alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

v. ) ID No. 2105014269

)

DAVID MITCHELL, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 10th day of April, 2024, upon consideration of Defendant David 

Mitchell’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Sentence Modification made pursuant to 

Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) (the “Motion”),1the sentence 

imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. On July 25, 2022, Defendant pled guilty to Drug Possession (Class E

Felony).2 On the same day, the Court sentenced him to five years of Level V 

supervision, suspended immediately for eighteen months of Level III supervision.3

2. On December 1, 2023, the Delaware Department of Correction (“DOC”)

stated that Defendant had violated probation by testing positive for nonprescribed 

controlled substances on November 13, 2023.4 On December 5, 2023, the Court 

found that Defendant had violated the terms of his probation, based on the December 

1 D.I. 33. Defendant does not specifically cite to Rule 35(b) in the Motion, but he asks this Court 

to modify the conditions of his probation.

2 D.I. 21.

3 D.I. 23.

4 D.I. 30.
2

1, 2023 violation report, and sentenced him to four years, nine months, and twentyeight days of Level V supervision, suspended for six months of Level III 

supervision.5

3. On January 11, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion, in which he asks 

the Court to modify the remaining portion of his sentence to Level II supervision.

In support, Defendant argues that his positive drug test result from November 13, 

2023, was a false positive due to interference from cold medication he had taken.

He adds that, during his probationary period, he has not missed a scheduled visit 

with his probation officer or violated his curfew.6

4. Rule 35(b) authorizes this Court to “reduce the fine or term or conditions 

of partial confinement or probation, at any time.” A motion to modify the terms of 

partial confinement or probation is not subject to the ninety-day limitation that 

applies to a motion for sentence reduction.7

5. On December 1, 2023, the DOC stated that Defendant appeared to be 

continuing to abuse nonprescribed controlled substances. When Defendant 

maintained that he had not used those substances, despite the positive drug test 

result, the DOC sent his urine to a toxicology laboratory for further testing. 

5 D.I. 32.

6 D.I. 33.

7

State v. Harmon, 2023 WL 7599111, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 14, 2023) (quoting State v. Bailey, 

2017 WL 8787504, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2017)).
3

Subsequently, the laboratory confirmed to the DOC that the drug test result was 

positive.8

6. The record does not provide support for Defendant’s assertion that his 

positive drug test result from November 13, 2023, was a false positive. Further,

Defendant has not provided any other information that would warrant a modification 

of the terms of his probation. Hence, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________________ ________

 Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

8 D.I. 30.
Exhibit 32

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 Water Pik Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Michael P. Hoopis and Victor C. Streufert, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:



|Date: March 8, 2004                                               |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|                                                                  |  |  | 
|/s/MICHAEL P. HOOPISMichael P. Hoopis Chief Executive Officer     |  |  | 
|                                                                  |  |  | 
|/s/VICTOR C. STREUFERTVictor C. Streufert Chief Financial Officer |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Hope Mangia, Respondent, v Minchew Santner & Brenner, LLP, et al., Appellants.

[788 NYS2d 618]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated February 24, 2004, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The allegations in the complaint, together with the additional eviden*666tiary material considered on the motion *(see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633 [1976]), stated a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice *(see Arnav Indus., Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner,*96 NY2d 300 [2001]; *Ashton v Scotman,*260 AD2d 332 [1999]; *Saferstein v Klein,*250 AD2d 831 [1998]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 3902

_____________________________
K EILON J OHNSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Terrance R. Ketchel , Judge

. February 22, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , N ORDBY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Keilon Johnson, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Daniel J. Kohl, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pediatric Services of America, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 10, 2005
SHAREHOLDER VOTING AGREEMENT AND PROXY

Reference  is made to  Agreement  and Plan of Merger  dated  August 7, 2000 (the
"Merger  Agreement") by and among Ebiz Enterprises,  Inc., a Nevada  corporation
("Ebiz"),  LinuxMall.com,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation ("LMI"), and Linux Mall
Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Ebiz
will acquire all of the outstanding capital stock and equity interests of LMI by
means of a merger (the "Merger") of LMI and Merger Sub.

In  consideration  of Ebiz  and LMI  entering  into  the  Merger  Agreement  and
consummating  the Merger,  and for other good and  valuable  consideration,  the
receipt of which is hereby  acknowledged,  the  undersigned,  for the benefit of
Ebiz and LMI, hereby confirms, covenants and agrees that with regard to the next
election of  Directors of Ebiz  following  the  consummation  of the Merger (the
"Election"),  the undersigned shall vote all Ebiz shares conferring the right to
vote held by the  undersigned  (the  "Shares")  in favor of such  persons as are
nominated  by the Board of  Directors  of Ebiz  pursuant  to Section  2.2 of the
Merger Agreement.

For the  purpose of voting  the Shares  with  respect to the  matters  described
herein,  the  undersigned  hereby  appoints,  effective as of the closing of the
Merger,  Jeffrey Rassas,  Stephen Herman,  David Shaw, and Ray Goshorn,  each as
proxy to vote all Shares  registered in the name of the undersigned at a meeting
of  shareholders  or by  written  consent,  with  all  power  possessed  by  the
undersigned,  including full power of substitution  thereof, for a period of two
years,  to be  irrevocable  during such  period.  This proxy is coupled  with an
interest.  The  certificate  evidencing  Shares  registered  in the  name of the
undersigned  shall  bear a legend  that the Shares  are  subject to this  voting
agreement  and proxy.  This voting  agreement  and proxy shall be binding on the
undersigned's successors and assigns.

                     [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
<PAGE>
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Shareholder Voting Agreement
and Proxy to be executed and delivered as of the date indicated below.



Dated October 5, 2000                   [SHAREHOLDER]

                                        /s/ Stephen C. Herman
                                        ----------------------------------------

                                        Name: Stephen C. Herman
                                              ----------------------------------
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OR RULE 15D-14(A)

PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I,
William D. Young, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Monogram Biosciences, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2007                    
|                                        
|/s/ William D. Young                    
|William D. Young Chief Executive
Officer
Robert Mirelson
Headquarters, Washington         Feb. 1, 2003
(Phone: 202/358-1600)            1:15 p.m. EST

RELEASE: 03-031

NASA PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCED

     A press conference by Space Shuttle Program Manager Ron 
Dittemore and Chief Flight Director Milt Heflin will take 
place from NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, beginning 
at 3 p.m. EST today.  The briefing will be carried on NASA 
TV with two-way question and answer capability from other 
agency centers.

A Space Shuttle contingency was declared earlier this 
morning in Mission Control when communication was lost with 
the Space Shuttle Columbia during its return to Earth 
following a 16-day mission.

Communication and tracking of the shuttle was lost at 9 a.m. 
at an altitude of about 203,000 feet above north central 
Texas while traveling approximately 12,500 miles per hour 
(Mach 18).  No communication and tracking information was 
received in Mission Control after that time.

Flight controllers in Mission Control immediately began the 
process of securing all information, notes and data 
pertinent to today's reentry andlanding.

NASA TV is on AMC-2, Transponder 9C, vertical polarization 
at 85 degrees West longitude, 3880 MHz, with audio at 6.8 
MHz.

More information will be released as it becomes available. 
NASA information is available on the Internet at: 

www.nasa.gov


-end-
#### W. H. Bandy *v.*Edward Roberts’ Admrs.

Action Against two Defendants — Summons served on One — Judgment.

In an action against two defendant, where one of them resided within the county, and upon whom personal service is had, the return upon the other summons being “not found,” a judgment that the plaintiff “recover” of the defendant etcl, is held to apply to the defendant upon whom the summons was served and not to both defendants.

Same — Continuance.

Though no order was made by the court as to the other defendant, not then served with process, the action would stand continued by operation of law.

APPEAL PROM MEADE CIRCUIT COUET.

October 12, 1868.

Opinion op the Oouet by

Judge Petebs:

Two objections urged, against the judgment only, need be noticed.' Tbe action was brought in the Meade circuit court by appellees against appellant, and one J. W. Brown on their joint note, the summons against both defendants was executed on Brown alone, and returned as to appellant not found. At' the October term, 1866, of said court, a judgment was. rendered as follows: “The defendant having been duly summoned, and failing to answer, it is adjudged by the court that the plaintiff recover *of the defendant*one hundred and one dollars and ninety cents, the amount claimed in the petition” with interest and costs, etc. And no order made continuing the case against the other defendant.

Afterwards a summons was issued directed to the sheriff, of Breckinridge county, and by him executed on appellant on the 18th of April, 1867. And at the following September term of the Meade circuit court,- judgment was rendered against appellant by default.

The defendant Brown resided in Meade county, when the action was brought and the summons served on Mm there, the judgment rendered against the defendant, must be understood to apply to Brown upon whom the summons was served, especially as there is nothing in the judgment or any entry to repel that *569conclusion. *Clark,*&c., *vs. Finnell, 16 B. Mon, 329-334. Kountz vs. Brown,*&c., Ib, 555.

*Coale, for appellant.*

*Walker, for appellee.*

No order was made as to appellant on whom the summons had not been served; but the action was still pending against him, the court having rendered judgment against Brown, had the power and should have continued the action against appellant, and although no order seems to have been made to that effect, still the action stood continued by operation of law. *Sec. 108 and 899 Civ. Co., and Patton vs. Shanklin 14. B. Mon. 15.*

No error, therefore, prejudicial to appellant occurred in the proceedings or judgment. Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, Paul Kim, Chief FinancialOfficer of JNI Corporation, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, basedon my knowledge:

 

(1) the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of JNI Corporation, to which this certification is attachedas an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) theinformation contained in the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-K of JNICorporation, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit, fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of JNI Corporation.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JNI Corporationand will be retained by JNI Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: March  28, 2003 |   | /s/ PAUL KIM             |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                   |   | Paul Kim                 |
|                   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1462

JACQUELINE PIDANICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PAUL C. LAROSA, III, individually and in his official capacity; CHRIS 

SANKOWSKI, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:18-cv-01534-DCN-MGB)

Submitted: January 13, 2020 Decided: January 30, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacqueline Pidanick, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, SENN LEGAL, LLC, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jacqueline Pidanick appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Pidanick’s amended complaint alleging 

constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) and related claims. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Pidanick v. LaRosa, No. 9:18-cv-01534-DCN-MGB (D.S.C. 

Apr. 22, 2019). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2317 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2317

                   To limit the royalty on soda ash.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 8, 2004

  Mr. Thomas introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   To limit the royalty on soda ash.

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

SECTION 1. SODA ASH ROYALTIES.

    Section 24 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 262) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Sec. 24. That upon'' and inserting the 
        following:

``SEC. 24. LEASES.

    ``(a) In General.--Upon''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Soda Ash Royalties.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), during 
the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
subsection, the royalty rate applicable to any soda ash lease entered 
into under subsection (a) before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
this subsection shall be 2 percent.''.
                                 <all>
```
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00048

- CR Christopher Lee ALLNUT , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009CR8760 Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 16, 2011
DISMISSED The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on February 7, 2011 , thi s court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows04

- 11

- 00048

- CR

- 2

- defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (T ex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order); T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d); 37.1.
On March 3, 2011 , defendant’s appellate counsel filed a letter stating “this court has no choice but to dismiss the appeal.” In light of the record presented, we agree with defendant’s

co unsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.
PER CURIAM Do not publish
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2286 

To designate the Orville Wright Federal Building and the Wilbur Wright 

Federal Building in Washington, District of Columbia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2004 

Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mrs. DOLE, and Mr. DEWINE) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Orville Wright Federal Building and the 

Wilbur Wright Federal Building in Washington, District 

of Columbia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ORVILLE WRIGHT FEDERAL BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

5 800 Independence Avenue, Southwest, in Washington, 

6 District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Orville Wright Federal Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2 

•S 2286 IS 

1 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

2 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Orville 

3 Wright Federal Building’’. 

4 SEC. 2. WILBUR WRIGHT FEDERAL BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

6 600 Independence Avenue, Southwest, in Washington, 

7 District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as 

8 the ‘‘Wilbur Wright Federal Building’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

11 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

12 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Wilbur 

13 Wright Federal Building’’. 

Æ