alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jesse O. COTTENGIM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 17, 2010.

*210James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Robert E. Wildridge, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jesse Cottengim appeals from the denial of his request to be given a coterminous sentence following his plea to a series of charges.1 The trial judge declined to consider his request, believing such a sentence was illegal.

The operative statute is section 921.16(3), Florida Statutes (2005). Prior to October 1, 2003, trial courts had the authority to order a sentence be served coterminously as well as concurrently with a sentence in another jurisdiction.2 That statute was amended as follows: “(3) A county or circuit court of this state may not direct that the sentence imposed by such court be served coterminously with a sentence imposed by another court of. this state or imposed by a court of another state.” *Id.*The Legislature did not prohibit coterminous sentences imposed by a sentencing judge on his or her own cases. This is what Cottengim requested, although somewhat inarticulately. Had the Legislature intended to prohibit coterminous sentences, it would have been simple enough to accomplish.3

Sentencing is a decision that is within the trial court’s discretion. Howev*211er, the exercise of discretion presupposes the trial court understanding the legal options available and making a decision accordingly. Here, the trial court was under the mistaken view that it could not lawfully impose a coterminous sentence.

Because coterminous sentences have been recognized as a legitimate sentencing option, *see Moore v. Pearson,*789 So.2d 316 (Fla.2001), a coterminous sentence would have been lawful. The statutory amendment did not affect *Pearson*in regard to courts imposing coterminous sentences on its own cases. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion in resentencing. We express no opinion as to the appropriateness of such a sentence in Cottengim’s cases.

REMANDED.

SAWAYA, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.

1

.The transcript of the plea and sentencing refers to "pro terminus;” however, it is clear from the context that the court and counsel were addressing a coterminous sentence. A coterminous sentence runs concurrently with another and terminates simultaneously.

2

.The Department of Corrections was required to notify the other jurisdiction, and the statute addressed the inmate’s participation in programs authorized by the other jurisdiction, parole or similar release, and issues relating to completion of the sentence.

3

.The primary effect of a coterminous sen*211tence in this case would relate to gain time. The difficulty inherent in coterminous sentences, addressed by the Legislature in the amendment, is readily apparent in the volume of rule 3.850 postconviction motions filed after imposition of coterminous sentences.
**Exhibit99.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350

 

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Stephen A. Gorgol, Chief Financial Officer of VistaMedical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)  The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on March     , 2003 (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|           | /s/   Stephen  A. Gorgol |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------|
|           | Stephen  A. Gorgol                      |
|           | Chief  Financial Officer                |
|           |                                    |
|           |                                    |
| March 29, 2003 |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, PehongChen, Chief Executive Officer of BroadVision, Inc., certify that:

 

1.    Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofBroadVision, Inc.;

2.    Basedon my knowledge, this 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 the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this 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 report;

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)   [intentionallyomitted]

c) Evaluatedthe effectiveness 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 evaluation; and

d)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:    August  14, 2003 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |   | /s/    PEHONG CHEN |   |
|                                          |   | Pehong Chen |
|                                          |   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### Michael SMITH, et ux. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT, et al.

No. 2012-C-0527.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Smith et ux., Michael; Smith, Ernesta; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 09-C-2222; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-946.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2050

NICOLLE L. CONYERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; BARBARA BLANKENSHIP; 

CHRIS CAVANAUGH; MARK MCBRIDE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:15-cv-00297-HEH)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicolle Conyers, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Rebecca Gantt, 

MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, Summer Speight, 

MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicolle Conyers appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Conyers v. Va. Hous. Dev.

Auth., No. 3:15-cv-00297-HEH (E.D. Va. Aug. 11, 2015). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Senesco Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the
undersigned, Leslie J. Browne, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


(1)           The Annual Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and


(2)           The information contained in the Annual
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Senesco Technologies, Inc.




Dated:September 28,
      2010
              /s/ Leslie J. Browne
      *Leslie J.
      BrownePresident and Chief Executive
      Officer(principal executive
      officer)





*  A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to us and will be
retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### B3, L.L.C., et al. v. Troy HENRY, et al.

No. 2011-CC-0103.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Henry Consulting L.L.C; Henry, Troy et ah; Infinity Fuels L.L.C; —Defendant (s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 09-4.091; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1493.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STAFF LEASING, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 INCLUDED IN FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,051
<SECURITIES>                                    19,910
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                       835
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,829
<PP&E>                                          24,771
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,284
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           235
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,818
<SALES>                                      1,851,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,851,248
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,757,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   820
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,561
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,222)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,783
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26
        

</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 383 Madison Avenue31st FloorNew York, New York 10179RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C20 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C20 Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  March 1, 2016  /s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice President   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, David
Mitchell, President and Chief Executive Officer of webMethods, Inc. (the
Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the Companys Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2004 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 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. Date:
February 14, 2005
    
    /s/
DAVID MITCHELLName: David MitchellTitle:   President and Chief Executive Officer
EX-4.16












Exhibit 4.16



The following is a summary of amendments to the Ford Motor Company Savings and Stock Investment
Plan for Salaried Employees, effective January 1, 2009:





	 	•	 	Rollover amounts will be included in determining the $3,500 threshold for
involuntary distribution of assets in a Member’s account following termination of
employment.
EXHIBIT 99.25

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Bradley T Nielson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 that:

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


Date: October 30, 2002                  /s/ Bradley T Nielson
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Bradley T Nielson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 MakeMusic, Inc.
2008 Executive Compensation Plan
   IncentiveFactor
    
    ThresholdFinancial Objective
    
    Incentive Factor
    
    Weight
    
    PerformanceReturn on Invested Capital
    
    Operating Margins
    
    
    35
    %
    
    
    80
    %Asset Turns
    
    
    15
    %
    
    
    90
    %Sales Growth
    
    Notation Revenue
    
    
    20
    %
    
    
    80
    %SmartMusic Revenue
    
    
    21
    %
    
    
    80
    %SmartMusic Subscriptions
    
    
    9
    %
    
    
    80
    %
   MaximumMaximum
    
    Restricted2008 Base
    
    Bonus
    
    Cash
    
    StockParticipant
    
    Salary
    
    Target(1)
    
    Bonus(2)
    
    Bonus(2)John Paulson, Co-Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    200,000
    
    
    
    80
    %
    
    $
    160,000
    
    
    $
    160,000Ron Raup, Co-Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    200,000
    
    
    
    80
    %
    
    $
    160,000
    
    
    $
    160,000Karen VanDerBosch, Chief Financial Officer
    
    $
    165,000
    
    
    
    60
    %
    
    $
    99,000
    
    
    $
    99,000




---



##### 



(1)
    
    Represents the percentage of the Participants 2008 base salary that may be paid to the
Participant in the form of cash and restricted stock unit awards.(2)
    
    Equal to the Participants 2008 Base Salary multiplied by the Participants Bonus Target.
#### Arnetha GATLIN, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 3D10-1584.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 2011.

Arnetha Gatlin, in proper person.

Javier A. Ley-Soto, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*§ 414.41(1), Fla. Stat. (2009); *Pinelli v. Dep’t of Children & Families,*878 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-28-002]

Acadian Gas Pipeline System; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 24, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2010, Acadian Gas Pipeline System 
(Acadian) filed its refund report pursuant to its June 11, 2010 Offer 
of Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) and the Commission's 
July 26, 2010 Letter Order approving Acadian's Settlement Agreement, 
issued in Docket Nos. PR09-29-000 and PR09-28-001.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Acadian Gas Pipeline System, Docket Nos. PR09-28-000 and 
PR09-28-001 (July 26, 2010) (unpublished letter order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, October 4, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24937 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
No. 84786

i< • 

# ILE UN 2 4 2022

A. BROWN UPRENE DE aEw BY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA MICHAEL TRACY MCLAUGHLIN, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, or prohibition, seeks a writ directing the district court to vacate petitioner's sentence and hold a new sentencing hearing, due to alleged errors in petitioner's judgment of conviction.

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within the discretion of this court. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A agOr. 2,0°Vf

### ,C.J. Parraguirre containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Hardesty
J. Stiglich
cc: Michael Tracy McLaughlin Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (01 I )47A ASP 

### 2
Exhibit 21.1


                LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF JOURNAL REGISTER COMPANY

The following is a list of the corporations that are subsidiaries of Journal
Register Company, a Delaware corporation. If indented, the corporation listed is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporation under which it is listed.


                                              State of           Number of
Name of Corporation                         Incorporation    Owned Subsidiaries
-------------------                         -------------    ------------------

Journal News, Inc.                            Delaware               4

    Journal Register East, Inc.               Delaware               21

    Northeast Publishing Company, Inc.        Delaware               10

    Chanry Media, Inc.                        Delaware               8

    Register Company, Inc.                    Delaware               -

    JRC.com, LLC                              Delaware               -

INSI Holdings, Inc.                           Delaware               2