alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2819

LT Case No. 2019-CF-000325

_____________________________

TONDA IHETU ROYAL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County.

Terence R. Perkins, Judge.

Tonda Ihetu Royal, Milton, pro se. 

No Appearance for Appellee.

March 1, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Appellant moved for postconviction relief under Florida Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He filed his motion on July 12, 2023. 

The trial court denied the motion as untimely because in the 

court’s view, Appellant filed it “more than two years after his 

judgment and sentence became final.” Appellant moved for 

rehearing, arguing that his motion was timely based on the date of 

the mandate in his direct appeal. The trial court denied rehearing, 

reasoning that the Fifth District’s decision “was finalized on April 
2

20, 2021, which would be the starting point for Defendant’s 2-year 

time limitation pursuant to rule 3.850(b).”

This court affirmed Appellant’s judgment and sentence on 

April 20, 2021. Royal v. State, 320 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

(Table). However, this court did not issue the mandate until July 

13, 2021. The date of the mandate starts the two-year filing 

window under rule 3.850. See Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856, 857 

(Fla. 1997) (“[T]he two-year period for filing a motion for 

postconviction relief began to run upon the issuance of [the district 

court’s] mandate.”); Cave v. State, 289 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2020) (“For purposes of [rule 3.850], the two-year period 

begins to run when appellate proceedings have concluded and the 

court issues a mandate . . . .”). Thus, Appellant’s motion, filed on 

July 12, 2023, was timely.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to

consider the merits of Appellant’s motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WALLIS, JAY, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Exhibit (10)(a)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  

  

  

  

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 8 to the 1933 Act
    Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-212680) and Amendment No. 702 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the
    consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
    individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

  

  

  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

  

  

  

  

  

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  September 6, 2019
#### PITTMAN v. HUNTER et al.

No. 17602.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 8, 1942.

For prior opinion, see 6 So.2d 786.

Baldwin, Haspel & Molony and Robert R. Rainold, all of New Orleans, for plaintiff.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, for Geo. Hunter and another.

M. C. Scharff, of New Orleans, for Milton J. Stem.

Cyril F. Dumaine, of New Orleans, for Board of Administrators of Charity Hospital.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

We granted a rehearing in this matter to reconsider the question of the quantum of damages. After hearing argument and reviewing the evidence concerning the injuries of plaintiff, we have reached the conclusion that the stun of $5,000 would be more consistent with former awards in similar cases.

For the reasons assigned our former decree is amended by reducing the amount awarded plaintiff from the sum of $7,500 to $5,000. In all other respects it is affirmed.

Original decree amended and reinstated.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54436-54437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21915]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS): Subcommittee 
Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a 
meeting on October 1, 2008, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) 
(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate 
solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and 
information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 12 p.m. until 1 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related 
matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam 
Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only 
during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. 
Detailed procedures for the conduct of

[[Page 54437]]

and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal 
Register on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

    Dated: September 11, 2006.
Antonio Dias,
 Branch Chief, ACRS.
[FR Doc. E8-21915 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1159 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1159

     For the relief of Stefan Zajak and Teresa Bartoszewska-Zajak.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2001

Mr. LaTourette introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     For the relief of Stefan Zajak and Teresa Bartoszewska-Zajak.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR STEFAN ZAJAK AND TERESA 
              BARTOSZEWSKA-ZAJAK.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Stefan Zajak and Teresa 
Bartoszewska-Zajak shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant 
visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Stefan Zajak or Teresa Bartoszewska-
Zajak enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Stefan Zajak and Teresa 
Bartoszewska-Zajak, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal 
year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60895

Summary Calendar

KIM ANTHONY POLONCZYK

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CORPORATE STATE OF ARKANSAS; MIKE BEEBE, Governor

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:08-CV-284

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kim Anthony Polonczyk filed a civil action against the State of Arkansas

and Governor Beebe alleging various instances of discrimination and abuse. The

district court dismissed the suit as frivolous because, under the Eleventh

Amendment, the defendants are immune from such suits where the only relief

sought is monetary damages. The district court denied Polonczyk’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal after finding that the appeal

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60895

2

would be frivolous. Polonczyk now seeks this court’s leave to proceed IFP on

appeal.

Although Polonczyk asserts generally that the defendants waived their

sovereign immunity by accepting federal funds, he fails to assert any facts that

demonstrate a specific abrogation of that immunity. Accordingly, he fails to

show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Atascadero State

Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 246-47 (1985), superseded by statute, 42

U.S.C. § 2000d-7; Hurst v. Texas Dep’t of Assistive & Rehab. Servs., 482 F.3d 809,

810 (5th Cir. 2007). Polonczyk’s IFP motion is denied, and the appeal is

dismissed as frivolous. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982);

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED; IFP MOTION DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

C.W.  Gilluly,  Chief Executive  Officer of AMASYS  Corporation  (the "Company")
certifies  in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the
Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2005
and that to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1.   the report fully complies with the  requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          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.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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



November 14, 2005                                   /s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-161-01-JD

Eugene Williams

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

19) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: June 18, 2007

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00161-JD Document 20 Filed 06/18/07 Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 64A03

- 1608

- AD

- 1886 | July 24, 2017 Page 1

of 3 

### MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.


### A TTORNEY FOR 

### A PPELLANT Andrew R. Wolf The Wolf Law Office Michigan City, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In Re the Adoption of L.J. and E.J., minors, C.S., Appellant

- Respondent

, v. 

### J.J. and J.J. , Appellee s - Petitioners

. July 24, 2017 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 64A03

- 1608

- AD

- 1886 Appeal from the Porter Superior Court The Honorable William E. Alexa, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 64D02

- 1508

- AD

- 7208



### Bradford , Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 64A03

- 1608

- AD

- 1886 | July 24, 2017 Page 2

of 3 [1] 

### On May 16, 2017, in an unpublished memorandum decision, we affirmed the adoption court’s determination that the consent of Appellant

- Respondent C.S. (“Birth Mother”) was not required for the adoption of her biological children L.J. and E.J. (collectively, “the Children”) by Appellee

- Petitioner J.J. (“Step

Mother”). We also remanded with instructions to conduct a criminal history check on Step

- Mother pursuant to Indiana Code section 31

- 19

- 8

- 5(d), which Birth Mother claimed had not been performed.

[2] 

### Birth Mother now petitions for rehearing, contending that we erroneously affirmed the adoption court’s determination regarding her consent but conceding tha t the required criminal history check has, in fact, already been performed on Step

- Mother . Birth Mother also submits an affidavit from her counsel to this effect. Although we conclude that Birth Mother’s first contention does not warrant relief on rehear ing, we accept her second. To that end, we grant Birth Mother’s rehearing petition for the limited purpose of vacating any portion of our May 16, 2017, memorandum opinion indicating that the cause should be remanded for the purpose of performing a crimina l history check on Step

- Mother. 1 

### We grant Birth Mother’s petition for rehearing in part and consequently affirm the judgment of the adoption court in all respects
.

1 In an order issued contemporaneously with this opinion on rehearing, we grant Birth Mother leave to file an appendix with her petition for rehearing.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 64A03

- 1608

- AD

- 1886 | July 24, 2017 Page 3

of 3 

### Vaidik, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Owl Rock Technology Finance Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

 

1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 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 Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date: February 25, 2020 |   | By:    | /s/ Craig W. Packer |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|                    |   |   | Craig W. Packer          |
|                    |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |
Case 1:06-cv-00484-JD   Document 13   Filed 02/26/07   Page 1 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-00484-JD   Document 13   Filed 02/26/07   Page 2 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-00484-JD   Document 13   Filed 02/26/07   Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Geraldine Spencer

v. 06-cv-85-SM

State of New Hampshire

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 3, 2006, no objection having been filed, for the reasons

set forth therein. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

October 27, 2006

_________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Geraldine Spencer, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00085-SM Document 13 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                923
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   18,450
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     18,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               8,450
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                           10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       18,450
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Latanya Jones

Criminal No. 06-cr-136-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

23) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: December 12, 2006

cc: James Dennehy, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00136-JD Document 25 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10 (iii)

            Amendment of Bonus Plans and Deferred Compensation Plans

                  RESOLVED, further, that the various annual bonus plans for the
Company's employees ("Bonus Plans") are amended effective January 15, 2001 to
provide that, in the event of a change in control, (a) bonus-eligible employees
shall be entitled to receive a pro-rata fiscal year bonus payment based upon the
assumption that the maximum financial goal under each relevant Bonus Plan or
formula has been achieved and based upon the relevant performance of the
bonus-eligible employee for the short-year period ending on the date of the
change in control, (b) in no event will an employee's pro-rata bonus payment
received upon a change in control be less than the pro-rata bonus that would
have been received had such pro-ration been based upon the employee's annual
bonus for the immediately preceding fiscal year unless specifically reduced
below such amount in the sole discretion of the Company's chief executive
officer, (c) all existing annual bonus deferral elections under the Company's
Deferred Compensation Plans shall be applied to any pro-rata bonus payment
received upon a change in control, and any such deferrals into the equity option
immediately prior to the change in control will be entitled to any Company
matching deferral, and (d) the Company Matching Deferral Account in any Deferred
Compensation Plan of a participant employed by the Company upon a change in
control shall fully vest upon such change in control; and

                  RESOLVED, further, that the Authorized Officers and other
appropriate representatives of the Company be, and each of them hereby is,
authorized, empowered and directed, in the name and on behalf of the Company, to
execute such certificates, instruments and documents and take any and all other
such actions as such officers or representatives shall deem necessary, advisable
or appropriate in order to amend the Bonus Plans and Deferred Compensation Plans
and carry out the intent and purpose of the foregoing resolutions, the taking of
any such action to be deemed conclusive evidence that the Board and the Company
have authorized such action.