alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RENARDO A. SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1691

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 31, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie M. Kinsey, Judge.

Renardo A. Smith, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed a rule 3.850 postconviction motion in which he asserts 

that his trial counsel acted ineffectively by failing to advise him that he qualified 
2

for a mandatory sentence, in addition to other penalties, pursuant to the prison 

releasee reoffender (“PRR”) statute, section 775.082(9)(a)1., Florida Statutes 

(2012), prior to his rejection of two plea offers. He asserts counsel’s failure to 

advise him of his PRR eligibility caused him to reject the offers and proceed to a 

bench trial, where he was convicted. Thereafter, the state filed notice that he 

qualified to be sentenced as a PRR. The court sentenced him as a PRR to the 

mandatory 15 years for the second-degree felony, which also barred his eligibility 

to earn gain time as well as participation in work release and early release 

programs. We reverse.

The trial court denied the claim after finding that Appellant would have 

proceeded to trial even if he had knowledge he qualified for PRR enhancement, 

because he knew his sentence exposure was up to 25 years’ imprisonment when he 

rejected the plea offers. Appellant argues the 25-year collective sentence was a 

possibility, but not mandated, as is the situation with the PRR statute, which 

requires imposition of a statutory maximum sentence. Further, under PRR 

enhancement, a defendant must serve the entirety of the sentence, with no 

opportunity to earn gain time, work release, or early release.

Appellant’s claim is not conclusively refuted by the record. See Alcorn v. 

State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (discussing four prongs for consideration when 

evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance for failure to properly advise of actual 
3

sentence exposure); Armstrong v. State, 148 So. 3d 124, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) 

(stating “‘[p]rejudice . . . is determined based upon a consideration of the 

circumstances as viewed at the time of the offer and what would have been done 

with proper and adequate advice’”) (quoting Alcorn, 121 So. 3d at 432) (emphasis 

in original). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an 

evidentiary hearing, which will provide the court with “the opportunity to receive 

evidence and evaluate the credibility of any witnesses in deciding whether 

Appellant would have accepted the plea, or would have continued to state, ‘I didn’t 

do it,’ and insist on trial.” Mathis. v. State, 848 So. 2d 1207, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2003). 

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
News United States Air Force
 Deployable command, control system critical to Nepal earthquake reliefPublished May 19, 2015
                        
                        By Pacific Air Forces Public Affairs
                        
                        
                        Staff Sgt. Alexander Martinez
                **UTAPAO ROYAL THAI NAVAL AIRFIELD, Thailand (AFNS) --**
                With humanitarian assistance and disaster relief as an ongoing mission for Joint Task Force 505 and other organizations in support of Operation Sahayogi Haat in Nepal, the ability to effectively communicate with each other and components in the region is critical.Their communications rely on systems such as the Deployable Joint Command and Control system, which is currently providing that critical capability. DJC2 integrates software, hardware and processes to support a shared-information environment consisting of joint, coalition, multinational and nongovernmental agencies.At Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield, the site of the JTF 505 intermediate staging base (ISB), a DJC2 configured with its core-capability configuration is up and running, providing communication capabilities for the ISB mission.The officer in charge of the Utapao ISB communications team, Marine Corps Capt. Jason Misner, said the system is very useful in humanitarian aid and disaster relief contingency operations because of the ability to tailor it to the size of the operation and the needs of its users.“What makes DJC2 unique is that it allows us to easily add users, scale networks to whatever we want it to look like, make it a joint network, support users that need secure access and allow the systems to support nongovernmental organizations,” Misner explained.JTF 505 also has DJC2 systems and operators in Nepal, configured to their location with the necessary features for the location’s mission.“The systems in Nepal are headed by a good team and they’re providing good communication support,” Misner said.The system is designed to be deployed and ready for use in a rapid time. For the Utapao DJC2, the team had the entire system up and running in less than 48 hours.Tech. Sgt. Philip Lambeth, a JTF 505 communications technician, helps monitor the DJC2 system at Utapao and said the system enables the transport of supplies and personnel in and out of Nepal.“We’ve been providing command and control function for the JTF 505, so we’re seeing planes being flown in and supplies going in an orderly fashion,” Lambeth said.Other configurations of the DJC2 system include workstation equipment such as tables, chairs and structures if needed; ensuring a deployable communications system is available anywhere in the world.Joint Task Force-505  Operation Sahayogi Haat 



PACAF 



C2 



command and control assets 



Nepal support
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAVIER ARELLANO QUINONES,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00052-CR

Appeal from the

346th District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20160D01014-346-1)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Javier Arellano Quinones is attempting to appeal his conviction. We dismiss for 

want of jurisdiction.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal is 

due within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed in open court, or ninety days after the 

sentence is imposed in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See 

TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1), (2). While a court of appeals may extend the time to file the notice of 

appeal, both the notice of appeal and the extension motion must be filed within fifteen days after 

the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3. In the absence of a timely filed 

notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal 
2

in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals may grant a defendant the right to pursue an out-oftime appeal as a form of habeas corpus relief in felony cases. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 

802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (explaining that writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs out-of-time 

appeals from felony convictions). Quinones previously filed a habeas petition with the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals requesting an out-of-time appeal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

remanded the application to the convicting trial court for findings of fact and a recommendation.

Although the convicting trial court recommended that Quinones’ habeas application should be 

granted, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Quinones’ request for an out-of-time appeal

in February 2019, holding that Quinones was “estopped from claiming that trial counsel was 

ineffective given that Applicant refused to speak to counsel after he was sentenced.” See Ex parte 

Arellano Quinones, No. WR-88,930-01, 2019 WL 962403, at *1 (Tex.Crim.App. Feb. 13, 2019)

(not designated for publication).

