alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Filed 9/9/13 P. v. Colbert CA

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JACK B. COLBERT,

Defendant and Appellant.

C072435

(Super. Ct. No. 10F05189)

Appointed counsel for defendant Jack B. Colbert asked this court to review the 

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

Because the matter was resolved by plea and defendant waived referral to the 

probation department, the facts are taken from the prosecutor’s statement of the factual 
2

basis for the plea. On August 14, 2010, defendant took, by force and fear, personal 

property from the possession and immediate presence of victim Kenneth Straton. In so 

doing, defendant personally used a firearm. 

The jury deadlocked and the trial court declared a mistrial. Defendant 

subsequently pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, 

subd. (c))1 and admitted that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the 

offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). In exchange, the trial court dismissed, with a Harvey

waiver,2 a count charging second degree robbery involving a different victim. 

The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for the stipulated middle term of 

three years plus the low term of three years for the firearm enhancement, awarded 

defendant 62 days of custody credit and nine days of conduct credit, and ordered 

defendant to pay a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $1,200 parole revocation fine 

(§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities 

assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). 

Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause. 

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and 

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of 

the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. 

More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
3

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 MAURO , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 ROBIE , J.
Exhibit 10.5

                                    CONFIRMATION


TO: JOHN PRYCE

         This is to confirm renewal of the employment agreement made as of
November 22, 2001, for a further one year period commencing in January, 2003,
and ending on December 31, 2003, under the same terms and conditions, including,
the terms relating to compensation.

         Dated at Markham this 1st day of January, 2003




         MIAD SYSTEMS LTD.


         Per:      /s/ Michael Green
              --------------------------------

               Michael Green - President
Opinion issued October 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00061-CV

———————————

SOLIZ AUTOMOTIVE, INC. D/B/A COLLISION SPECIALIST #1, 

Appellant

V.

SKOPOS FINANCIAL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 14-DCV-214508

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Soliz Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Collision Specialist #1, has neither 

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs nor paid or made 

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 
2

20.1, 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, 

appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss all pending 

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Brown.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           6,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,308
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,249
<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>
News United States Air Force
 AF conducts airstrikes against ISIL, airdrops humanitarian aid near AmirliPublished Sept. 2, 2014
                **TAMPA, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                At the request of the government of Iraq, the U.S. military conducted airstrikes in support of an operation to deliver humanitarian assistance to address the humanitarian crisis and protect the civilians trapped in Amirli, Iraq, at approximately 8:30 p.m. EDT Aug. 31.
Two months ago, hundreds of ISIL terrorists advanced on Amirli cutting off food, water, and medical supplies to thousands of Shia Turkomen living there. ISIL has since blocked many attempts by Iraqi security forces and the United Nations from delivering critical supplies to Amirli, threatening the remaining population.
At the request of the Iraqi government, U.S. forces airdropped 109 bundles of much-needed humanitarian aid to the people of Amirli, including the Shia Turkomen minority ethnic group. Two U.S. C-17 Globemaster IIIs and two U.S. C-130 Hercules airdropped the supplies, delivering approximately 10,500 gallons of fresh drinking water and approximately 7,000 meals ready to eat. In addition, aircraft from Australia, France, and the United Kingdom also dropped humanitarian aid.
To support the delivery of this humanitarian assistance, the U.S. military also conducted three airstrikes in coordination with the isolated Iraqi security forces responsible for protecting Amirli.
Fighter aircraft struck and destroyed three ISIL Humvees, one ISIL armed vehicle, one ISIL checkpoint and one ISIL tank near Amirli. All aircraft safely exited the area.
The president authorized these airstrikes in support of an operation to deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians in the town of Amirli. These operations will be limited in their scope and duration as necessary to address this emerging humanitarian crisis and protect the civilians trapped in Amirli.
U.S Central Command has conducted a total of 118 airstrikes across Iraq.*(Information courtesy of U.S. Central Command Public Affairs)*humanitarian aid 



ISIL 



U.S. Central Command 



airdrops 



operations
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  I, Brian Baker, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
    10-K of the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2011-C5
    (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
    asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment
    of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required
    to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
    and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to
    this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
    instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
    this report on Form 10-K.

  In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
  provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

  Midland Loan Services, Inc., a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as
  Master Servicer, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells
  Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator,
  Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance
  LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor, and KeyBank National Association (as successor
  to KeyCorp Real Estate Capital Markets, Inc.), as Primary Servicer.


    Dated:   March 28, 2014


    /s/ Brian Baker
    Signature

    President and Chief Executive Officer
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet (unaudited) as of March 31, 1999 and the statement of operations
(unaudited) for the three mounths ended March 31, 1999 and 1998.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             118                  30,631
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,986                  61,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                   5,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,104                  97,486
<PP&E>                                          14,218                  34,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,260                  15,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,982                 117,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          482,413                 413,264
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       254,637                 212,062
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,473,744              17,846,819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   280,982                 117,313
<SALES>                                              0                  52,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                  52,750
<CGS>                                                0                  45,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                  45,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               424,531                 607,727
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (424,531)               (600,472)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (424,531)               (600,472)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (424,531)               (592,670)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.002)                 (0.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.002)                 (0.003)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share

                                                  3 MONTHS ENDED
                                                     MARCH 31,
Primary:                                       1997               1996
                                            ----------         ----------
Weighted average shares outstanding          4,520,622          4,352,273
Net effect of dilutive stock
   options - based on the
   treasury stock method using
   average market price                        149,873            272,085
                                            ----------         ----------
Totals                                       4,670,495          4,624,358

Net Income                                  $  439,373         $  283,881
                                            ==========         ==========
Net Income Per Share                        $     0.09         $     0.06
                                            ==========         ==========

All shares outstanding have been restated to give effect to the 5-for-4 stock
splits declared and paid during September 1995 and June 1996.
#### Jean R. ESTEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D09-5176.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 1, 2009.

Jenna D. Lopes of the Law Office of Jenna Lopes, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(4)(B).

HAWKES, C.J., BARFIELD and CLARK, JJ., concur.
#### H. & T. C. R’y Co. v. Margaret Harris.

(No. 2230.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Nat. Gunter, O. M. Buckler and De Armond, counsel for appellant.

J. P. Cox, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 224. *Railroad; liability of for stock killed; construction of article 1$1¡5, Revised Statutes; engine or cars must come in actual contact with animal killed or injured; case stated.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for damages for injury done to her horse by appellant’s railroad train. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the horse was injured by said train coming in contact with it, or whether it took fright at the train, ran.upon a bridge, fell off the bridge, and thus received injury. Appellant’s road was not fenced at the place where the injury occurred, and the evidence fails to show negligence on the part of those in charge of the railroad train. Appellant contends that the injury was caused, not by its engine or cars, but by the fright of the hors'\ *271and that as no negligence on the part of those in charge of said engine and cars was shown, the appellee was not entitled to recover. *Held;*Our statute declares that “each and every railroad company shall be liable to the owner for the value of all stock killed or injured by the locomotive and cars of such railroad company in running their respective railways,”'etc. [R. S. art. 4245.] The true meaning of this statute is that the injury must be caused by actual collision of the locomotive or cars with the stock injured. This is the construction placed upon similar statutes in other states. In Illinois, in Schertz v. R’y Go., an analogous case, and under a statute similar to ours, it was held that a railroad company which is liable by statute for damages for injury to live stock on its track, where it has not erected a fence, caused by the agents, engines or cars of the company, is liable only for injuries from contact; it is not liable for injuries from fright. [16 Reporter, pp. 238, 239, citing R. R. Co. v. Haskett, 10 Ind. 409; Lafferty *v.*R. R. Co. 44 Mo. 291.] This construction of the statute in nowise militates against the liability of the company for injuries caused through the *negligence*of its agents or employees. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 859; 2 W. Con. Rep. § 203; R. R. Co. v. Carson, Sup. Court, June 1, 1886.]

December 11, 1886.

Note. — Judge "Willson dissented from this construction of the statute.

§ 225. *Conflict of evidence; judgment will not be reversed, when.*But even under the rule as stated, appellant is not entitled to a reversal of the judgment, because the evidence is conflicting as to the place and the manner in which the injury to the horse was inflicted. There being evidence sufficient to support the judgment, it is

Affirmed.
583 A.2d 302

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID PAUL SCHUBERT.

January 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 235 *N.J.Super.*212, 561 A.2d 1186)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT VINCENT HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-759 September 17, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Vincent Harrison, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
News United States Air Force
 Reaper deploys live weapons on maritime training targetPublished April 2, 2015
                        
                        By Senior Airman Thomas Spangler
                        
                        
                        99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs
                **NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) --**
                An MQ-9 Reaper successfully hit a sea-going target with an AGM-114 Hellfire missile during a joint service training exercise over the Gulf of Mexico on March 17.
This was the first time a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) hit a maritime target.
"It was the first time we had put live weapons into boats and participated in maritime (exercises)," said Capt. Timothy Ford, a 26th Weapons Squadron flight commander. "For our (RPA) community it's a big step forward, it's a mission set we had looked at for a long time and training opportunities over water are not very prevalent (at Nellis)."
In addition to this being the first time an RPA squadron hit a maritime target; it was also a chance to integrate with other aircraft including A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, F-16 Fighting Falcons and F-35A Lightning IIs.
"It's the first opportunity for us to fly with the F-35, talk to each other and coordinate attacks between the two platforms and ensure deconfliction while we're doing that," said Capt. Ryan Cross, a 26th WPS training officer.
Another high note of the exercise was that it gave the RPA community a chance to demonstrate to operators of other aircraft, the unique capabilities the MQ-9 can bring to the fight.
The MQ-9 is able to stay in a potentially hostile area for hours. It can collect intelligence and pass that information on to other aircraft when it becomes a more volatile situation.
"As soon as it does become a situation where the shooting happens, we're the ones with the situational awareness because we've been there so long and we're able to pass that on to other fighters as they check in and build their situational awareness," Ford said. "That's our role in a lot of mission sets. It's nice to be able to prove it in a maritime environment."
Through this exercise, the MQ-9 demonstrated its abilities in destroying sea-going targets, integrating and deconflicting with other aircraft, as well as being able to stay in an area far longer than any other platform.
Ford stated, now that they have built relationships with other aircraft and proven the abilities of the MQ-9, it will hopefully open doors to more training opportunities around the country.
The 26th WPS is a squadron assigned to the U.S. Air Force Weapons School, which trains tactical experts and leaders of Airmen skilled in the art of integrated battlespace dominance across the land, air, space and cyber domains.Nellis 



maritime targey 



UAV 



Reaper
579 A.2d 816

#### IN THE MATTER OF PAUL COLVIN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 27, 1990.

ORDER

This matter having been duly considered by the Court, and the Court having noted that respondent has represented to the Disciplinary Review Board and this Court that on restoration of his license, he will remain retired from the active practice of law;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is granted, effective immediately.