alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rochelle Catherine DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-4957.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 3, 2011.

■ Rochelle Catherine Davis, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has appealed an order denying her rule 3.850 motion as untimely filed in the trial court. Appellant’s underlying judgment and sentence became final on April 30, 2008, when this court issued an order dismissing her direct appeal. Pursuant to rule 3.850, Appellant had until April 30, 2010, to timely file a rule 3.850 motion. The record appears to indicate that Appellant did not place the motion into the hands of the correctional institution for mailing but, instead, she retained counsel who filed a notice of appearance on *861May 4, 2010. On May 5, 2010, counsel filed the instant motion on Appellant’s behalf. The trial court dismissed the motion because it was untimely filed. As Appellant was represented by counsel, she is not entitled to the benefit of the Mailbox Rule. *See Haag v. State,*591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992) (discussing that pro se prisoner filings are to be considered filed when placed into the hands of prison officials for mailing). Thus, the date of filing is the date that counsel filed the motion. *See generally*Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.080(e).

While we affirm the trial court’s ruling that the motion was untimely filed, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(3) allows for a waiver of the two-year filing bar when counsel, “through neglect, failed to file the motion.” If such a situation applies to the instant case, Appellant may seek a waiver of the two-year time limitation before the lower court so that the court may consider the merits of Appellant’s claims. *See Tinsley v. State,*41 So.3d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); *Johnson v. State,*7 So.3d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, C.J., DAVIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
#### Kirk E. PREST, et al. v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al.

No. 2012-C-0513.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2012.

In re Kennedy, Lewis, Renton & Associates Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 53-910; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-0851.

Granted.
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes
of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the enclosed Annual Report of NSTAR on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NSTAR.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 9, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    THOMAS J.
MAY   
|                        |  |  |  | Thomas J. May          
|                        |  |  |  | Chairman, President and
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
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 Quarterly Report of MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006, 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: January 30, 2007                  /s/ Bradley T Nielson
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Bradley T Nielson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Christoher SCIENEAUX.

No. 2010-K-2639.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Seieneaux, Christopher; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 21498; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0791.

Denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99
 
                         Pen-Tab Safe Harbor Statement
 
   Information provided by the Company may contain certain forward-looking
information, which, as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 (the "Act"), may relate to such matters as sales, income, return on
equity, capital expenditures, dividends, capital structure, free cash flow,
debt to capitalization ratios, internal growth rates, future economic
performance, management's plans and objectives for future operations or the
assumptions relating to any of the forward-looking information. This Safe
Harbor Statement is being made pursuant to the Act and with the intention of
obtaining the benefits of the so-called "safe harbor" provisions of the Act.
The Company cautions that forward-looking statements are not guarantees since
there are inherent difficulties in predicting future results, and that actual
results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-
looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ include,
but are not limited to, the following:
 
   Retail Economy. The Company's business depends on the strength of the retail
economies primarily in the U.S. and to a lesser extent in Canada by such
factors as consumer demand, the condition of the retail industry, currency
exchange rates and weather conditions. Recently, the retail industry has been
characterized by intense competition and consolidation.
 
   Nature of the Marketplace. The Company competes with numerous other
manufacturers and distributors, many of which are large and well-established.
In addition, the Company's principal customers are volume purchasers, many of
which are much larger than the Company and have significant bargaining power.
The combination of these market influences creates a very competitive
marketplace, resulting in difficulty in raising prices and the need to provide
superior services to the customers. These competitive pressures increase the
risk of losing substantial customers.
 
   Growth by Acquisition. The acquisition of companies is one of the
foundations of the Company's growth strategy. The Company's ability to make
strategic acquisitions at reasonable prices and to integrate the acquired
businesses within a reasonable period of time are important factors in the
Company's future earnings growth potential.
May 14, 2012

 

Dear Investor:

 

As a result of certain questions that havearisen from the Company’s auditor regarding the accounting treatment applicable to the warrants issued to you on January11, 2012 as part of the registered direct offering (the “Warrant” or “Warrant Agreement”), the Companydeems it necessary and desirable to clarify the Warrant Agreement to reflect the original intent of the Warrant Agreement whichwas and is that the registered holders do not have the right to receive a net cash settlement in the event the Company does notmaintain a (i) current prospectus or (ii) listing on a securities exchange or over the counter market, in each case relating tothe common stock of the Company (“Common Stock”) issuable upon exercise of the Warrants at the time such Warrants areexercisable.

 

The Company hereby clarifies the WarrantAgreement that, in no event, will the registered holder of the Warrant be entitled to receive a net-cash settlement or other considerationin lieu of physical settlement in shares of registered Common Stock. While the Common Stock underlying the Warrant is currentlyon an effective registration statement, in the event that the Common Stock underlying the Warrant is not (i) covered by an effectiveregistration statement or (ii) listed on a securities exchange or over the counter market, the Warrant may expire unexercised orunredeemed.

 

Please let us know if you any questionsor comments.

 

Regards,

 

Joel Brooks

 

Chief Financial Officer
#### Jaime TRAVERSO, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. William W. SONDERVAN; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-6197.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 22, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

Jaime Traverso, Sr., pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jaime Traverso, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s *118opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-ability and affirm the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Traverso v. Sondervan,*No. CA-99-2480-MJG (D.Md. Jan. 13, 2000); *see Artuz v. Bennett,*531 U.S. 4, 9, 121 S.Ct. 361, 364, 148 L.Ed.2d 213,- (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### STATE ex rel. Wyatt MORGAN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1201.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Morgan, Wyatt; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2007422F; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-110-KA.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1627 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1627

   To amend title II of the Social Security Act to require that the 
 Commissioner of Social Security notify individuals of improper use of 
                 their Social Security account numbers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2007

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title II of the Social Security Act to require that the 
 Commissioner of Social Security notify individuals of improper use of 
                 their Social Security account numbers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Number Fraudulent 
Use Notification Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS OF IMPROPER USE OF THEIR SOCIAL 
              SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS.

    Section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(I) In any case in which the Commissioner of Social Security 
determines that--
            ``(i) the Social Security account number in the wage 
        records provided to the Social Security Administration by an 
        employer with respect to any employee does not match relevant 
        records otherwise maintained by the Social Security 
        Administration, or
            ``(ii) the Social Security account number issued to an 
        individual has otherwise been used by any other person in a 
        fraudulent or otherwise illegal manner,
the Commissioner shall promptly provide the individual (if any) to whom 
such Social Security account number was issued with written 
notification of the Commissioner's determination.''.
                                 <all>
```
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00255- CV

Com bin ed F inan cial Holdi ngs Trus t, Appellant

v. The Coun ty of Bastrop, Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ASTROP CO UNTY, 21ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 11,9 30, H ONO RAB LE CHRI STO P HER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A ND U M O PI N I O N Appellant Combined Financ ial Holdings Trust , t h ro u gh its Trustee Wil liam H. Mikulin, filed its notice of appea l on April 24, 2015. On J une 16, 2015, the Clerk of this Court sent
a letter notifying appellant that the cler k’s rec ord was overdue and reque sting that it make pay ment
arr ang ements for the cler

k’s rec ord and submit a status r eport reg arding this a ppeal. The overdue

rec ord notice al s o i n fo rmed appellant that failure to make pay ment arr ang ements or respond to the Court’s notice by J une 26, 2015, could subject this appea l to dismiss al for want of prosec ution.

To date, the cler

k’s rec ord in t h i s cause has not been filed and the district cler k has not rec eived any pay

ment. Acc ording ly , we dism iss this appea l for want of pr o s ec u t i o n . S ee Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b), ( c).__________________________________________ J eff Rose, Chief J ustice Be fore Chief Justice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Jul y

10, 2015
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                        REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
                      REGARDING ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT

The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

With respect to registration statements (Nos. 333-15877, 333-51681, 333-79579,
333-102672 and 333-110110) on Form S-8 and the registration statements (No.
333-106615 and 333-115459) on Form S-3 of Northfield Laboratories Inc., we
acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 5, 2004
related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(C) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered to be a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
October 11, 2004
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel WILSON.

No. 2011-KK-0230.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 493-133; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0153.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


<PAGE>





                            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 amended  periodic  report on Form 10-K/A for the period
ended  December  31, 2004 (the  "Report")  of  Industrial  Minerals,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  I, Larry Van Tol,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  President  of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18USC ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

Dated: April 29, 2005

/s/Larry Van Tol
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Van Tol, Chief Executive Officer and President


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Geico, Appellant, v. Christopher MARRERO, a minor, Meera Dietz, as natural mother, and Bradley Dietz, Appellees.

No. 4D09-2154.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 7, 2010.

Amy S. Rubin of Fox Rothschild, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Kenneth D. Cooper, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Zupan v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*710 So.2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

GROSS, C.J., WARNER, J., and FISHMAN, JANE D., Associate Judge, concur.
858 A.2d 588

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Frank J. MARCONE, Respondent

No. 613 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 10, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2004, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated January 26, 2004, the Exceptions to the Report and Recommendations and Answer thereto, it is hereby

*651ORDERED that Frank J. Marcone be and he is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of five years, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule' 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Justice NIGRO dissents as he would disbar respondent.
#### Sharone KNIGHT, et al. v. Navarro A. EDWARDS, et al.

No. 2011-CC-0245.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re James, Latanya; Knight, Shan-nell; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, First City Court of New Orleans, No. 10-51228; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1474.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., concurs in the denial. The result is correct.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Roger Jerome JACKSON, Appellee.

No. 5D09-4382.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 25, 2011.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from a downward departure sentence imposed on Roger Jerome Jackson for the third degree felony charge of possession of cocaine. Jackson’s criminal punishment code score-sheet indicated a lowest permissible sentence of 28.95 months in prison. If a “trial court wishes to depart downwardly from the indicated guidelines sentence, it must announce or write its valid reasons for doing so.” *State v. Marshall,*869 So.2d 754, 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); *see also,*§ 921.0026(1), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“A downward departure from the lowest permissible sentence, as calculated according to the total sentence points pursuant to s. 921.0024, is prohibited unless there are circumstances or factors that reasonably justify the downward departure”).

At sentencing, the trial judge did not give any reason for the departure sentence but indicated that he would later supply a written order justifying it. When the judge later failed to supply any written departure reasons, the State appealed. Jackson properly concedes error. Because the trial court had already promised Jackson a departure sentence prior to Jackson’s entry of a plea in this case, Jackson should be given an option of withdrawing his plea if the court now concludes that no *683valid basis for departure exists. *See Marshall.*Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court either justify any departure sentence with valid reasons for departure, or give Jackson an opportunity to withdraw his plea prior to imposition of a guidelines sentence. *Id.*

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                REGARDING INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

With respect to registration statements of Form S-8 of Northfield Laboratories
Inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated March
21, 2001 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 13, 2001
#### Miriam Stagner UPCHURCH, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

No. 2011-C-0363.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 510,794-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,761-CA.

Denied.
#### Douglas SCHYSM v. Joseph and Kim BOYD, Penny Towne, and Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office of Highways.

No. 2010-C-2113.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re: Schysm, Douglas; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 04-42; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-336-CA.

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of MakeMusic! Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for thequarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, William R. Wolff, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

November 4, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/  William R. Wolff |                     |
|--------|-----------------------|--------------------------|
|   |                  | Chief  Executive Officer |
|        |                       |                          |  |

 

----