Because the time to file a notice of appeal from the October 27, 2017, judgment of 

conviction has expired, and because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has denied Quinones’

leave to pursue an out-of-time appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Quinones’ attempted 

appeal.

This attempted appeal is hereby dismissed.

April 28, 2021 GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
News United States Air Force
 Airmen killed in C-130 crash from Dyess, HanscomPublished Oct. 2, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force News Service
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                The six Airmen who died in a C-130J Super Hercules crash in Afghanistan Oct. 2 were assigned to units at Dyess and Hanscom Air Force Bases, according to officials at both bases.Four Airmen assigned to the 317th Airlift Group at Dyess AFB, Texas, died when the aircraft crashed during initial takeoff from Jalalabad Airfield, Afghanistan, at 12:19 a.m. local time. They included two pilots and two loadmasters.The other two Airmen were from Hanscom's 66th Security Forces Squadron in Massachusetts. Members of the 66th SFS routinely deploy to assist with security operations around the globe.All of the Airmen were assigned to the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing.Five civilians also died in the crash.The names of the deceased are being withheld until 24 hours after the next of kin have been notified, in accordance with Defense Department policy."This is a devastating day for our Air Force and for Hanscom Air Force Base," said Col. Michael A. Vogel, the 66th Air Base Group commander. "Our hearts are heavy with sorrow as we grieve with and for the families of these brave Airmen."Dyess leaders also expressed their condolences."The death of these Airmen, who died in service to our country, is a profound loss," said Col. Michael Bob Starr, the 7th Bomb Wing commander. "The sadness and shock of this tragedy can be felt across the entire Dyess community, and our hearts and prayers go out to our brothers and sisters in the 317th (Airlift Group). We are extending every available resource to comfort and care for the family and friends of our fallen heroes.""This is a deeply emotional time for everyone in the 317th Airlift Group," said Col. Stephen Hodge, 317th AG commander. "The friendship and camaraderie in the (C-130) community, especially among our Dyess and Abilene friends is unlike any other. These Airmen and their loved ones are our family and we will continue to take care of them."The cause of the accident is currently under investigation by officials in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.*(Editor’s note: Hanscom AFB’s 66th Air Base Group Public Affairs office and Dyess AFB’s 7th Bomb Wing Public Affairs office contributed to this article.)*AFCENT 



Afghanistan 



C-130 



C-130J Super Hercules 



dyess 



Hanscom 



455th AEW Related Links
        C-130J crashes in Afghanistan
            
            C-130J SUPER HERCULES
583 A.2d 336

#### RALPH ESPOSITO v. FREEMONT CORPORATION AND MARKS, HOLLAND & CASAGRANDE.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 58 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 58

  Expressing the sense of Congress that Madame C. J. Walker should be 
 recognized for her achievements in business, her inventions, and her 
             commitment to the African-American community.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2007

  Mr. Rangel submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of Congress that Madame C. J. Walker should be 
 recognized for her achievements in business, her inventions, and her 
             commitment to the African-American community.

Whereas Madame C. J. Walker was born on December 23, 1867, on a plantation in 
        Delta, Louisiana;
Whereas, in 1905, Madame C. J. Walker invented a conditioning treatment designed 
        to aid in the straightening of hair, as well as an entire line of 
        cosmetic products;
Whereas, in 1910, Madame C. J. Walker ordered the construction of a factory in 
        Indianapolis to manufacture her line of cosmetic products;
Whereas Madame C. J. Walker was committed to employing women in all aspects of 
        her business;
Whereas Madame C. J. Walker was a noted philanthropist, giving generously to 
        black charities, including the NAACP and the National Association of 
        Colored Women;
Whereas Madame C. J. Walker encouraged her agents to similarly assist black 
        humanitarian organizations nationwide;
Whereas Madame C. J. Walker was one of the first American women--black or 
        white--to amass a personal net worth of more than 1 million dollars as a 
        result of her own efforts, thereby becoming one of the most successful 
        businesspersons of the early twentieth century by the time of her death; 
        and
Whereas Madame C. J. Walker died on May 25, 1919, at the age of 52: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That it is the sense of Congress that Madame C. J. Walker should be 
recognized as one of history's greatest female businesswomen and role 
models for the Nation's young people.
                                 <all>
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

URIAN YOUNG, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0791 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR94-10928

The Honorable Gregory Como, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Urian Young, Yuma

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Jon W. Thompson, and Judge 

Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 10-19-2017
STATE v. YOUNG

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Urian Young seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s first

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown any abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,983,861                       0
<SECURITIES>                                 1,499,627                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,854,109                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,558,563                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    213,266                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,251,860                       0
<PP&E>                                      11,647,122                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,813,349                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,648,896                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,406,750                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       137,252                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,109,029                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,246,281                       0
<SALES>                                        963,736               5,161,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               963,736               5,161,572
<CGS>                                        1,037,013               3,703,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,247,562              15,339,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (181,681)               (280,793)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (7,139,158)            (13,600,404)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.52)                  (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.02



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



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



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: May 20, 2005                   
|                                     
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,757,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    377,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,324,137
<PP&E>                                         428,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                 310,292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,393,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          488,564
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,325
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,709,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,393,548
<SALES>                                        170,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               608,649
<CGS>                                          243,850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,138,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,593,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,593,130)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,593,130)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Rance DUNBAR v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0694.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Dunbar, Ranee; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 456-998; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0259.

Denied.