alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

May 6, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-14958

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 93-00252-CR-UUB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIKE RILEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 6, 2009)

Before BLACK, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Mike Riley appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following the

grant of his pro se motion for a reduced sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). Riley’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendment 706 to the

Guidelines, which reduced base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine. Riley’s

original total offense level was 40, with a criminal history category of I, resulting

in a Guidelines range of 292 to 365 months’ imprisonment. Riley was originally

sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment. Riley’s amended total offense level was

38, resulting in an amended Guidelines range of 238 to 293 months’ imprisonment.

The district court resentenced Riley to 238 months’ imprisonment.

Riley asserts the district court erred in its application of § 3582(c)(2) when it

refused to sentence him below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range.

Riley asserts that, despite the language of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, which constrains the

court’s authority to vary from the amended range, that section, like all of the

Guidelines, is merely advisory under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005).

We recently addressed whether Booker and Kimbrough v. United States, 128

S. Ct. 558 (2007), prohibit Congress or the Sentencing Commission from limiting

the discretion of a district court in reducing a sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009),

2
petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 10, 2009) (No. 08-8664). Concluding Booker

and Kimbrough do not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, we held a district court

is bound by the limitations on its discretion imposed by § 3582(c)(2) and the

applicable policy statements by the Sentencing Commission. Id.

Based upon our holding in Melvin, Riley’s argument the district court should

have sentenced him below the amended Guidelines range is without merit. The

applicable policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2), and its commentary preclude

a district court from reducing a defendant’s sentence below the amended

Guidelines range if the defendant’s original sentence fell within the then-applicable

Guidelines range. Accordingly, we affirm Riley’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

3
#### HENRY PETETIN, Inc. v. BOARD OF LEVEE COM’RS, ORLEANS LEVEE DIST.*

No. 14247.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 14, 1932.

N. H. Polmer and ,Jajnes Wilkinson, both, of -New. Orleans, for appellant.

William Donnaud, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee: '

*

 Rehearing denied December 19, 1932.

PER CURIAM.

We granted a rehearing in this matter because of the possibility that we were in error with reference to the amount awarded plaintiff -in our decree. A reconsideration leads to"the belief that the amount should have been based in accordance with article 2765 of the Civil Code and that plaintiff should have been awarded an amount sufficient to compensate it “for the expense and labor already incurred, and such damages as the nature of the case may require.”

On this basis we believe that the amount awarded below, to wit, $848.50, was correct. ,

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that our original decree be, and it is, amended by increasing the amount thereof to $848.50, with legal interest from judicial demand until paid and for all costs, and, as thus amended, it be reinstated and made the final decree of this court.

Original decree amended and reinstated.
#### Zulkind Shapiro and Bertha Shapiro (a Copartnership Composing the Firm of Z. & B. Shapiro), Respondents, v. Levi C. Weir, as President of the Adams Express Company, Appellant.

Motion denied, without costs. Present—Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00179

- CV

D AVID K ERR AND G AIL K ERR

, Appellants

V

.

T HE B ANK OF N EW Y ORK M ELLON
T RUST C OMPANY

, N.A. AS T RUSTEE

ON BEHALF OF CWABS A S S ET

B ACKED C ERTIFICATES T RUST 2007

- 12 AND C ARRINGTON M ORTGAGE

S ERVICES

, LLC , Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 141st District Court

of Tarrant County ( 141

- 301419

- 18 )

April 15, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has c onsidered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that A ppellant s David Kerr and Gail Kerr shall bear the

cos ts of this appeal, for which let execution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Wo mac k Justice Dana Womack
EXHIBIT 32.1.


Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer, and Trupti Mehta, Principal Accounting Officer, of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period May 31, 2010, of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant.





Dated:  May 24,  2010


By:  /s/ Juhani Taskinen


Juhani Taskinen


Chief Executive Officer





By:  /s/  Trupti Mehta


Trupti Mehta, Principal Accounting Officer





* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JAQUARIES JONES,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-4338

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Marion County,

Willard Pope, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Brittany N. O'Neil, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. However, we remand for the trial court to enter corrected sentencing 

documents granting Appellant a twenty-year sentencing review pursuant to section 

921.1402(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2016). See Barnes v. State, 175 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 2015). 
2

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

TORPY, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

United States of America, Case Number: 09-11335 

 Plaintiff, 

 Honorable: Patrick J. Duggan 

 Magistrate: Virginia M. Morgan 

 Claim Number: 1999A19155 

Sterling C. Bailey, 

 Defendant, 

 

Pamela S. Ritter Sterling C. Bailey 

Attorney for Plaintiff In Pro Per Defendant 

Holzman Ritter & Corkery PLLC. 8794 Woodlawn 

28366 Franklin Road Detroit, Michigan 48213 

Southfield, MI 48034 

(248) 352-4340 

usa@holzmanlaw.com

P47886 

 

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

WITH PARTIAL PAYMENT PROVISIONS

Upon the stipulation of Pamela S. Ritter, attorney for the United States of 

America, plaintiff herein, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment is entered in favor the United States of 

America, and against Sterling C. Bailey, in the principal amount of $843.23, plus 

prejudgment interest from the date of default to date of judgment together with postjudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S. C 1961, and costs of $350.00, for a total balance 

of $2,351.47 owing as of May 28, 2009.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant, Sterling C. Bailey, may satisfy 

said Judgment by making monthly payments of $65.00 beginning July 15, 2009. 

Payments are to continue until the full amount of the Judgment including damages and 

post judgment interest is paid in full. As long as the Defendant is in substantial 

compliance with this partial payment provision, no process shall issue for the 

enforcement of the Judgment. 

2:09-cv-11335-PJD-VMM Doc # 7 Filed 06/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 23
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Defendant shall fail to make one single 

payment within ten (10) days of its due date, it will be deemed that the Defendant is not 

in substantial compliance with the partial payment provisions of this Judgment, and 

such partial payment provisions as contained herein shall be terminated and held for 

naught, and the Plaintiff may issue any process for the enforcement of this Judgment. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: June 8, 2009 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of 

record on June 8, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

2:09-cv-11335-PJD-VMM Doc # 7 Filed 06/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 24
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the amended quarterly report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Michael Rideman, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael Rideman

Michael RidemanCEODated: May 29, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc.and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00250-CV

Ruben P. Chavez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 195,953-A, HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Ruben P. Chavez, an inmate, has filed a pro se notice of appeal from the

district court’s interlocutory order, dated March 9, 2015, denying what Chavez styled as a “notice

of appeal.” Based on our review of the limited record before us, Chavez’s “notice of appeal” in the

district court appears to seek relief in a proceeding involving the State’s enforcement of Chavez’s

child-support obligations.

Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction over final judgments and interlocutory

orders that the Texas Legislature has deemed appealable. The interlocutory order at issue here is

1

not among those that we are permitted to review. On May 7, 2015, we notified appellant that no 2

final judgment or appealable interlocutory order appeared in the record before us and requested

See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 51.012, .014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 1

191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014. 2
appellant file a response by May 18, 2015, explaining why this Court has jurisdiction in this appeal.

On June 4, 2015, we granted appellant’s motion for extension of time, extending the deadline to

file a response to June 15, 2015, and advised no further extensions would be granted. To date, no

response has been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.3

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 9, 2015

 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

3

2
ROBERT MCKINNON, III,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

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. 1D14-3400

Opinion filed September 4, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Robert McKinnon, III, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). LR / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OS A MAR I A A R GU ME DO RODRI GU EZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73539 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 586- 947 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R os aM ar i aA r gum e do R odr i gue z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f o rr e v i e w o f

th e Bo ar do f

I mmi g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ’ o r d e rd i s mi s s i n g h e rap p e a lf r o m an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) deci si on denyi ng her app l i cat i on for c ance l l at i on of 

# FI LED JAN 08 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSL R/ Res ea r ch 07- 73539 2 re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ubs t ant i a le vi de nc e the a ge nc y ’ s c ont i nuous phy s i c a lpr e s e nc e de t e rm i na t i on, L o p ez -A lv a ra do v . A s h c r o ft , 38 1 F . 3d84 7, 85 0-51 (9th C i r. 20 04 ), and w e deny the p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e r e c o r dd o e s n o t c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t A r g u m e d o R o d r ig u e z m e t h e rb u r d e n to e s tab lis h c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e f r o m 1 9 9 3 to 2 0 0 3 . See Si n gh -Ka u rv . I

NS , 1 8 3 F .3 d1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( ac o n tr aryr e s u lt is n o t co m p el l edw h ere th ere i s “ [t ] h e p o ssi b i l i ty o f d raw i n g tw o i n co n si st en tco n cl u si o n s f r om the e vi de nc e ” ) ( i nt e rna lquot a t i on m arks and c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n l i ghtof our di s pos i t i on, w e ne e d nota ddr e s s A r gum e do R odr i gue z ’ s c ont e nt i ons r e gar di ng the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on. W e ne e d notc ons i de rA r gum e do R odr i gue z ’ s c ont e nt i on r e gar di ng go odm oralchar ac t er , because herfa i l ure t o est abl i sh cont i nu ou s physi ca lpres ence is d is p o s itiv e . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7395.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely filed his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the motion states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Appellant has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S., 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 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.*
EX-4.7(c)





 Exhibit 4.7(c) 

Schedule of Omitted Supplements to Pledge Agreement 

The supplements to the pledge agreement referenced below are substantially identical in all material respects to the Supplement No. 1 dated as of
October 27, 2011 to the Pledge Agreement dated as of November 6, 2006, and amended and restated as of March 2, 2009, as supplemented (the “Pledge Agreement”) and filed as Exhibit 4.7(b) to the Company’s annual report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Annual Report”), except as to the names of the additional pledgors listed on the signature pages thereto and the dates on which such
supplements to the Pledge Agreement were entered into. These supplements to the Pledge Agreement are not being filed as exhibits to the Annual Report in reliance on Instruction 2 to Item 601 of Regulation
S-K. 
 Supplements to the Pledge Agreement entered into among HCA Inc., Bank of America, N.A., as collateral agent,
and the following subsidiaries as additional pledgors, as of the dates indicated: 
  

					
	 Supplement Number
	  	 Date
	  	 Additional Pledgors

			
	No. 2	  	November 4, 2011	  	Spalding Rehabilitation L.L.C.
			
	No. 3	  	January 27, 2012	  	 •  HealthTrust Workforce Solutions, LLC

•  Parallon Business Solutions, LLC

•  Parallon Enterprises, LLC

•  Parallon Health Information Solutions, LLC

•  Parallon Payroll Solutions, LLC

•  Parallon Physician Services, LLC

•  PTS Solutions, LLC

			
	No. 4	  	December 7, 2012	  	HCA American Finance LLC
			
	No. 6	  	December 6, 2013	  	Poinciana Medical Center, Inc.
			
	No. 7	  	December 6, 2013	  	U.S. Collections, Inc.
			
	No. 8	  	December 6, 2013	  	West Florida – MHT, LLC
			
	No. 9	  	December 6, 2013	  	West Florida – PPH, LLC
			
	No. 11	  	December 6, 2013	  	North Texas – MCA, LLC














					
	No. 12	  	January 9, 2015	  	 •  Citrus Memorial Hospital, Inc.

•  Citrus Memorial Property Management, Inc.

•  CHCA Pearland, L.P

•  Columbia Healthcare System of Louisiana, Inc.

•  HCA Pearland GP, Inc.

•  Mountain Division – CVH, LLC

•  Pearland Partner, LLC

•  Primary Health, Inc.

•  Sarah Cannon Research Institute, LLC

•  SCRI Holdings, LLC

•  Southpoint, LLC

•  Vision Consulting Group LLC

•  Vision Holdings, LLC

•  WCP Properties, LLC

			
	No. 13	  	November 9, 2015	  	 •  PatientKeeper, Inc.

•  Putnam Community Medical Center of North Florida, LLC

			
	No. 14	  	January 10, 2017	  	 •  East Florida – DMC, Inc.

•  H2U Wellness Centers, LLC

•  JPM AA Housing, LLC

•  MediCredit, Inc.

•  Oklahoma Holding Company, LLC

•  Outpatient Services Holdings, Inc.

•  Oviedo Medical Center, LLC

•  SSHR Holdco, LLC

•  The Outsource Group, Inc.

			
	No. 15	  	January 3, 2018	  	 •  Cy-Fair Medical Center Hospital, LLC

•  Houston NW Manager, LLC

•  Houston – PPH, LLC

•  North Houston – TRMC, LLC

•  Savannah Health Services, LLC

•  Sebring Health Services, LLC

•  Southeast Georgia Health Services, LLC

•  Weatherford Health Services, LLC



  
 2
```

** Exhibit 21.1
   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE QUIZNO’S CORPORATION

1.    The Quizno’s Operating Company, a Colorado corporation
2.    S&S Company, a Colorado corporation
3.    The Quizno’s Realty Company, a Colorado corporation
4.    The Quizno’s Acquisition Company, a Colorado corporation
5.    The Quizno’s Licensing Company, a Colorado corporation
6.    QUIZ-DIA, Inc., a Colorado corporation
7.    Ciao B Management, Inc. , a Colorado corporation
8.    American Food Distributors, Inc. , a Colorado corporation
9.    The Quizno’s Franchise Company, a Colorado corporation

Each subsidiary does business only under its corporate name.
```
COREY CAPEHART

,
Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Respondent. ___________________________/ 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

- 884

Opinion filed November 2, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counse l

-- Or iginal Jurisdiction

. Corey Capehart, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied

except as it relates to the trial court’s oral pronouncement prohibiting early

termination of probation, which is hereby stricken

. See Arriaga v. State , 666 So. 2d

949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Since this pronouncement was not reduced to writing,

there is no need to remand for correc tion of the judgment and sentence or the order

of probation

.2 LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 23













Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-74660, 33-74662, 33-74664, 33-78406, 33-88780, 333-04268, 333-22973, 333-22975, 333-24545, 333-56359, 333-56361, 333-73409, 333-73411, 333-33114, 333-33116, 333-56790, 333-56792, 333-33110, 333-82790 and 333-82808) of MapInfo Corporation and Subsidiaries of our report dated October 25, 2002, except for notes 8 and 9 for which the date is December 18, 2002, relating to the financial statements and financial schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP