alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephen A. MASSENGALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-4849.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 27, 2011.

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Massengale appeals his convictions for manslaughter by driving under the influence (DUI), driving with a license suspended or revoked, DUI causing damage to a person or property, and DUI causing serious bodily injury. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying a motion for mistrial after the prosecutor improperly commented in opening statement about Appellant’s constitutional right not to testify. The effect of the State’s improper remarks is subject to “harmless error” analysis. *See State v. DiGuilio,*491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); *Holloman v. State,*573 So.2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Concluding that the State has met its burden under *DiGuilio*to show there is no reasonable possibility that this error affected the verdict, we affirm the convictions. *See DiGuilio,*491 So.2d at 1135.

Appellant also asserts error in the trial court’s imposition of the mandatory cost of prosecution ($100.00) pursuant to section *1096988.27(8), Florida Statutes (2008). The State properly concedes error because the offenses of which Appellant was convicted occurred before this authorizing statute became effective. Ex post facto principles are implicated where a statute is applied retroactively to impose a cost or surcharge and the length of a defendant’s sentence can be increased by the failure to pay. *See Griffin v. State,*980 So.2d 1085, 1037 (Fla.2008). As payment of this $100.00 fíne is a condition of Appellant’s probation, the failure to pay it could result in revocation of his probation.

We AFFIRM the judgment and sentence, except for the $100.00 fine at issue, which we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court with directions to strike it from the judgment of fines.

WOLF, LEWIS, and RAY, JJ., concur.
#### PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. UPSHAW; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. MEYER; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. HAASE et al.; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. CARONDELET FOUNDRY COMPANY; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. FOSTER; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. FRUEND et al.; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. HILDEBRAND.

Division One,

December 24, 1902.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. H. *D: Wood,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*143MARSHALL, J.

These cases are similar to the case of Peniston et al. v. Schlude, p. 132, this volume, except that different parcels of land are involved and the defendants are different.

The decision in the Schlude case is equally applicable to these cases, and for the reasons- given in that case the judgments of the circuit court in these cases are affirmed.

All concur.
Order entered December 1, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01259-CR

CHRISTOPHER ALAN LUPER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 062211

ORDER

Before the Court is a letter filed by appellant on November 17, 2014. In the letter, 

appellant informs the Court he is filing a petition for discretionary review and he believes he is 

entitled to counsel to prepare the petition. Petitions for discretionary review are not filed with 

this Court and this Court does not appoint counsel for such filings. To the extent appellant 

believes he has filed a motion seeking to have counsel appointed by this Court, his motion is 

DENIED.

The letter also states appellant intends to file a motion for rehearing. To the extent 

appellant is requesting additional time to file a motion for rehearing, that motion is GRANTED. 

We extend the deadline for appellant to file a motion for rehearing by thirty (30) days.
If appellant seeks any additional relief in his letter, that relief is DENIED.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CHEMFREE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

J. WALTER, INC. and J. WALTER COMPANY, LTD. Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

2011-1496

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in No. 04-CV-3711, Judge
Charles R. Wolle.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

W ILLIAM A. C APP , Duane Morris LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

S TEPHEN M. S CHAETZEL , McKeon, Meunier, Carlin &Curfman, of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for defendantsappellees. With him on the brief were A NTHONY B.

A SKEW ; and R OBIN L. G ENTRY , of Decatur, Georgia. Of

Counsel was J OHN W. H ARBIN and C HARLES A. P ANNELL

, III, King & Spaulding, LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia.______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L INN

, D YK , and R EYNA

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 13, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1710 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1710

To modify the calculation of back pay for persons who were approved for 
  promotion as members of the Navy and Marine Corps while interned as 
 prisoners of war during World War II to take into account changes in 
                       the Consumer Price Index.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2007

  Ms. Hooley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify the calculation of back pay for persons who were approved for 
  promotion as members of the Navy and Marine Corps while interned as 
 prisoners of war during World War II to take into account changes in 
                       the Consumer Price Index.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF AMOUNT OF BACK PAY FOR MEMBERS OF NAVY AND 
              MARINE CORPS SELECTED FOR PROMOTION WHILE INTERNED AS 
              PRISONERS OF WAR DURING WORLD WAR II TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 
              CHANGES IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.

    (a) Modification.--Section 667(c) of the Floyd D. Spence National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by 
Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-170) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) The amount determined for a person under paragraph (1) shall 
be increased to reflect increases in cost of living since the basic pay 
referred to in paragraph (1)(B) was paid to or for that person, 
calculated on the basis of the Consumer Price Index (all items--United 
States city average) published monthly by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.''.
    (b) Recalculation of Previous Payments.--In the case of any payment 
of back pay made to or for a person under section 667 of the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 before 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy 
shall--
            (1) recalculate the amount of back pay to which the person 
        is entitled by reason of the amendment made by subsection (a); 
        and
            (2) if the amount of back pay, as so recalculated, exceeds 
        the amount of back pay so paid, pay the person, or the 
        surviving spouse of the person, an amount equal to the excess.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Nathan PETTUS.

No. 2011-K-1325.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Pettus, Nathan; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 09-656; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-215.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.
#### Robert Lee HINSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-4605.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 29, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 2010.

*309Robert Lee Hinson, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See Baker v. State,*878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).

BENTON, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
#### J. F. Pells v. A. B. Williamson.

(No. 1515.)

Appeal from Anderson County.

Opinion by

Hunt, J."

§ 12. *Garnishment; transfer of debt.*Pells having a judgment against Walston, garnished Williamson, who answered that on the 2d day of January, 1883, he was indebted to Walston in the sum of $750. That he gave Walston his note for said indebtedness payable fifty days after date, and had been informed and believed that Walston had transferred said note to one Butler before the service of the writ of garnishment, which service *21was on the 4th of January, 1883. This answer was contested. The, evidence showed that on the 2d day of January, 1883, Walston purchased from Butler some machinery for a mill; that Walston was to deliver to Butler, in payment for the machinery, a note on Williamson for $750; that Walston sent him a note on Williamson for $750, which he declined to accept in payment for the machinery, because said note was payable to Mrs. Walston, and was not such a note in its terms as Walston had agreed to deliver him; that he, Butler, held the note as the property of Mrs. Walston. *Held,*that these facts did not constitute a transfer from Walston to Butler of the debt due by Williamson. And held, further, that after service of the writ of garnishment, the garnishee could not defeat the garnishment by the execution and delivery of his note for the debt payable to'Mrs. Walston. Judgment should have been rendered in favor of Pells upon the evidence as presented in the record.

October 13, 1883.

Reversed and remanded.
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Joseph  Candelario,  hereby certify that I am the First Vice President,  Loan
Administration  of  Countrywide  Home  Loans,  Inc.,  fka,  Countrywide  Funding
Corporation, and further  certify  with  respect to the  Pooling  and  Servicing
Agreements for  Conventional Residential  Fixed  Rate & Adjustable Rate Mortgage
Loans (Inv. 977) by and amoung Norwest Bank of Minnesota and Countrywide Funding
Corporation, as Servicer, as follows:

I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Servicer during the fiscal
year  ended  February  28,  1997  under  the  Agreement  and,  to the best of my
knowledge,  based on my review,  the Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its duties,
responsibilities or obligations under the Agreement through the fiscal year.



                                               /s/ Joseph Candelario    5-23-97
                                               Joseph Candelario         Date
                                               First Vice President
                                               Loan Administration






                                                                        Inv. 977
856 A.2d 35

#### In the Matter of Lee E. HIGH.

No. 27 DB 2004, 29373.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 29, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2004, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated April 30, 2004, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that LEE E. HIGH, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2917]

# SUMMARY:

Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed within 15 days of the date of public notice of the petitions in the Federal Register. See Section 1.4(b) (1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b) (1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: In the Matter of Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission's Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band (WT Docket No. 07-293)

Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 23100-2360 MHz Frequency Band (IB Docket No. 95-91) 

NUMBER OF PETITIONS FILED: [6]

Federal Communications Commission.

**Marlene H. Dortch,**

Secretary,

Office of the Secretary,

Office of Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-24633 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-S
EX-10.14






Exhibit 10.14




AMENDMENT TO THE

SUNTRUST BANKS, INC. 2004 STOCK PLAN




WHEREAS, SunTrust Banks, Inc. (the “Corporation”) currently maintains the SunTrust Banks Inc.
2004 Stock Plan (the “Plan”);



WHEREAS, the Corporation now considers it desirable to amend the Plan to meet the applicable
requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended);



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of January 1,
2009, to add an Appendix A to read as follows:



APPENDIX A




1. 409A Compliance. To the extent that amounts payable under this Plan are subject to
Internal Revenue Code section 409A, the Plan is intended to comply with such section 409A and
official guidance issued thereunder (collectively, “Section 409A”). Notwithstanding anything
herein to the contrary, the Plan shall be interpreted, operated and administered in a manner
consistent with this intention.



2. Effect on Stock Units and Other Awards Subject to 409A. No provision of the Plan
(including Section 12) shall affect the time or form of payment of any Stock Unit or other award
under the Plan which is subject to Section 409A. And the grantee of a Stock Unit or other award
under the Plan which is subject to Section 409A shall not be permitted the withholding election
described in Section 14.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this amendment to be executed this
31st day of December, 2008.




SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.




By: /s/ Donna D. Lange

Name: Donna D. Lange

Title: SVP, Corporate Benefits Director
Exhibit 31.2

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 10, 2006



|                       |  |                                                        
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Edward Escudero
|                       |  | (Edward Escudero) Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 1043** 

TIMOTHY LIMBERGER; LISA LIMBERGER ,
Plaintiff s
- Appellees ,

v.

MICHAEL T. CLEARY ,
Defendant

– Appellant,

and

MONIQUE D. ALMY ,

Trustee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William M. Nickerson , Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv
- 01047

- WMN )

Submitted : October 31, 2014 Decided: November 10, 2014

Before DUNCAN and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jeffrey M. Kotz, KOTZ LAW GROUP, Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Stanford G. Gann, Jr., Mark Alderman, LEVIN & GANN, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Un published opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Michael T. Cleary appeals from the district court’s
order upholding the bankruptcy court’s orders reopening the
adversary proceeding to allow additional evidence and
determining th at two debts th at Cleary owed to Timothy and Lisa
Limberger were non

- dischargeable in Cleary’s bankruptcy
proceeding. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed on
appeal, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stat ed by the district court. Limberger v.
Cleary , No. 1:13

- cv
- 01047

- WMN (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2013). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materia ls before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRM E D
News United States Air Force
 JB Charleston Airmen support presidential mission to CubaPublished March 25, 2016
                        
                        By Maj. Wayne Capps
                        
                        
                        315th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **HAVANA, CUBA (AFNS) --**
                As President Barack Obama landed in Havana, Cuba, it marked the first time a sitting U.S. president visited the communist nation in over 88 years, and Airmen from Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina, played a pivotal role in the historic mission. 
Airmen from the 628th Air Base Wing, and 437th and 315th Airlift Wings provided everything from aircrew members, fuels, security and maintenance personnel, as well as financial and logistical support for the diplomatic endeavor.
“This was a very big undertaking with a lot of people involved,” said Senior Airman Michael Eckert, a loadmaster with the 16th Airlift Squadron. “It is a lot to wrap your head around." 
One of the critical missions performed by JB Charleston Airmen was to support the medical teams who remained on standby while the president was on the island nation.
“This is where your training kicks in,” said 1st Lt. Chelsea Lesniewski, a pilot from the 701st Airlift Squadron. “We are all excited about being in Havana, but we are here to get the president where he needs to go, and to be trusted with that responsibility is a pretty big deal."
Many of the Airmen were excited to be there supporting the historic restoration of ties with Cuba. 
“I think we will be looking back years from now saying, I was a part of that,” said Staff Sgt. Austin Barkdoll, a flying crew chief with the 437th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron. “I am really glad to be one of the first military representatives from the U.S. to be here. I think being on this mission is pretty special."C-17 



President 



airlift 



JB Charleston Related Links
        Andrews Airmen enable Obama’s historic Cuba visit
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrance BRUCE.

No. 2010-KO-2756.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Bruce, Lawrance; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 09-415; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-121.

Denied.