alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          34,318
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          22,423
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,274,837
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,075,148
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,497,469
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,205,379
<SHORT-TERM>                                   121,254
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             32,866
<LONG-TERM>                                    948,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           340
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,497,469
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 80,573
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               83,439
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               164,012
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              50,532
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,150
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           56,862
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,540
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               4,584
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 43,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,538
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      26,538
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.24
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,651
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,800
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,192
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,191
<RECOVERIES>                                        50
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,088
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,088
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            852
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David Lee KESSLER.

No. 2011-KO-0113.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Kessler, David Lee; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 177,287; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-863-KA.

Denied.
627 A.2d 1130

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ADALBERTO L. DIAZ.

January 28, 1993.

Petition for certification is granted, and the judgment of the Appellate Division is summarily affirmed insofar as it remands the matter to the Law Division, the remand proceedings to be in accordance with *State v. Shaw,*131 *N.J.*1, 618 A.2d 294 (1993). The remainder of that portion of the judgment that is before the Court on the petition for certification is summarily reversed.
#### STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of T.M.

No. 2011-CK-0415.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re T.M.; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2010-287-01-DQ-C; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1767.

Denied.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00083-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 231st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 231-671264-19

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

LEONARDO VENZOR, Appellant

V.

STEPHANIE VENZOR, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On March 10, 2020, and March 23, 2020, we notified appellant, in accordance 

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless 

appellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant has not 

done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant has not complied with a procedural requirement and the 

Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,1 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 9, 2020

1

See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases 

in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 22, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24

- 545

Lower Tribunal No. F89

- 4 4 47A



### Luis Fernandez

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

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

from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.

Luis Fernandez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Todd SCHULTHEIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5041.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 26, 2011.

Todd Schultheis, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Todd Schultheis appeals the order denying his motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The State concedes the case must be reversed because the trial court failed to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law either on the record or in its order denying post-conviction relief. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d) (“If an evidentiary hearing is required, the court shall ... determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”); *Thomas v. State,*954 So.2d 56, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“[T]he trial court erred by failing to make any findings of fact — either orally or in writing.”); *see also Kornegay v. State,*826 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 166 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1402 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

MAY 22, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 320 South Lecanto Highway in Lecanto, Florida, as the ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. Flanagan Lecanto Post 

Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT DENNIS J. FLANAGAN LECANTO 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 320 South Lecanto Highway in 

7 Lecanto, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HR 1402 RS

1 ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. Flanagan Lecanto Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. 

7 Flanagan Lecanto Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

Calendar No. 166 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1402 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostFlanagan Lecanto Post Office Building’’. in Lecanto, Florida, as the ‘‘Sergeant Dennis J. al Service located at 320 South Lecanto Highway 

MAY 22, 2007 

Reported without amendment 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
PATRICK J. O'HAVER,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS and FLORIDA 

COMMISSION ON OFFENDER 

REVIEW,

Respondents.

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. 1D16-4816

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari.

Patrick J. O’Haver, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General 

Counsel, Department of Corrections; Rana Wallace, General Counsel, Florida 

Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROWE, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darnell Pope, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[775 NYS2d 669]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered January 8, 1999. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses do not render the verdict against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Horne,*2 AD3d 1399 [2003]; *People v Walker,*256 AD2d 1183, 1184 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 858 [1999]; *People v Bell,*234 AD2d 915, 915-916 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 1009 [1997]; see *generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Moreover, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying without a hearing defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10. “Since the child’s recantation merely impeached or contradicted . . . her former testimony, it failed to constitute ‘newly discovered’ evidence within the meaning of CPL 440.10 (1) (g)” *(People v Cassels,*260 AD2d 392, 393 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 1043 [1999]). Present—Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin D. SMITH.

No. 2010-KK-2570.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Smith, Kevin D.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 496-083; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1425.

Denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT NO. 4


                      COMMENTS BY AUDITOR FOR U.S. READERS
                      ON CANADA-U.S. REPORTING DIFFERENCE


In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of
an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there is a
change in accounting principles that has a material effect on the comparability
of the company's financial statements, such as the change described in Note
2(w) to the financial statements. Our report to the shareholders dated
September 2, 2005 is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards
which do not require a reference to such a change in accounting principles in
the auditor's report when the change is properly accounted for and adequately
disclosed in the financial statements.


/s/  KPMG LLP
----------------------
KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada
September 2, 2005
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Steven Purcell,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alternative Resources Corporation;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 10, 2004 | /s/ Steven Purcell      |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                     | Steven Purcell          |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 10(b)  


  
 

  Consent of Independent Accountants  
  


        We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-68551) of our report dated March 19, 2003, relating to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Protective Life Insurance Company and Subsidiaries, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the use
in this Registration Statement of our report dated March 17, 2003, on our audits of the financial statements of The Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement. 


PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP

Birmingham, Alabama

December 30, 2003 









QuickLinks


Consent of Independent Accountants
#### Floyd P. DONLEY, Sr. v. Charles REID.

No. 2011-C-0208.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Donley St., Floyd P.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2009-0004169F; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1217.

Denied.
EXHIBIT
10.2

    


    December
26, 2008

    


    The Board
of Directors of

    China
Shoe Holdings, Inc.

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    This
letter confirms that I hereby resign as the Director and from all other offices
that I hold with China Shoe Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) effective as of
December 26, 2008.

    


    My
resignation is the result of disagreement with the Company on the matter
relating to its operations and practices.

    


    Sincerely,

    /s/ Kon
Ki Lo

    Kon Ki
Lo
#### STATE ex rel. Renata JOLIVETT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0851.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Jolivett, Renata; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, Nos. 01-4955, GO-6426; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-60.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**The undersigned, David Mitchell, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of webMethods, Inc. (the “Company”), hasexecuted this certification in connection with the filing withthe Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’sannual report onForm 10-K for thefiscal year ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”).The undersigned hereby certifies that: (1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.       Date: June 22, 2006     /s/ David Mitchell             Name: David Mitchell      Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 3.1

     **CERTIFICATE OFAMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OFBROADVISION, INC.**

 

     **   ****BroadVision,Inc.,**a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of theGeneral Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), DOESHEREBYCERTIFY:

**        FIRST:**The name of the Corporation is BroadVision, Inc.

        **SECOND:**The date on which the Certificate of Incorporation of theCorporation was originally filed with the Secretary of State of the State ofDelaware is May 13, 1993.

     **    THIRD:**The Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordancewith the provisions of Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation Law ofthe State of Delaware, adopted resolutions amending its Certificate ofIncorporation as follows: 

     **   **Thefirst paragraph of Article IV shall be amended and restated to read in itsentirety as follows:

**"IV.**

     **    A.    **The total number of shares of all classes of stock which thecorporation has the authority to issue is Two Billion Ten Million(2,010,000,000) shares, consisting of two classes: Two Billion (2,000,000,000)shares of Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share, and Ten Million(10,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, $0.0001 par value per share."

        **FOURTH:**    Thereafter pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors, this Certificateof Amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation for theirapproval, and was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

1

----

     **INWITNESSWHEREOF**,BroadVision, Inc. has caused this Certificate of Amendment of 

Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by its Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial 

Officer and attested to by its Secretary this 28th day of June, 2000.

 

 

|        | **BROADVISION,        INC.**                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |                                             |
| By:/   | s/ Randall C. Bolten                        |
|        |                                             |
|   | Randall C. Bolten, Executive Vice President |
|   | And Chief Financial Officer.                |
#### Anthony MARLOW, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D12-786.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 3, 2012.

Anthony Marlow, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jill D. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before CORTINAS, ROTHENBERG and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

Anthony Marlow appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for the return of personal property, which was seized after he was arrested in December 2010. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Contrary to the State’s position, Mar-low’s motion was facially sufficient. He alleged that the seized property was his own, that it was neither contraband nor the fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence. *See Brown v. State,*613 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that a facially sufficient motion for the return of seized property is one in which the defendant alleges “that the property was exclusively his or her own, that it was not contraband or the *1240fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence or by similar lawful justification”). Therefore, we reverse the denial of Marlow’s motion for return of personal property, and remand for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant must “prove the property is exclusively his own, that it was not the fruit of illegal activity, and that it is not being held for evidentiary purposes.” *Sanchez v. State,*88 So.3d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). If the motion is granted, the State shall exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether the property is in the possession of the North Miami Beach Police Department or any other law enforcement agency.

Reversed and remanded.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 27, 2016

No. 04-16-00222-CV

IN RE Leticia MONTEMAYOR

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On May 26, 2016 relator filed a motion to amend and supplement her petition for writ of 

mandamus by filing a supplemental record consisting of a complete transcript of the hearing held 

by the trial court on June 16, 2015 in this matter. The motion to supplement is GRANTED. 

Relator is ordered to file a supplemental record in this court no later than June 2, 2016.

It is so ORDERED on May 27, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011CVW001587 C3, styled In re R.E.M., a Child, pending in the County 

Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Jesus Garza presiding.