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

No. 2D10-738.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 22, 2010.

Richard A. Morse, Jr., pro se.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Richard A. Morse, Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel his former counsel, the Public Defender for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, to provide free-of-charge copies of the crime scene photos from his trial. We hold that the circuit court erred when it denied his petition.

“A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.” *Radford v. Brock,*914 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing *Smith v. State,*696 So.2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). Morse stated a facially sufficient claim establishing entitlement to free copies of the photos from his court-appointed counsel. *See id.; Potts v. State,*869 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that “transcripts that were prepared at public expense on behalf of an indigent defendant must be provided to the defendant without charge for copying”).

The circuit court held that Morse was not entitled to relief because his public defender inspected and copied the photographs during the discovery process. And since his attorney allowed him to see the photos, the court reasoned that Morse was not entitled to any additional rights outside of the discovery process. However, the fact that the State provided the photos to defense counsel, and counsel copied them, does not limit Morse’s entitlement to documents in his appointed counsel’s file. *See Smith v. State,*889 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“The petitioner is entitled to receive from his former counsel, at no cost to petitioner, any and all trial and hearing transcripts, copies of motions, *751and *any state discovery presented to defense counsel”)*(emphasis added).

We therefore reverse and remand for the postconviction court to grant the petition and to order Morse’s counsel to provide copies of the crime scene photographs to Morse free-of-charge.1

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ„ concur.

1

. Although the public defender's office expressed concerns about the graphic nature of the photos, we agree with the postconviction court and note that it is for the Department of Corrections to determine whether Morse should be restricted from receiving the pictures because they are prohibited contraband. *See Weeks v. Golden,*798 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (noting that in reversing the denial of petition for writ of mandamus seeking production of photographs of parts of the victim's body, "the Department of Corrections, in its supervisory capacity over inmates, may properly restrict appellant from receiving the photographs under the theory that they constitute prohibited contraband”).
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 of  Lafayette  Bancorporation  (No.  333-89851),  of our report,  dated
January  26,  2000,  on  the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Lafayette
Bancorporation  as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 1999, which report is incorporated by reference
in this Form 10-K.

                                            /s/ Crowe, Chisek and Company LLP
                                                Crowe, Chisek and Company LLP


March 20, 2000
Indianapolis, Indiana
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard L. SMITH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7110.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr., Bynum & Jenkins, Alexandria, VA, for appellant. Daniel Locke Bell, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Howard L. Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. We dismiss the appeal for lack of *251jurisdiction because Smith’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Criminal defendants are accorded ten days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, *see*Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court entered its order on the docket on March 23, 2000. Counsel filed Smith’s notice of appeal on April 12, 2000. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Sam EVANS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-0467.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 4, 2011.

Sam Evans, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

BENTON, C.J., PADOVANO and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 11.1:  Computation of Per Share Earnings


                                                                 Quarter ended
(dollar amounts in thousands except                                 March 31,
            per share)                                          ----------------

                                                                  1997      1996
                                                                  ----      ----

Net income - primary and fully diluted                          $1,415    $1,284
                                                                ======    ======

Weighted Average Common Stock
       and Common Equivalent Stock

Weighted average common stock outstanding                        2,565     2,703

Assumed conversion (as of the beginning of
        each period or upon issuance during a
        period) of stock options outstanding at
        the end of each period                                     172       120

Weighted average common stock outstanding -
               primary                                           2,737     2,823
                                                                 =====     =====

Weighted average common stock outstanding                        2,565     2,703

Assumed conversion (as of the beginning of
        each period or upon issuance during a
        period) of stock options outstanding at
        the end of each period                                     175       127

Weighted average common stock outstanding -
         fully diluted                                           2,740     2,830
                                                                 =====     =====

Earnings per Weighted Average Common Share                      $0.552    $0.475

Earnings per Common and Common Equivalent Share

               Primary                                          $0.517    $0.455
                                                                ------    ------

         Fully Diluted                                          $0.516    $0.454
                                                                ------    ------


Average  shares  outstanding  and per share data have been restated to reflect a
6-for-5 split effected in the form of a stock dividend paid on June 19, 1996
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
CV Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                            |  | 
|--------------------------- |  | 
|Dated:    November 12, 2003 |  | 
|                            |  |
**EXHIBIT31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, George C. Platt, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ViewCast.com, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand 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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;(b) [Intentionally omitted];(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:      August 14, 2007  /s/  George C. Platt   George C. Platt   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1737 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1737

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2007

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
  participate in the design, planning, and construction of permanent 
facilities for the GREAT project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired 
               waters in the area of Oxnard, California.

    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 ``City of Oxnard Water Recycling and 
Desalination Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, REUSE, AND TREATMENT 
              PROJECT.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (title XVI of Public Law 102-575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. __. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, REUSE, AND TREATMENT 
              PROJECT.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the City 
of Oxnard, California, may participate in the design, planning, and 
construction of Phase I permanent facilities for the GREAT project to 
reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired water in the area of Oxnard, 
California.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the costs of the project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
following:
            ``(1) The operations and maintenance of the project 
        described in subsection (a).
            ``(2) The construction, operations, and maintenance of the 
        visitor's center related to the project described in subsection 
        (a).
    ``(d) Sunset of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary to carry 
out any provisions of this section shall terminate 10 years after the 
date of the enactment of this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is 
amended by inserting after the last item the following:

``Sec. __. Oxnard, California, water reclamation, reuse, and treatment 
                            project.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
(logo)**Prudential**

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PrudentialMortgage Capital Company

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:**RBS 2014****‐****C21**

Period:**January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017(the “Reporting Period”)**

 

** **

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

I,Joni Brown‐Haas, in mycapacity as President and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certify with regard to the Company’s role as Sub‐Servicer undertheSub‐ServicingAgreement, (the “Agreement”) dated as of August 1, 2014, pertaining to theabove‐referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledall its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period, and

 

(iii)to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledits obligations under its sub‐servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)the Company has maintained an effective internal control system over theservicing of mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)the Company has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challengingthe status of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from theIRS or any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of 2/22/2018

 

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown‐Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
866 A.2d 981

#### DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING ASSOCIATES, ET AL., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MEDHAT EL-AMIR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

January 4, 2005.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, William C. McCormick, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Merix Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended February 24, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Merix Corporation.



|              |  |                                             
|------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|By:           |  | /s/ WILLIAM C. MCCORMICK                    
|              |  | William C. McCormick                        
|              |  | Chairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer
|              |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|             
|April 5, 2007
#### Ronald PHILLIPS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-0879.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 30, 2010.

Rehearing Denied May 12, 2010.

Ronald Phillips, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00383

- CR

STEVEN BREED v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On a ppeal from the 292nd District Court of Dallas County , Texas Trial Cause No. F12

- 51946

- V

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
June 11 , 2015.
#### A & B BOLT & SUPPLY, INC. v. David S. DAWES and Whitco Supply, L.L.C.

No. 2010-C-2563.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re A & B Bolt *&*Supply, Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 2003-3999; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 10-492, 09-1563.

Denied.
NO. 12-09-00125-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CHARLES BASS, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of

possession of a controlled substance. Sentence was imposed on February 12, 2009.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of

appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed orsuspended in open court unless

a motion for new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new

trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the sentence is imposed

or suspended in open court. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(2). Appellant did not file a motion for new trial.

Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before March 16, 2009. However,

Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until April 29, 2009 and did not file a motion for extension

of time to file his notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.3 (appellate court may extend time for filing notice of appeal if, within fifteen days

after deadline for filing notice of appeal, appellant files notice of appeal in trial court and motion

complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in appellate court).

On April 30, 2009, this court notified Appellant that there was no notice of appeal filed

within the time allowed by rule 26.2 and no timely motion for an extension of time as permitted by

rule 26.3. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before
2

May 11, 2009, the information received in this appeal was amended to show the jurisdiction of this

court. Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court or otherwise responded to its

April 30, 2009 notice. 

Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as

provided by Rule 26.3, the appeal must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly,

the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Opinion delivered May 13, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul R. Killpack, Chief Financial 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: July 28, 2004                     /s/ Paul R. Killpack
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Paul R. Killpack
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Gary J. NORRIS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2681.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Norris, Gary J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 255,976-001; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01000.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.