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

No. 2D09-3036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 17, 2010.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Edward Lee Giles, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tonja Rene Vickers, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Nicholas Michael Roberts appeals his judgments and sentences for two counts of improper exhibition of a firearm. We affirm one judgment and sentence but order that the second judgment and sentence be vacated on remand because it violates double jeopardy.

Mr. Roberts was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. He was working as a taxi driver when he got into a dispute with two men who were in a pickup truck that was parked near his taxi. He told the men to leave and pointed a firearm at them, stating that he could shoot them.

When the case was submitted to the jury, the misdemeanor offense of improper exhibition' of a firearm was listed as a lesser offense for each aggravated assault. The jury found Mr. Roberts guilty of improper exhibition of a firearm as a lesser offense for both counts. The trial court entered judgments for both convictions and sentenced Mr. Roberts to concurrent terms of probation.

Section 790.10, Florida Statutes (2007), prohibits the exhibition of a firearm “in the presence of one or more persons.” Accordingly, although Mr. Roberts could have been convicted of two aggravated assaults if the jury had fully accepted the State’s case, *see, e.g., Mauldin v. State,*9 So.3d 25, 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), the verdict for the lesser-included offense permits only a single conviction. *See Bass v. State,*739 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); *Canion v. State,*661 So.2d 931, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Therefore, we reverse the judgment and sentence for the second count of improper exhibition of a firearm and remand for the trial court to vacate the conviction.

*381Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

I n the interest of A

. E

. V

. , Y.A.O., and * From the 446 th District Court

A.M.O., children, of Ector County,

Trial Court No. E

- 18

- 033

- PC

.

No. 1 1

- 1 9

- 00 268

- CV * February 13 , 20 20

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey

, C. J.,

Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
COA# 08-13-00139-CR

Daren Marcus Bell v. The

STYLE: State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM

Publish: NO

DATE: 1/30/15

274-/S;FILE COPY

OFFENSE: 22.02

COUNTY: Tarrant

TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 2

TC CASE #: 1304432R

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Daren Marcus Bell v. The

STYLE: of Texas

i State

Petitioi

CCA IS:

CCA#: 2.7^

i CCA Disposition:

-IS

PRO SE

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN ' DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

date: Ot/ay/jwr

JUDGE: /£t £*lc4^

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:
#### Erica KAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D09-5175.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 22, 2010.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Terry P. Roberts, Special Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Albert J. Sauline, Assistant State Attorney, Panama City, for Appellee.

*153PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. *See Yerrick v. State,*979 So.2d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“Florida law provides that to prove the crime of grand theft, the State must establish the defendant had the requisite criminal intent at the time of the taking.”); *Benitez v. State,*852 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); *Crawford v. State,*453 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

BENTON, C.J., THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
7 t 7 tN. 7 "1 7 7 , IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 21-0001

IN RE: DISQUALIFICATION/SUBSTITION OF DISTRICT COURT JUDGES 

# FILED SEP 3 0 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Coun State of Montana ORDER

The State ofMontana filed this morning a motion and affidavit to disqualify Judge Gregory R.Toddpursuantto § 3-1-805,MCA, fromproceedingany further in Yellowstone County Cause No. DV 21-00999. Since the filing ofthe State's motion, Judge Todd has issued an order of disqualification and a new judge has assumed jurisdiction of the underlying case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the State's motion for disqualification is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to provide notice ofthis Order to counsel for the State, to all counsel ofrecord in Yellowstone County Cause No. DV-21-00999, and to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, the Hon. Michael G. Moses, presiding. Dated this 30th day ofSeptember, 2021. • /Pic ing ChiefJustice 09/30/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0001
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 September 30, 2005, 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: October 26, 2005                  /s/ Paul R. Killpack
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Paul R. Killpack
                                        Chief Financial Officer
June 21, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

QUINCY JEJUAN NEELYS, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00632-CR,

NO. 14-11-00639-CR

 V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED, the appellant pay all costs expended in this appeal, 

and that this decision be certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920941
<NAME> RED ROOF INNS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                           7,439
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,548
<INVENTORY>                                     12,233
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,380
<PP&E>                                         970,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 974,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,572
<BONDS>                                        521,553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           286
<OTHER-SE>                                     363,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   974,513
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,651
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                       871
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jason P. PORCHE.

No. 2010-K-0942.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re: Porche, Jason P.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 470-848; to the *396Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-1418.

Denied.
ex10_1.htm


     

     

     

    
      

      

    

     

    Exhibit
10.1

     

    


    Second
Amendment

    To
the

    Franklin
Covey Co.

    2004
Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan

    


    On
November 7, 2008, the Board of Directors adopted a resolution to amend sections
2.09 and 13 of the 2004 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan in their
entirety to read as follows:

    


    2.09  Date
of Grant.

    


    The date
an Award is granted to an Eligible Director.  The Date of Grant with
respect to Basic Annual Awards will be the date of the Annual Shareholder
Meeting of each year during the life of the Plan and the Date of Grant for any
Supplemental Grant, shall be a date determined by the board.  If the
New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) is not open on such date, the Date of Grant
will be the next subsequent day on which the NYSE is open.

    


    13.  Annual
Grant of Restricted Stock.

    


    The
Company will award to each director, on the date of the Annual Shareholder
Meeting of each year, a number of Restricted Shares having an aggregate fair
market value of $40,000, rounded up to the nearest whole share.
#### Leroy NETTLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D09-2599.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 10, 2010.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See State v. McCloud, 577*So.2d 939 (Fla.1991).

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
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



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, 2005 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 operation of NSTAR.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                 
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 17, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    JAMES J. JUDGE           
|                         |  |  |  | James J. Judge                  
|                         |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Treasurer
|                         |  |  |  | and Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11551 Conference Calendar

RICHARD TERRANCE AYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, TDCJ; DEBRA LILES, Assistant Director Operational Review of TDCJ-ID; STANLEY WILSON, Chaplain, TDCJ Robertson Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-1-BA

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Richard Terrance Ayers, Texas prisoner # 468361, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action against James Collins, the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and Deborah Liles, the Assistant Director for Operational Review, in their individual capacities. He argues that he was deprived of food that conformed to the requirements of the Hindu religion andNo. 96-11551 -2- that met nutritional standards equal to those of inmates who were members of the Christian faith. We have reviewed the record and the brief and hold that the magistrate judge did not err. Although Ayers has alleged personal involvement by Collins and Liles, the facts presented at the hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179, 182 (5th Cir. 1985), do not bear out his allegations. Ayers alleged that Collins changed the food policy; however, he did not allege facts that indicate that the change in policy was detrimental. He stated that he could request “vegetables only” in the food line and that his food was delivered to his cell when he was in lockdown. Ayers has not established a causal connection between the policy, as he describes it, and the limited instances during his stay in lockdown in which there was fault with his meal. See Thompkins v. Belt , 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987). As to Liles, Ayers has not alleged facts to support a causal connection between the policy governing the security of inmates in lockdown and the alleged First Amendment violation. Id

. AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24628]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Record of Decision for the Base Closure and Realignment Beddown 
and Flight Operations of Remotely Piloted Aircraft at Grand Forks Air 
Force Base (AFB), ND

ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: On September 17, 2010, the United States Air Force signed the 
ROD for the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC 2005) directed 
Beddown and Flight Operations of Remotely Piloted Aircraft at Grand 
Forks AFB, North Dakota. The ROD states the Air Force decision to 
implement the mitigated preferred alternative (Alternative C--Southern 
Restricted Area Creation, Ground-Based Improvements and Personnel 
Changes--Airspace Scenario 2).
    The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the BRAC Beddown and Flight 
Operations of Remotely Piloted Aircraft at Grand Forks AFB, North 
Dakota, inputs from the public and regulatory agencies, and other 
relevant factors. The Final EIS was made available to the public on 
July 23, 2010 through a NOA in the Federal Register (Volume 75, Number 
141, Page 43161) with a wait period that ended on August 23, 2010. The 
ROD documents only the decision of the Air Force with respect to the 
proposed Air Force actions analyzed in the Final EIS. Authority: This 
NOA is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1506.6) 
implementing the provisions of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et 
seq.) and the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) 
(32 CFR 989.21(b) and 989.24(b)(7))

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Doug Allbright, HQ AMC/A7PI, 507 
Symington Drive, Scott AFB, IL. 62225 Phone (618) 229-0841, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#701511021c5e111c1c1202191718043003131f04045e11165e1d191c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a6f6b7866246b66666878636d627e4a7969657e7e246b6c24676366">[email protected]</span></a>. 20762, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#763718021e19180f3b581b1f02151e131a1a360613180217111918581710581b1f1a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e4f607a66616077432063677a6d666b62624e7e6b607a6f696160206f6820636762">[email protected]</span></a>.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-24628 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### A. Kyle v. John A. Becton.

(No. 1591.)

November 14, 1883.

Appeal from Hopkins County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 49. *Appeal bond in justice's court; time of filing.*The appeal bond was filed more than ten days after the rendition of the judgment in justice’s court, but was filed within ten days from the date of the judgment overruling a motion for a new trial. *Held,*that the bond was filed in time, and the county court erred in dismissing the appeal upon the ground that the bond was not filed in time. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 90, 1310.]

Reversed and remanded.
856 A.2d 41

#### In the Matter of Andrew C. ABRAMS.

No. 927 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 29, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2004, a Rule having been entered by this Court on May 28, 2004, pursuant to Rule 214(d)(1), Pa.R.D.E., directing Andrew C. Abrams to show cause why he should not be placed on temporary suspension and no response thereto having been filed, it is hereby

ORDERED that Andrew C. Abrams is placed on temporary suspension pursuant to Rule 214(d)(2), Pa.R.D.E., and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.; .and the matter is referred to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 214(f)(1), Pa.R.D.E.
[Cite as State v. Johnson , 2014-Ohio-1751.]

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Sentence Vacated, and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 25, 2014

Terry Nester , Acting City Solicitor, Charles Rubenstein , City Prosecutor, and Eric Cook , Assistant City Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
David Hoffman , for Defendant-Appellant.

Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar



### . 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. JOSHUA JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C-130435 TRIAL NO. 12CRB-29399
O P I N I O N.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

2 D INKELACKER , Judge. 

### {¶1} In one assignment of error, defendant-appellant Joshua Johnson claims that the trial court improperly modified his sentence after it had been imposed. The state concedes the error, and we agree. 

### {¶2} On June 19, 2013, Johnson was sentenced to 180 days in jail for aggravated menacing. The trial court im posed 90 days, suspen ded the remainder, and placed him on one year of community control. The trial court ordered Johnson
to be evaluated while he was in custody to determin e if he was amenable to substance-abuse treatment. On June 28, Jo hnson was returned to court. The trial court then resentenced him to 180 days in ja il, with the expectatio n that he would be participating in a treatment program. On July 8, the trial court denied Johnson’s motion to mitigate his sentence, finding that he had not complied with treatment
recommendations. 

### {¶3} Johnson argues that once he had been sentenced on June 19, the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify the sentence. We agree. Generally, Ohio trial courts lack the authority to reconsider their own valid final judgments in criminal cases. State
v. Gilbert , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-110382, 2013-Ohio-238, ¶ 5, citing State v. Raber , 134 Ohio St.3d 350, 2012-Ohio-5636, 982 N.E.2d 684, paragraph one of the syllabus.
Once the trial court sentence d Johnson and that entry was journalized, that judgment
became final. Id. At that point, the trial court lo st jurisdiction to modify Johnson’s

sentence.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

3 

### {¶4} Since the trial court improperly modified Johnson’s sentence after it had become final, we sustain Johnson’s sole assignment of error. We vacate Johnson’s
sentence and remand this cause to the tria l court to reinstate the original sentence entered on June 19. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects. Judgment affirmed in part, sentence vacated, and cause remanded.

C UNNINGHAM , P.J. , and H ILDEBRANDT , J. , concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41170

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARCADIO GARCIA-CARDOZA, also known as Rene Garcia-Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-904-1

Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arcadio GarciaCardoza (Garcia) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v.

Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has filed a response. We have

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein,

as well as Garcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-41170 Document: 00512278539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
No. 12-41170

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-41170 Document: 00512278539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
650 A.2d 334

#### IN THE MATTER OF PHILLIP F. GUIDONE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

December 1, 1994.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that PHILLIP F. GUIDONE of CHESTER, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1966, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective August 20, 1994, by Order of this Court dated July 29, 1994, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately.