alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FREDDIE L. WADE , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0389

________ _____________________/ Opinion filed October 7 , 2016. An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. Freddie L. Wade , pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney Genera l, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant Freddie L. Wade was a juvenile when he committed second

degree murder

. Following a jury trial the court sentenced him to life, with life as a2 minimum

- mandatory sentence due to discharge of the firearm causing death.
Thereafter A ppellant filed a timely rule 3.850 motion challenging this sentence as unconstitutional due to the trial court failing to consider his j uvenile status when imposi ng the sentence. He also raises three claims of ineffect ive assistance of trial
counsel. We reverse the appeal as to the claim asserting unconstitutionality of the life

sentence and remand for t he trial court to resentence Appellant pursuant to the
individualized factors under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes , which must be considered when sentencing a juvenile, as explained in Landrum v. State , 192 So.
3d 459 (Fla. 2016). See also Carter v. State , 2016 WL 3883509 (Fla. 1st DCA July 18, 2016). As the appellant filed an initial brief but failed to address any of the remaining claims, he has waived the right to have them considered in this appeal.
See Watson v. State , 975 So. 2d 572 , 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“ Traditionally, when a defendant submits a brief in an appeal from a summary denial of a postconviction motion, this Court may review only those arguments raised and fully addressed in the brief.”)

. AFFIRMED in part ; REVERSED and REMANDED in part. LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 255 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 14:59:14 Page 1 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 255 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 14:59:14 Page 2 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 255 Filed: 02/01/19 Entered: 02/01/19 14:59:14 Page 3 of 3
*Exhibit 31(b)*
**Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**
I, Jeffrey L. Rutherford, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of LESCO, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure 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 otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize, and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2004                                            /s/ Jeffrey L. Rutherford   Jeffrey L. Rutherford   Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
<PAGE>
NS GROUP, INC. JUNE 30, 2002 FORM 10-Q                              EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 NS Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
J. Depenbrock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (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. of the Company.



                                        /s/ Thomas J. Depenbrock
                                        ------------------------
                                        Thomas J. Depenbrock
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        NS Group, Inc.
                                        August 7, 2002
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
               HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-HI5 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAIME ARELLANO

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 1 9 8

- C R

Appeal from

Criminal Distri c t Court No. 1

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20110D03106 )

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with

the trial court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2 (d). The trial court clerk shall

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no

later than January 26 , 201 9

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 2 th d ay of December , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2104 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:31:24 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2104 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:31:24 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2104 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:31:24 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2104 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:31:24 Page 4 of

4
Exhibit 10.92


 





	 	Protea Biosciences Group, Inc.
	1311 Pineview Drive
	 Morgantown, WV 26505 
	P: 304.292.2226 
	F: 304.606.3049
	 www.proteabio.com


 


June 20, 2016


 


Mr. Randall L. Williams


Senior Vice President


United Bank


990 Elmer Prince Drive


P.O. Box 656


Morgantown, West Virginia 26507-0656


 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to the commercial loan
agreement, dated August 27, 2009, No. 88234-1 (the “Loan Agreement”) between United Bank, formerly, Centra Bank, Inc.(the
“Lender”) and Protea Biosciences, Inc. (the “Borrower”). The Borrower is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Protea
Biosciences Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Protea”). The Borrower and Protea are hereinafter sometimes collectively
referred to as the “Credit Parties.”


 


Reference is also made to the $3,000,000
commercial promissory note of the Borrower, dated August 27 2009 and payable to the Lender on demand (the “Note”).


 


This letter will confirm our mutual agreement
and understanding to amend the Loan Agreement and the Note to provide that the maturity date of the loan and of the Note is hereby
extended to 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on July 12, 2018.


 


All of the other terms and conditions of
the Loan Agreement and the Note, including the guarantees provided in connection therewith shall remain in full force and effect
and are incorporated herein by this reference. In addition, each of the Credit Parties hereby reaffirms all existing indebtedness
and obligations to the Lender and agrees that said indebtedness is absolute and unconditional irrespective of any claims or defenses
that might be asserted, and shall remain in full force and effect until such time as the Borrower or Credit parties shall pay in
full all such indebtedness and obligations.


 


This letter agreement may be referred to
by Protea in its Form S-l registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with a public
offering of securities of Protea. The parties further acknowledge that this letter agreement may be superseded by a formal amendment
to the Loan Agreement and other documents associated therewith.


 


Please confirm below, your agreement with the above.


 


	Very truly yours,	AGREED:


 


	PROTEA  BIOSCIENCES GROUP, INC.	UNITED BANK


 


	/s/ Stephen Turner	 	/s/ Randall L. Williams
	By:	Stephen Turner,	 	By:	Randall L. Williams
	 	President and CEO	 	 	Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund I. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of
the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ LEO F. WELLS, III                              
|Leo F. Wells, IIIChief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2003
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 22, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-00346-CR No. 05-14-00347-CR

MICHAEL KENNEDY LOUIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-10013-Q, F13-52531-Q



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel has approved

the motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeals be DISMISSED

and this decision be certified below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 140346F.U05

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL KENNEDY LOUIS, Appellant

No. 05-14-00346-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13-10013-Q. Opinion delivered per curiam before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown.

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered December 22, 2014.

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL KENNEDY LOUIS, Appellant

No. 05-14-00347-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13-52531-Q. Opinion delivered per curiam before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown.

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered December 22, 2014.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-2106

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Edward Frank Brewer

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: February 16, 2021

Filed: February 19, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before GRASZ, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

After considering a number of factors, the district court1 decided not to reduce 

Edward Brewer’s 240-month prison sentence under the First Step Act. See Pub. L. 

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa.
-2- 

No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Though he challenges the decision on a host of 

grounds, we affirm.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United 

States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771–72 (8th Cir. 2019) (discussing the standard 

of review and outlining the two-step analysis for motions under the First Step Act). 

The First Step Act did not require the court to reduce Brewer’s sentence, even if he 

was eligible. § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (“Nothing in this section shall be construed 

to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”). And the court 

did more than enough by considering the statutory sentencing factors before making 

a decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725, 727 (8th 

Cir. 2020) (explaining that, in reviewing a First Step Act motion, “a district court 

may, but need not, consider the section 3553 factors”). 

Brewer’s remaining arguments fare no better. He was not entitled to a plenary 

resentencing hearing, nor can he now challenge his original sentence. See Moore, 

963 F.3d at 728 (explaining how motions under the First Step Act are different from 

“original, plenary sentencing” proceedings); United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 

841, 843–44 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding that district courts need not hold hearings on 

these motions); see also United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080, 1089 (11th Cir. 

2020) (refusing to entertain an attack on the original sentence in one of these 

motions). Moreover, given “the court’s otherwise careful analysis,” any “minor 

factual misstatement” about Brewer’s criminal history does not “warrant[] remand.” 

United States v. Moore, 975 F.3d 84, 93 (2d Cir. 2020). 

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel 

permission to withdraw, and deny Brewer’s pending pro se motions.

______________________________
#### The People of the State of Few York, Respondent, v. Louis Stern, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. No opinion.
1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHELLE HIMES; et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

JOSE RIERA; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

SOMATICS, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

MECTA CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

No. 21-55517 

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-06686-RGK-JC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2022

Submission Vacated April 1, 2022

Resubmitted August 9, 2024

Pasadena, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

AUG 13 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Michelle Himes, Marcia Benjamin, and Daniel Benjamin sued Somatics, LLC 

for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium. They alleged injury arising 

from use of Somatics’ electroconvulsive therapy product, the Thymatron ECT 

Machine. In April 2022, we issued a memorandum disposition affirming “the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment for Somatics with respect to the Benjamins’ 

claims.” 2022 WL 989469, at *2 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). The resolution of Himes’ 

claims, however, turned on “the proper causation standard” applicable under 

California law, on which there was “no controlling state precedent.” Id. at *3. 

We thus certified the following question to the Supreme Court of California: 

Under California law, in a claim against a manufacturer of 

a medical product for a failure to warn of a risk, is the 

plaintiff required to show that a stronger risk warning 

would have altered the physician’s decision to prescribe 

the product? Or may the plaintiff establish causation by 

showing that the physician would have communicated the 

stronger risk warnings to the plaintiff, either in their 

patient consent disclosures or otherwise, and a prudent 

person in the patient’s position would have declined the

treatment after receiving the stronger risk warning?

Himes v. Somatics, LLC, 29 F.4th 1125, 1127 (9th Cir. 2022). The Supreme Court 

of California accepted certification.

In June 2024, the Supreme Court of California answered our question. It 

concluded that “a plaintiff may establish causation by showing that the physician 
3

would have communicated the stronger warning to the patient” and “that an 

objectively prudent person in the patient’s position would have declined treatment 

despite the physician’s assessment that the benefits of the treatment for the patient 

would still outweigh any risks disclosed by a stronger warning.” Himes v. Somatics, 

LLC, 549 P.3d 916, 921 (Cal. 2024). 

In light of this response, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment for 

Somatics as to Himes’ claims, and remand for the district court to reassess whether 

summary judgment is warranted as to those claims under the causation analysis 

formulated by the Supreme Court of California. 

VACATED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                     2351
<SECURITIES>                                  0 
<RECEIVABLES>                              3822
<ALLOWANCES>                                104
<INVENTORY>                                 828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           7709
<PP&E>                                     1575
<DEPRECIATION>                              511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            19401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      9287
<BONDS>                                    2155
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                  96
<OTHER-SE>                                 7863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              19401
<SALES>                                    3118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3243
<CGS>                                       655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              3980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              (724)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.06)
        


</TABLE>