to the clerk’s belief, as well as the “Time Served Calculator,” falls short of meeting the requirement of attaching portions of the record conclusively refuting the appellant’s facially sufficient claim. Failure to attach portions of the actual record or the sentencing order in case 00-1533 precludes this Court from conducting meaningful appellate review. *Thomas,*707 So.2d at 1189; *Corp v. State,*698 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). We accordingly reverse and remand for the trial court to support its denial with record attachments or grant the relief sought to the extent the appellant’s jail cards show entitlement to relief. If an evidentiary hearing is required, the trial court should treat the appellant’s sworn and timely claim as a Rule 3.850 motion. *See Atwood v. State,*765 So.2d 242, 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Annual Report of Entech Environmental
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December
31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Barbara Tainter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                            /s/ Barbara Tainter
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Barbara Tainter, Chief Financial
                                            Officer and Treasurer
                                            Date: March 30, 2004
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00305-CR 

RODOLFO LUNA, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court 

Swisher County, Texas 

Trial Court No. B-4409-11-10, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding 

 

January 12, 2015

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Rodolfo Luna pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a building (a state jail 

felony) and was placed on deferred adjudication for four years. His community 

supervision was modified twice, but the State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate 

his guilt. Appellant pled true to the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions 

of his community supervision, and the court revoked his probation. He was then 

adjudicated guilty and sentenced to two years confinement in a state jail facility and 

assessed a $3,000 fine. 
2

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an 

Anders1brief in which he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he has 

concluded that the appeal is without merit. Attached to his brief is a copy of a letter 

sent to appellant informing appellant of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible 

error and of his right to file a brief or response pro se. Counsel has further represented 

that he provided a copy of the appellate record to appellant. By letter, this court also 

notified appellant of his right to file a brief or response and set December 31, 2014, as 

the date to do so. No brief or response has been filed.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel 

discussed potential issues for appeal including 1) appellant’s waiver of his rights at the 

original plea hearing, 2) the sufficiency of the indictment and its invocation of the trial 

court’s jurisdiction, 3) the modifications of appellant’s probation, 4) the legality of the 

sentence, and 5) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the initial plea and the 

subsequent adjudication of guilt. After doing so, he explained why there was no 

reversible error. 

We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of 

appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review failed to reveal arguable error. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. 

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice

Do not publish. 

 

1

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Order entered December 4, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00517-CV

MALCOLM JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

VERONICA POWELL-JOHNSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-12398

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 3, 2020 unopposed motion for 

extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief 

be filed no later than December 7, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANACIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d),                and,  |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Dated:  November                19, 2007 | /s/                Howard Herman       |
|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                               | Howard                Herman           |
|                                               | Chief                Financial Officer |
In the MATTER OF Nancy Jean MARTIN-VEATOR.

S19Y0074

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: August 28, 2018

Alison Leigh Burgess, Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel, Jenny K. Mittelman, STATE BAR OF GEORGIA, 104 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 100, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Appellant.

Nancy Jean Martin-Veator, 5491 East Emerald Court, Acworth, Georgia 30102, for Appellee.

Herman Maddox Kilgore, KILGORE & RODRIGUEZ LLC, 36 Ayers Avenue, Marietta, Georgia 30060, Anthony B. Askew, Chair, Review Panel, 999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Bridget B. Bagley, 2750 Wyngate Drive, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30305, for the Other Party.

Per Curiam.

The Court having reviewed the notice of compliance submitted by the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia and the report and recommendation of the State Disciplinary Review Board, and it appearing that Nancy Jean Martin-Veator (State Bar No. 726590) has satisfied the conditions for reinstatement as specified by this Court, see *In the Matter of Nancy Jean Martin-Veator*, 268 Ga. 401, 489 S.E.2d 829 (1997), it is hereby ordered that Nancy Jean Martin-Veator be reinstated to practice law in the State of Georgia.

*Reinstated.*

Hines, C.J., Melton, P.J., Benham, Hunstein, Nahmias, Blackwell, Boggs, and Peterson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of THOMAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: August 9, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    DIANA M. LAING  
|                      |  |  |  | Diana M. Laing         
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration
statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 15 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1395 4 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 00 2- CR-3 -LAC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us W ILLIAM EUGENE BOYE TTE, JR., D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 15 , 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , H U L L and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Chet Ka ufm an, a ppoi nted appellate counsel for W illiam Eugene B oy ette, Jr . , ha s m ove d to w ith dr awf ro m f urthe r re pr es en tatio n of

the appe llant and f

ile d a br ie f pur suant t o Ande rs v. Ca lif or nia , 386 U . S. 738 , 87 S . Ct . 139 6, 18 L . E d. 2d2

4 9 3 (1 9 6 7 ). Ou r i n d ep en d en tre v i ew o f t h e e n t i re re co rdre v ea l s th atco u n s el ’s as se ssm en t of

the r el at ive m er it of

the appe al is co rr ec t. B ec au se ind ep en de nt ex amin at i o no f t h e e n t i re re co rdre v ea l s n o ar g u ab l e i s s u es o f mer i t , c o u n s el ’s m oti on t o w ith dr awis GRA NTE D , and Boy ette’ s convictio ns and sentences are AF FIRMED .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7669

HENRY GILMORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NURSE STRICKLAND; TINA KINLAW, Head Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-829-5-BR)

Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Gilmore appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Gilmore v. Strickland, No. CA-98-829-5-BR (Nov. 16, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE ex rel. Demetrius EASTER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2331.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Easter, Demetrius;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 188,803; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36565-KH.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2034]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will 
meet in Willows, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, (3) Public Comment, (4) Bob 
Douglas to Talk about the Legislator, (5) Web site Update, (6) Noxious 
Weed Proposal, (7) National RAC Meeting, (8) General Discussion, (9) 
Next Agenda.

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 28, 2005, from 1:30 p.m. 
and end at approximately 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest 
Supervisor's Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. 
Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their 
names and proposals to Jim Giachino, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., 
Willows, CA 95988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 
164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968-1815; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa9d9d9b9e9e939493ba9c89d49c9f9ed48f89"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="412626202525282f280127326f2724256f3432">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the 
Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before 
or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and 
individuals who made written requests by February 25, 2005 will have 
the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

    Dated: January 27, 2005.
James F. Giachino,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 05-2034 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
TGI-EX10.6-3-31-2013


Exhibit 10.6










TRIUMPH GROUP, INC.
NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Non-employee Director Compensation Summary
April 25, 2013




	
						
	Annual Retainer for Non-employee Board Member
	Additional Retainer for Committee Chairs
	Additional Retainer for Lead Director
	Meeting Fees
	Telephonic Meeting Fee
	Annual Equity Award

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	$60,000
	Audit Comm. Chair: $5,000; Comp. Comm. Chair: $4,000; Other Comm. Chairs; $3,000.
	$5,000
	N/A
	N/A
	Equity grants with a grant date value of approx. $70,000 (one time new member grant at max of 5,000 shares)
TELEBANC FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                 -----------------------------------------------
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                      -------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Years Ended December 31,
                                                                           ------------------------
                                                                      1997                          1996
                                                                      ----                          ----
                         BASIC
                         -----
<S>                                                               <C>                           <C>       
Net income for basic earnings per common share                    $    3,671                    $    2,552

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
     during the year                                                   2,191                         2,050

Basic  earnings per common share                                  $     1.68                    $     1.25

                        DILUTED
                        -------
Net income for diluted earngings per share                        $    4,217                    $    2,552

Weighted average number of shares used in calculating
     diluted earngings per share                                       2,191                         2,050
Add incremental shares representing:
Dilutive shares issuable upon exercise of stock options,
     warrants and conversion of convertible preferred stock            1,514                           153
                                                                   ---------                    ----------
Weighted average number of shares used in calculating
     fully diluted income per share                                    3,705                         2,203

Diluted earnings per common share                                  $    1.14                    $     1.16

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4685 

To provide for the permanent existence of the United States Parole 

Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the permanent existence of the United States 

Parole Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Parole 

5 Commission Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MAKING THE UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION 

7 PERMANENT. 

8 Section 235(b) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 

9 (18 U.S.C. 3551 note) shall apply with respect to the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4685 IH

1 United States Parole Commission as though that section 

2 contained no limitation on the time period of its effect. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
INTERSAL, INC. v. HAMILTON, et al.

115A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

David H. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, for Intersal, Inc.

Brian Rabinovitz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Charles G. Whitehead, Special Deputy Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, et al.

Jeffrey A. Doyle, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joshua D. Neighbors, Attorney at Law, for Friends of Queen Anne's Revenge (Non-Profit Corporation).

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 19th of September 2018 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

*106Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 24th day of October 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.