alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 2, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-1997

Lower Tribunal Nos. 13-29795, 13-29046

________________



### Ronald Reid

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica Diaz

, Judge.

Ronald Reid

, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Nikole Hiciano

, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

LAGOA, J.Defendant, Ronald Reid (“Reid”), appeals from the trial court’s order

denying his motion for reduction or modification of sentence pursuant to Florida

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Because the appeal is taken from a nonappealable order, we dismiss.

On February 2, 2016, Reid entered into a negotiated global plea with the

State and was sentenced to 96.22 months as a habitual felony offender. On March

14, 2016, Reid filed a Rule 3.800(c) motion for reduction or modification of

sentence. On June 9, 2016, the trial court denied the motion and found:

[T]his Court does not have the legal authority to modify

or reduce a sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement

between the State of Florida and the Defendant. State v.

Gutierrez

, 10 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The

Defendant’s sentence, imposed by this Court on February

2, 2016, was pursuant to an agreement entered by the

Defendant with the State of Florida. Defendant cannot

circumvent the plea bargain by filing a motion to

mitigate.

This timely appeal followed.

It is well-established that “[a]n order denying, on the merits, a motion for

reduction of sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c)

. . . is not

an appealable order.” Clewis v. State

, 715 So. 2d 1129, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998);

see also

, McKinzy v. State

, 949 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Royal v. State

,

736 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Lusskin v. State

, 717 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th

2DCA 1998); Bourjolly v. State

, 623 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). 1

Accordingly, because the order at issue is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

1 In contrast, an order granting a Rule 3.800(c) motion that reduces a sentence

imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea constitutes an appealable order. As this

Court concluded in State v. Jordan

, 783 So. 2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the

State, pursuant to section 924.07, Florida Statutes, is authorized “to appeal two

types of sentences: 1) a sentence that is illegal, and 2) a sentence imposed ‘below

the lowest permissible sentence established by the Criminal Punishment Code

under chapter 921.’” A reduced sentence granted by a trial court which constitutes

a downward departure sentence is appealable by the State under section

924.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes. See State v. Swett

, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA

2000); cf. Jordan

, 783 So. 2d at 1182.

3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

UNIONTOWN NEWSPAPERS, INC.,

D/B/A THE HERALD STANDARD; AND

CHRISTINE HAINES,

Respondents

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 561 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

UNIONTOWN NEWSPAPERS, INC.,

D/B/A THE HERALD STANDARD; AND

CHRISTINE HAINES,

Respondents

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 779 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the[ 779 MAL 2018 ]

- 2

remaining issue. The first issue, as stated by petitioner, and the second issue as

rephrased for cla rity, are:

(1) Where RTKL Section 65 P.S. § 67.1304 and § 67.1305 premise the award of sanctions and attorney fees on a finding of bad faith and willful and wanton behavior, can a court impose those penalties based on a finding that the RTK responder failed t o personally and independently assess the universe of documents sought, instead relying on the statement of the Bureau functionaries that all otherwise responsive records are part of a noncriminal investigation, when any duty to independently and personall y assess is not clearly delineated in either the statute or the case law?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court properly construe the statutory language of 65 P.S. § 67.1304 as authorizing an award of attorney fees when a court reverses a final determination of an ag ency rather than when a court reverses the final determination of the appeals officer?
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6684

Invacare Corp:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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 **Sydys Coropration** (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended **December 31, 2005** as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Christopher Schilling, Chief Executive Officer 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:

- 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 the Company.
 

Dated this 17th day of February, 2006.

 
/s/ Christopher Schilling 
Christopher Schilling 
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(B)


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT


The Board of Directors
Greenwood Trust Company and
Wilmington Trust Company:

We have examined management's assertion, dated January 21, 1999, that, as of
November 30, 1998, Greenwood Trust Company ("GTC") maintained effective internal
control over financial reporting, insofar as such internal control relates to
the servicing procedures provided by GTC to prevent or detect misstatements due
to error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the assets of
the Discover Card Trust 1993B (the "Trust") under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement Sections 3.02, 4.03, 4.06, 4.07, 4.09, and 8.07, dated February 1,
1993 (the "Agreement").

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting,
testing, and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal
control, and such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatements due to
error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to future periods are
subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that, as of November 30, 1998, GTC
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting, insofar as such
internal control relates to the servicing procedures provided by GTC, to prevent
or detect misstatements due to error or fraud in amounts that would be material
in relation to the assets of the Trust under the Agreement, taken as a whole, is
fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria established in
Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.



<PAGE>   2


This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of
Directors and management of GTC, Wilmington Trust Company as Trustee, and the
Investor Certificateholders, and is not intended to be and should not be used by
anyone other than these specified parties.


                                                   /s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP
                                                   -----------------------------



January 22, 1999
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5390 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study 

on the feasibility of manufacturing in the United States 

products for critical infrastructure sectors, and for other 

purposes. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 5390 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Critical Infrastructure 

3 Manufacturing Feasibility Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STUDY ON CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFAC5 TURING IN THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) STUDY.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

7 the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce 

8 shall conduct a study to— 

9 (1) identify, within each critical infrastructure 

10 sector, any product that is in high demand and is 

11 being imported due to a manufacturing, material, or 

12 supply chain constraint in the United States; 

13 (2) analyze the costs and benefits of manufac14 turing in the United States any product identified 

15 under paragraph (1), including any effects on— 

16 (A) jobs, employment rates, and labor con17 ditions in the United States; and 

18 (B) the cost of the product; 

19 (3) identify any product identified under para20 graph (1) that feasibly may be manufactured in the 

21 United States; and 

22 (4) analyze the feasibility of, and any impedi23 ments to, manufacturing any product identified 

24 under paragraph (3) in— 

25 (A) a rural area; 

26 (B) an industrial park; or 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 5390 RFS

1 (C) an industrial park in a rural area. 

2 (b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 

3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

4 Secretary shall— 

5 (1) submit to Congress a report containing the 

6 results of the study required by subsection (a), with 

7 recommendations relating to manufacturing in the 

8 United States products identified under subsection 

9 (a)(3); and 

10 (2) make the report available to the public on 

11 the website of the Department of Commerce. 

12 (c) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY.—This section may 

13 not be construed to provide the Secretary of Commerce 

14 with authority to compel a person to provide information 

15 described in this section. 

16 (d) DEFINITION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

17 SECTOR.—In this section, the term ‘‘critical infrastructure 

18 sector’’ means each of the 16 designated critical infra19 structure sectors identified in Presidential Policy Directive 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
4 

HR 5390 RFS

1 21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security 

2 and Resilience). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 American Tax Credit Trust, a Delaware
statutory business trust Series I (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year
ended March 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Hussey, Chief Financial Officer
of  Richman American Credit Corp., manager of the Registrant, 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) 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
      Registrant.
  /s/James HusseyJames
      HusseyChief
      Financial Officer of Richman AmericanCredit
      Corp., Manager of the RegistrantJune
      24, 2010
* Judge Wilkins did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2620

ELDON WAYNE RILEY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WEYERHAEUSER PAPER COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-94-11-3-MU)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS,* and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eldon Wayne Riley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Max Daniel McGinn,

BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Riley v. Weyerhaeuser Paper, No. CA-94-11-3-MU (W.D.N.C.

Oct. 17, 1996). 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
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER NAPIER,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00050

- CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20170D04503)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the judgment of

conviction on Counts IV and V should be reformed to delete the sentence “AS PER JUDGES

ORDER DEFENDANT IS NOT TO RECEIVE TIME CREDIT” and to instead reflect jail time

credit of forty

- two (42) days. We therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court as reformed, in

accordance with the opinion of this Court. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020.

MICHAEL MASSENGALE, Former Justice

Before Palafox, J., Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge), and Massengale, J. (Former Justice)

Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)(Sitting by Assignment)

Massengale, J., (Former Justice)(Sitti ng by Assignment)
Exhibit B
Contains BCI, see BC Version
ex10_291.htm






EXHIBIT 10.29.1







PROMISSORY NOTE


















	$	20,841,730.11	 	
January 7, 2010



























Mission West Properties, L.P., Mission West Properties, L.P. I, Mission West Properties, L.P. II, and Mission West Properties, L.P. III (collectively referred to herein as “Mission”)








	
promises to pay to

	
The Berg Group












the principal sum of Twenty Million Eight Hundred Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Dollars and 11 Cents ($20,841,730.11),







plus interest at the rate of 30 day LIBOR plus 1.75 percent per annum (compounded on the basis of a 366-day year) beginning on the 7th day of January, 2010.







Should interest not so be paid, it shall thereafter bear like interest as the principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed an amount equal to simple interest on the unpaid principal at the maximum rate permitted by law. Should default be made in the payment of any installment of interest when due, the whole sum of principal and interest shall become immediately due and payable at the option of the holder of this note.  Should suit be commenced or an attorney employed to enforce the payment of this note, we agree to pay such additional sum as the court may adjudge as reasonable attorney’s fees in said suit. Principal and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States.







Principal and interest are payable in lawful money of the United States no later than March 31, 2010.  Notwithstanding the above, Mission shall use its best efforts to repay the loan as soon as possible using all available sources of cash, including but not limited to cash generated from operations and cash available from any other financing sources.













	
Signed By:

	
/s/ Raymond V. Marino

	  	
1/7/10


	  	
Raymond V. Marino, Pres. & COO

	  	
Date


	  	
Mission West Properties, Inc.

	  	  
	  	
Its General Partner

	  	  











	
Acknowledged:

	
/s/ Carl E. Berg

	  	
1/7/10


	  	
Carl E. Berg

	  	
Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

AMADO ANTONIO CARTAGENA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00153-FDW-DCK-1) 

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished by per curiam opinion. 

Amado Antonio Cartagena, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Rehearing granted, November 18, 2009
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Amado Antonio Cartagena seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In criminal cases, 

the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days 

after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With 

or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good 

cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty 

days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); 

United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). 

The district court entered judgment on September 14, 

2008. The notice of appeal was filed on January 4, 2009.*

Because Cartagena failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

 *

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988).
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

**Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications**

I, Benjamin Weston,certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of ML Cornerstone FuturesAccess LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)   All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 14, 2006 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|

 
| By                                     | /s/ BENJAMIN  WESTON |   |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Benjamin Weston                        |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

1

----