alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lynda Diane PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D02-3824.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 27, 2003.

*939James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Lynda Perry appeals a $3000 restitution award following her conviction for grand theft. We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an award reflecting a total restitution amount of $2751.60.

Perry was, convicted of grand theft for seeking to deprive San Antonio Citizens Federal Credit Union of its property by depositing a fraudulent check for $3000 and then, before the fraudulent check was dishonored, withdrawing $2751.60 more than she had in her account. The credit union paid a $100 deductible to its insurance company, and the insurance company paid the remaining $2651.60 for the loss. The trial court originally ordered Perry to pay $3000 in restitution. Perry filed a motion to correct sentencing error, and in an amended restitution order, the trial court again awarded restitution of $3000 but clarified that Perry was to pay $2751.60 to the insurance company and $248.40 to the credit union.

Section 775.089(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that the court shall order restitution to the victim for “[djamage or loss caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense.” In *Bowman v. State,*698 So.2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), this court stated, “A defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution in excess of the damages caused by his criminal conduct.” It is the State’s burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the amount of loss that the victim sustained as a result of the defendant’s offense. § 775.089(7); *Schuette v. State,*822 So.2d 1275, 1278-79 (Fla.2002).

Here, the testimony-at trial supported a maximum loss of $2751.60 as a result of Perry’s offense, with $100 sustained by the credit union and $2651.60 sustained by the credit union’s insurance company. The State argues that the trial court may have awarded $3000 to cover the credit union’s expenses in having its employees testify. At trial, however, there was no testimony regarding such expenses.

It appears from the trial transcript that the trial court awarded $3000 because that was the amount of the fraudulent check that Perry had deposited. After hearing Perry’s motion to correct sentencing error, the court entered an amended order which only clarified how the $3000 was to be divided between the credit union and the insurance company. It is clear from the trial testimony, however, that Perry withdrew $2751.60 more than she had in her account.

Thus, we reverse the amended restitution order and remand for the trial court to enter a restitution order awarding $2651.60 to the insurance company and $100 to the credit union.

Reversed and remanded.

WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
#### Robert Lee FRISBIE, A.L.F. and K.R.F., Respondents, v. Collette Sue Bowe PITTMAN, Appellant.

No. WD 61910.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 29, 2003.

Donald J. Lock, Gladstone, MO, for appellant.

Janet Wake Larison, Grant City, MO, for respondent Frisbie.

Gary Kevin Patton, Liberty, MO, for respondents A.L.F. and K.R.F.

Before JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Chief Judge, HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge and ROBERT G. ULRICH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Collette Sue Pittman appeals from the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Respondent Robert Lee Frisbie. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, that no error of law appears, and that an opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent Public Accountants

The Board of Directors
Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-82059, 333-40736, and 333-33088) on Form S-8 and the registration statement
(No. 333-66616) on Form S-3 of Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc. of our report
dated January 31, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Primus
Knowledge Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and
comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule,
which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of
Primus Knowledge Solutions, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Seattle, Washington
March 19, 2002
**Exhibit 32.1**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Collegiate Funding Services,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, J. Barry Morrow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Date: November 12, 2004
By: /s/ J. Barry MorrowJ.Barry MorrowChief Executive Officer and President
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**PFSWEB, INC.**

**500 North Central Expressway**

**Plano, TX 75074**

 

November 10, 2005 

 

eCOST.com, Inc. 

2555 West 190th Street 

Suite 106 

Torrance, California 90504. 

Att: Adam Shaffer 

 

Dear Adam: 

 

We are pleased to submit for yourconsideration this non-binding letter setting forth the principal terms of a business transaction (the “Transaction”) between PFSweb, Inc. (“PFS”) and eCost.com, Inc. (“eCost”). This letter is neither binding upon anyparty nor evidence of any oral agreement (or agreement to agree) of any kind. Any Transaction will be subject to due diligence examinations by each of the parties, the negotiation of a written definitive agreement, and to the approval of theparties’ respective boards of directors and, if applicable, shareholders. In addition, the Transaction will be subject to the receipt of all necessary third party and governmental consents, approvals and waivers. 

 

The Transaction will be structured as the merger (the “Merger”) ofeCost with and into a newly-formed subsidiary of PFS (“Merger Sub”), with eCost as the surviving entity and wholly-owned by PFS. As a consequence of the Merger, (i) each issued and outstanding share of capital stock of eCost will beconverted into one share of PFS common stock, (ii) each issued and outstanding share of capital stock of Merger Sub will be converted into one share of eCost common stock and (iii) each issued and outstanding option or warrant to purchaseor acquire eCost capital stock (including any such option or warrant whose vesting is accelerated in connection with the Merger), if not exercised prior to the effective date of the Merger, will be cancelled. Each share of PFS common stock to beissued in the Merger will be registered on Form S-4 and freely tradeable. 

 

The parties acknowledge that further terms of the Merger, including break-up fees, representations, warranties, indemnities and conditions precedent, will be subject to the mutual agreement of the parties and setforth in a definitive agreement (the “Merger Agreement”), and neither party is obligated to proceed with the Transaction until such time as the Merger Agreement and/or any related documentation is prepared, agreed upon and executed by theparties. Either party may discontinue negotiations of the Transaction at any time prior to the execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement. 

Each party will pay its own expenses associated with the Transaction, including attorney’s fees andfees of financial advisors. 

 

Although this letter isnon-binding, please indicate that the foregoing correctly sets forth our mutual general understanding of the basic terms of the Transaction by signing below and returning an executed copy to the undersigned. 

 

Very truly yours,
 
PFSWEB, INC.

 
By: /s/    MARK C. LAYTON          
**Mark C. Layton,**

**Chief Executive Officer**

 

eCOST.COM, INC.

 
By: /s/    ADAM SHAFFER          
**Adam Shaffer,**

**Chief Executive Officer**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   654
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,050
<OTHER-SE>                                      (8,116)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,484
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,333
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,333)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1462

DANIEL LEWIS COMPEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITIMORTGAGE, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-04-1377-1)

Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: September 29, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Lewis Compel, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Kelley,

Brent Eugene Baxter, REED SMITH, LLP, Falls Church, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Lewis Compel appeals a district court order

dismissing his complaint against CitiMortgage, Incorporated. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm

for the reasons of the district court. See Compel v. CitiMortgage,

Inc., No. CA-04-1377-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 28, 2005). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. John A. RAUCH, Appellant, v. John DEUTSCH, District Attorney, Carbon County, Pennsylvania, and David Ebbert, Police Officer, Mahoning Township, Carbon County, Pennsylvania.

No. 71-1226.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) Feb. 7, 1972.

Decided Feb. 24, 1972.

As Amended May 4, 1972.

John A. Rauch, pro se.

James A. Wimmer, Jim Thorpe, Pa., for appellee, John Deutsch.

Thomas S. MeCready, Lansford, Pa., for appellee, David Ebbert.

Before KALODNER, HASTIE and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Rauch brought this suit for damages against John Deutsch, District Attorney of Carbon County, Pennsylvania, and David Ebbert, a police officer, for breach of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. (1970). His complaint alleged that he was arrested and prosecuted by the appellees as part of a scheme to extort money from him. The suit was dismissed in the district court. In a subsequent order made after appellant had submitted a motion for rehear*1302ing which the district judge treated as a motion for leave to appeal in forma pau-peris pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the district court held that the District Attorney was immune from suit under the Civil Rights Act while carrying out his official duties. It also held that appellant had failed to bring his action within the requisite statute of limitations.

After a thorough review of the record, we find that appellant has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Further, we agree with the order of the district court that Deutseh, as District Attorney, was immune from suits under the Civil Rights Act while performing his official duties. Gaito v. Ellenbogen, 425 F.2d 845 (3d Cir.1970). Because of our disposition of this case, we do not reach the question of whether the appellant met the statute of limitations applicable to this cause of action.

The order of the district court dismissing appellant’s cause of action will be affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy K
Fund, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant'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 registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying 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 registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: August 15, 2005

By:/s/ Robert E. Swanson
------------------------
Robert E. Swanson
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
Exhibit 13.1  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 on Form 20-F of DaimlerChrysler AG (the Company) for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), Prof. Jürgen E. Schrempp, as Chairman of the Board
of Management of the Company, and Dr. Manfred Gentz, as Member of the Board of
Management, Finance & Controlling, of the Company, each hereby certifies,
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 his knowledge:  (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.  /s/  JÜRGEN E. SCHREMPPName:
  Prof. Jürgen
  E. SchremppTitle:
  Chairman of
  the Board of ManagementDate:
  February 19,
  2004/s/  MANFRED GENTZName:
  Dr. Manfred
  GentzTitle:
  Member of
  the Board of ManagementFinance
  & ControllingDate:
  February 19,
  2004  This certification is furnished
as an exhibit to the Report and accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19976]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Small Business Development Center Program Advisory 
Board; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business 
Development Centers, National Advisory Board will be hosting a public 
meeting via conference call to discuss such matters that may be 
presented by members, and the staff of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration, or interested others. The conference call will be held 
on Tuesday, January 18, 2006 at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must 
contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205-7045 or fax 
(202) 481-0681.

Matthew K. Becker,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19976 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Ganger, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Enes Angeli, Doing Business as Chez Marie and Others, Respondents.*

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 28, 1936.

*465*Hirsch & Islon,*for the appellant.

*Ralph J. Leibenderfer,*for the respondents.

*

Revg. 157 Misc. 143.

Per Curiam.

The trial judge erred in admitting oral evidence of conversations claimed to have been had prior to the execution and delivery of the written contract. Even with that evidence in the case the finding that the so-called item one of the contract was for the delivery of round top tables, not square tables, is clearly contrary to the terms of the contract calling for the furnishing of two *“*36 x 36 *”*tables. Further, the decision of this controversy is governed by the *“*special agreement ” of the parties (Pers. Prop. Law, § 125, subd. 4), not by subdivisions 1 and 3 of that section held to be controlling in *Portfolio*v. *Rubin*(233 N. Y. 439).

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the possession of the chattels retained by defendants, with costs.

All concur. Present — Ltdon, Hammer and Frankenthaler, JJ.
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 Gramercy Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jon W. Clark, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Jon W. ClarkName:
Jon W. ClarkTitle:
Chief Financial OfficerDate:  October 11, 2011
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5005 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2010 

Mr. GRIFFITH (for himself, Mr. INGLIS, Mr. JONES, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, 

Mr. SOUDER, Mr. OLSON, Ms. JENKINS, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BISHOP

of Utah, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. WAMP, Mr. BROUN of 

Georgia, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BONNER, Mr. GARY G. 

MILLER of California, Mr. ADERHOLT, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education 

and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, House Administration, Appropriations, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PPACA. 

4 Effective as of enactment of the Patient Protection 

5 and Affordable Care Act, such Act is repealed, and the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5005 IH

1 provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are 

2 restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS