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

No. 2D10-4128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 2011.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Shaun Amodovar appeals from the summary denial of his “motion for enforcement *899of plea contract.” Because the postconviction court denied this facially insufficient motion on the merits without attaching documents to its order that would conclusively refute the claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Mr. Almodovar alleged that he entered a negotiated plea to several offenses and was sentenced to a three-year minimum mandatory sentence that he claims was to be served both concurrently and coterminously with a previously imposed four-year sentence on an Okeechobee County offense. The minimal record attached to his motion, consisting of the Acknowledgment and Waiver of Rights form, supports that allegation. He contends that the court has violated the agreement. The postconviction court denied the motion on the merits in a brief order, unaccompanied by attachments, and found from a review of the court file, transcript, and the Acknowledgment and Waiver of Rights form that it was not the intention of the court that Mr. Almodovar's sentence run coterminous with his sentence from Okeechobee County-

This court has observed on several occasions that the only avenue for enforcement of a plea agreement is through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. *See, e.g., Williams v. State,*51 So.3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); *Hettick v. State,*977 So.2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Had Mr. Almo-dovar’s motion been properly sworn, the postconviction court could have considered it as a timely rule 3.850 motion. *See Pifer v. State,*8 So.3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Since it was not sworn, however, we must reverse the postconviction court’s decision on the merits and remand for the court to dismiss the motion with leave for Mr. Al-modovar to file a facially sufficient claim within thirty days of the date of its order. *See Sweet v. State,*987 So.2d 747, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting that although the defendant was “only trying to correct his sentence, withdrawal of his plea is a potential consequence”).

In the event that Mr. Almodovar timely files an amended facially sufficient motion and the court again denies the claim, the court must attach sufficient record excerpts to its order to refute the claim, including — at a minimum — the judgment and sentencing documents, the written plea agreement, and the transcript of the plea hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61520-61521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24865]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541)

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated 
under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published 
regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 
of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of 
permit applications received.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to this permit application by November 4, 2010. 
This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit 
Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address 
or (703) 292-7405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as directed 
by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended 
by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has 
developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for 
various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and 
certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The 
regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic 
Specially Protected Areas.
    The applications received are as follows:

1. Permit Application No. 2011-019

Applicant: Robert W. Sanders, Department of Biology, 1900 N. 12th 
Street, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

[[Page 61521]]

Activity for Which Permit is Requested

    Take, Export from USA, Introduce non-indigenous species into 
Antarctica, and Import into USA. The applicant plans to collect water 
samples containing marine microbes (algae and protozoa) for use in 
experiments, for preservation for future examination, and for 
extraction of nucleic acids for diversity and abundance analyses back 
at the home institution. Live cultures of marine bacteria, previously 
collected from Antarctic waters, will be used in shipboard experiments 
to study feeding rates and transfer of nutrients in Antarctic protistan 
grazers. All remaining live cultures will be autoclaved before 
disposal.

Location

    Ross Sea region, Antarctica.

Dates

    January 1, 2011 to April 1, 2011.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-24865 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
A92A1711.

#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SILLS et al.

(430 SE2d 32)

Decided February 24, 1993 —

Reconsideration denied March 25, 1993

*Young, Clyatt, Turner, Thagard & Hoffman, F. Thomas Young, Sherry S. Harrell,*for appellant.

Pope, Chief Judge.

On September 9, 1990, plaintiff Barbara Sills’ husband was struck and killed by a truck. On June 21, 1991, plaintiff filed suit against defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seeking to recover, inter alia, attorney fees, punitive damages and a 25 percent penalty under former OCGA § 33-34-6. On February 4, 1992, State Farm filed a partial motion for summary judgment contending that the October 1, 1991 repeal of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (No-Fault Act), of which OCGA § 33-34-6 was a part, precluded plaintiff’s recovery of penalties, punitive damages and attorney fees under that section. The trial court denied State Farm’s motion, but granted a certificate of immediate review. This appeal follows our grant of State Farm’s application for interlocutory appeal.

“[T]his court has recently held that, in the absence of a contractual term in the policy providing for bad faith damages, there can be no post-repeal recovery of penalties, attorney fees, or punitive damages for an insurer’s bad faith failure to pay under the repealed No-Fault Act. See *Terry v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co.,*205 Ga. App. 224 (422 SE2d 212) (1992). Although the repeal is not retroactive with respect to coverage, it is retroactive with respect to available remedies. Id.” *Green v. State Farm Ins. Cos.,*206 Ga. App. 478, 481 (2) (426 SE2d 3) (1992). Consequently, the trial court’s denial of State Farm’s motion for partial summary judgment must be reversed. See also *Khosravi v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co.,*206 Ga. App. 481 (425 SE2d 905) (1992).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Corley, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.*

*185*Berrien L. Sutton,*for appellees.
Document

Exhibit 10.83

Schedule I
Performance Condition (ELT PSU Grant)


Performance Period:  Fiscal Years [ ] ([ ] through [ ])
A number of PSUs equal to a percentage of the Target Number of PSUs set forth on the Certificate of Grant will become Earned PSUs on the Determination Date based on the level of achievement of actual ROIC as set forth in the tables below with 100% of the Target Number of PSUs to be determined by achievement of actual ROIC.  Achievement of actual ROIC in between the performance levels set forth in the tables below will be pro-rated based on linear interpolation.


Target – ROIC During Last Fiscal Year of Performance Period:


						
	Actual ROIC During Last Fiscal Year of the Performance Period	Percentage of 100% of
Target Number of PSUs Earned
	Less than [ ]%	0%
	[ ]%	80%
	[ ]%	100%
	[ ]% or greater	120%




“Average Invested Capital” means the simple average of: (a) the total outstanding debt;  plus (b) stockholders equity; minus (c) the change in amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets or change in net intangibles and goodwill resulting from the application of purchase accounting to the 2007 going-private transaction, as reported for the second and third fiscal year-ends of the Performance Period.
 “ROIC” means: (x) operating income for the fiscal year ending [ ] excluding (a) the cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle, income or loss from disposed or discontinued operations and any gains or losses on disposed or discontinued operations, all as determined in accordance with United States GAAP; (b) any severance or other costs related to the Company’s major restructuring efforts; (c) any significant gains, losses or settlements that impact comparability between years; (d) any changes in the fair value of gas and diesel fuel derivatives; (e) the effects of changes in foreign currency translation rates from such rates used in the calculation of the ROIC target; (f) the impact of material acquisitions and divestitures that impact the comparability with the target and (g) the impact of any changes to tax rates or deductions or other changes to the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) from the Code as it existed during [ ], in any case that have a material impact on net income; divided by (y) Average Invested Capital.
868 A.2d 1008

#### IN THE MATTER OF C. AARON PATEL, A/K/A CHIRAYU A. PATEL, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 031521996).

March 9, 2005.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-261, concluding that C. AARON PATEL, *588a/k/a CHIRAYU A. PATEL, of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1996, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.15(a)(negligent misappropriation of trust funds) and *RPC*1.15(d) (failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements of *R.*1:21-6), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that C. AARON PATEL, a/k/a CHIRAYU A. PATEL is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                      6,664
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,450
<PP&E>                                          27,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,859
<BONDS>                                         87,129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,901
<SALES>                                         19,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,818
<CGS>                                           14,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,326
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (55)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32 

HMN FINANCIAL, INC.

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 HMN Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I, Michael McNeil, President of the Company, and Jon Eberle, Senior Vice President and CFO 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date:   November 10, 2003                                     /s/Michael McNeil         ___                                                        	Michael McNeil,                                                        President/Chief Executive Officer                                                        (Principal Executive Officer)

	                                                    	 /s/ Jon Eberle                 ___                                                    	Jon Eberle,                                                    Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer                                                    (Principal Financial Officer)
#### THE STATE v. WALKER, Appellant.

Division Two,

February 3, 1903.

No Bill of Exceptions: ajtiemance. Where no bill of exceptions was filed there is nothing before the appellate court for review but the . record proper, and if no error appears therein the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court. — Hora. *J. W. Alexander,*Judge.

*561Affirmed.

*Joe Barton*and P. *D. Kitt*for appellant.

*Edward C. Crow,*Attorney-General, and *Sam B. Jeffries,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

No bill of exceptions has been filed in this case and we have nothing except the record to pass upon. Defendant was indicted upon the charge of robbery committed against one John P. Cox, on April 18, 1901, at Livingston county, Missouri. The amount of money taken from the prosecuting witness is charged in the indictment as being one dollar and seventy cents, lawful money of the United States. The indictment is in the usual form and therefore not subject to objection. Kelley’s Criminal Law, sec. 626; State v. Dudley, 36 Mo. 372; State v. Jenkins, 36 Mo. 371; State v. Davidson, 38 Mo. 374; State v. Wilcox, 38 Mo. 370. While it has always been necessary to aver that the property was taken with violence, yet the element of fear is of modern, introduction and stands in the place of violence. 2 East P. C., 783; State v. Howerton, 59 Mo. 91.

GANTT, P. J.

At the regular May term, 1901, of the Livingston Circuit Court, the defendant was indicted for robbery of John P. Cox. The indictment is drawn under section 1893, Revised Statutes 1899,- and properly charges robbery in the first degree. The jury convicted the defendant and assessed his punishment at five years in the penitentiary. The defendant was sentenced in accordance with the verdict at the May term, 1901, and leave was given him to file a bill of exceptions by the first day of the September term, and appeal was granted to this court. No bill of exceptions was filed and the cause is here on the record proper alone. As already said the indictment was sufficient and all the other steps were taken in the due or orderly course.

*562Nor error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT NO. 3

                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 of Intrawest Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joe S. Houssian, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
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 Corporation.

Dated: September 20, 2005

                                       By: /s/ JOE S. HOUSSIAN
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Joe S. Houssian
                                           Title: President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer



      In connection with the annual report of Intrawest Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John E. Currie, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Corporation, 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 Corporation.

Dated: September 20, 2005

                                       By: /s/ JOHN E. CURRIE
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  John E. Currie
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Oreste GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D11-263.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 27, 2011.

Oreste Garcia, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN and CORTIÑAS, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Hernandez v. State,*61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 5044-015]

On September 13, 2010, Avondale Mills Inc. (transferor) and Augusta Canal Authority (transferee) filed an application for transfer of license for the Sibley Mill Project No. 5044, located on the Augusta Canal in the City of Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia.

Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Sibley Mill Project from transferor to transferee.

*Applicants' Contact:*                     Alan W. Stuart, Kleinschmidt Associates, 204 Caughman Farm Lane, Suite 301, Lexington, SC 20972, (803) 462-5620.                

*FERC Contact:*                     Kim Carter (202) 502-6486.                

                    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet.                     *See*18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling.asp.*                     Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​ecomment.asp.*                     You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original plus seven copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​elibrary.asp.*                     Enter the docket number (P-5044) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-24980 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1549, -1550

ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD.,

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

KALI LABORATORIES, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.,

and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

Defendants,

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in case nos.

04-CV-886 and 06-CV-3533, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.

ON MOTION

Before MOORE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Apotex, Inc.'s motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in

support of the appellees,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.
FOR THE COURT

MAR 2 0 2009

Date

cc:	Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Esq.

John L. North, Esq.

James F. Hurst, Esq.

Arnold B. Calmann, Esq.

Steven E. Feldman, Esq.

s19

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly

Clerk	

FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

MAR 2 0 2009

JIUV HORSALY

CLERK

2008-1549, -1550	2