alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued April 21, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01 - 15 - 00111 - CV

——————————— LAURIE HART , Appella nt V. ROBERT WAYNE HART , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 247th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1999 - 19162

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Laurie Hart , ha s neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041 (West 2013), § 101.0411 (West Supp. 2014); Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme2 Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- Dist rict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127 (Tex. Aug. 16, 2013). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 42.3(c). We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fee s. We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. M.M., a Child, Appellee.

No. 5D10-3856.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 22, 2011.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Roller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Robert E. Wildridge, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

MONACO, J.

The State appeals the trial court’s determination that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a restitution order because more than sixty days had passed from the dispo*1162sition. The appellee, M.M., properly and admirably concedes error. We reverse.

M.M. was charged by petition for delinquency with one count of burglary of a dwelling and one count of criminal mischief. M.M. entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead no contest to burglary of a dwelling, in return for the State dropping the criminal mischief count. The plea agreement also provided that M.M. was to be ordered to pay restitution and that the amount was to be reserved. At the plea hearing the trial court accepted the plea, and in accordance with the agreement ordered M.M. to pay restitution, reserving for later determination the amount of restitution. After 60 days elapsed the trial court erroneously held that it no longer had jurisdiction to order the restitution amount.

Our supreme court has held that if restitution is ordered within sixty days of sentencing, a determination of the amount to be paid can be made beyond the sixty-day period. *See State v. Sanderson,*625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); *see also L.O. v. State,*718 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla.1998) (reaffirming holding in *Sanderson); Ridley v. State,*890 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (explaining that if a court orders restitution at sentencing or within sixty days thereafter, the court can reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period). These cases require reversal of the trial court’s ruling.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for imposition of a restitution amount.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe three months ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, John W. Paulson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        May 3, 2007    /s/ John W. Paulson   John W. Paulson, Chief Executive Officer
```

WINMAX TRADING GROUP, INC.
Suite 205, 5920 Macleod Tr. S.
Calgary, Alberta T2H 0K2
Telephone: (403) 777-1800
Fascimile: (403) 668-5124

June 18, 2001

Thomas Meeks
10444 Corporate Drive, Suite L
Redlands, CA  92374
Tel: (909) 796-3446
Fax: (909) 796-7829

Dear Sir:
                      Re: Purchase Mining Interests

Further to our recent telephone conversations and our correspondence of June
11th, 2001 we would confirm that we have reached an Agreement respecting our
purchase of a portion of your mining interests in the Saskatchewan Diamond
Mining Properties.

The purchase price for our acquisition is Twenty Thousand (US$20,000.00)
Dollars. For this payment to you Winmax will receive 25% "tenant in common
interest" in all of the properties (surface and mineral) together with all
licenses, approvals and permits, etc. The remaining 75% will remain owned by
either/or you and your partner, Michael Peytrek.

This purchase is without conditions and is final.

The closing date on this transaction will be July 1st, 2001.

We would advise that we have retained Mr. John Casuga to represent us in this
matter. Mr. Casuga may be reached at 1-403-667-5308. We will have Mr. Casuga
contact you upon his return from vacation on Thursday, June 21st, 2001 in order
for him to complete the required documents on our behalf.

Please execute where noted below signifying your agreement with the foregone and
provide us with a copy of this correspondence with your agreement executed
thereon at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours truly,

Gerald B. Sklar
President
Winmax Trading Group, Inc.
/s/ Gerald B. Sklar

Accepted this 18 day of June, 2001

/s/ Thomas Meeks
Thomas Meeks
```
Exhibit 23.3











Consent Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



Board of Directors and Stockholders

Shore Bancshares, Inc.



We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-143002, 333-195527, 333-167762,
333-157141 and 333-206110) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-105159, 333-134955 and 333-211736) of Shore Bancshares, Inc., of our report
dated March 11, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Shore Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2015, which report appears in Shore Bancshares, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, for the year ended December 31,
2017.







/s/ Stegman & Company



Baltimore, Maryland

April 9, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61464-61465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24939]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-37-001]


Washington 10 Storage Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 24, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2010, Washington 10 Storage 
Corporation, in compliance with the Commission's September 17, 2010 
Letter Order issued in Docket No. PR10-37-000,\1\ filed a revised 
Statement of Operating Conditions reflecting an effective date of June 
18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Washington 10 Storage Corporation, Docket No. PR10-37-
000, (September 17, 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

[[Page 61465]]

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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8acccfd8c9c5e4e6e3e4efd9fffafae5f8fecaeceff8e9a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5a3a0b7a6aa8b898c8b80b69095958a9791a583809786cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>, 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. 2010-24939 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lance WOODWARD.

No. 2009-KH-2396.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 10, 2010.

PER CURIAM.1

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. The record shows that the contempt adju*148dication did not comply with La.C.Cr.P. art. 22, which provides: “A person who has committed a direct contempt of court may be found guilty and punished therefor by the court without any trial, after affording him an opportunity to be heard orally by way of defense or mitigation.” *See also In re Judge Sassone,*2007-0651 (La.6/29/07), 959 So.2d 859; *State v. Williams,*97-1135 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/27/98), 714 So.2d 258. Here, relator was not afforded an opportunity to be heard orally by way of defense or mitigation. Therefore, the finding of direct contempt is reversed, and relator’s sentence of six months imprisonment for contempt is vacated. Relator’s request for a stay is rendered moot.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would deny.

1

. Kimball, C.J., not participating.
#### LOUISIANA HEALTHCARE CONNECTIONS, INC., et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS.

No. 2011-CC-2445.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 5, 2011.

In re Amerigroup Louisiana Inc.; Louisiana Healthcare Connections Inc.; United Healthcare of Louisiana Inc.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 603,-910, 603,915, 603,911; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2011 CW 1820, 2011 CW 1821, 2011 CW 1822, 2011 CW 1823.

Granted for the sole purpose of remanding the case to the court of appeal for reconsideration of its judgment denying the stay in light of this court’s judgments of November 2, 2011, and November 4, 2011. In all other respects, the application is denied.

JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ., would deny.
#### W. S. Robinson & Co. v. Bogardus & Schulte.

(No. 3324.)

June 1, 1885.

Appeal from Wichita County.

Opinion by

Walker, P. J.

§ 828. *Account sworn to is prima facie evidence; items of, need not be entered in account booh; case stated.*Appellants sued appellees upon a promissory note for $358.62. Appellees pleaded that said note was without consideration, and obtained from them by means of fraudulent representation. They also pleaded a counterclaim in the form of an account verified by affidavit in accordance with the statute. Verdict and judgment for appellees for the amount of their counterclaim and costs. *Held:*The account of appellees, being sworn to in accordance with the statute, was *prima facie*evidence of its correctness. The fact that the items of said account had not been entered in an account book did not destroy or affect the quality of such evidence. The law imposes no such condition upon the validity of a sworn account filed in a suit under, the statute as to require that the entries be made in account books at any particular time, or that they should be made in such books at any time.

§ 829. *Charge; if not full enough, special instructions should be requested.*The charge of the court, as far as it stated the law applicable to the case, was clear, accurate and comprehensive. If the plaintiffs desired any farther instructions as to the law applicable to any particular phase of the case, they should have requested the instructions desired, and not having done so, this court will not reverse the judgment because the charge did not embrace such matters as were omitted.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.1

|Certification
ofCentral Coast BancorpPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2004



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Central Coast Bancorp, a California corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify that:


1. The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
(the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|       |  |                 
|------ |  | ----------------
|Dated: |  | November 2, 2004
|       |  |                 
|       |  |                 
|      
|Dated: |  | November 2, 2004
|       |  |                 
|       |  |                 
|       |  |                 

|A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Central Coast Bancorp and will be retained by Central Coast Bancorp
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Gabriel RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D09-623.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 25, 2009.

Gabriel Rodriguez, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

LAGOA, Judge.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record, *see*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).

Appellant asserts that in his probation violation case he is entitled to credit for time served. The trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion, however, fails to *834attach any records refuting appellant’s allegation. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to the credit for time served.

For the reasons stated, we reverse the denial of credit for time served and remand for further proceedings on that claim. We affirm, however, the denial of the defendant’s remaining claims without discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6591

KHAMMESHERMA SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LIEUTENANT SIMON; OFFICER ISSACS,

Defendants - Appellees, 

and

UNKNOWN INMATE 1; UNKNOWN INMATE 2 (FI:B), 

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (6:22-cv-02592-RMG)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 3, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khammesherma Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6591 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Khammesherma Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of 

appeal was not timely filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on February 24, 2023. Smith filed the notice of 

appeal on June 9, 2023.

*

 Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain 

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

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.

DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date Smith could have delivered the notice to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6591 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the MASHBURN MARITAL TRUSTS.

No. 2011-C-0818.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Mashburn, Don; Mashburn, Joseph P.; Mashburn, Joseph Patón “Pat”; Mashburn, Richard Anthony; —Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 2001-003363, 71,685; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1819.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            7226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7686
<ALLOWANCES>                                        88
<INVENTORY>                                       1539
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 17380
<PP&E>                                           13230
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   30989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8046
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                       18852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     30989
<SALES>                                          11713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11713
<CGS>                                             3148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  9427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (93)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (407)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (146)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (261)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>