alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason S. Gassner, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 372]—

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), rendered May 10, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

*1025In June 2011, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in third degree in satisfaction of a three-count indictment. While the plea agreement discussions originally contemplated a sentence of five years of probation, after the Probation Department instead recommended a conditional discharge, in August 2011, the People revised their recommendation accordingly. Defendant, represented by counsel, agreed and signed a waiver of the right to appeal, as well as an order and conditions of conditional discharge, which provided that defendant was to “observe and obey” all laws. County Court then sentenced him to, among other things, a conditional discharge of three years.

Subsequently, in December 2011, the People filed a violation of conditional discharge due to defendant being charged with new crimes. Defendant admitted violating the terms of the conditional discharge. Defense counsel requested that defendant be sentenced to a period of probation in accordance with a February 2012 presentence investigation report. County Court noted that this report did not include further new charges and ultimately revoked the conditional discharge and resentenced defendant to a prison term of 1 to 3 years with respect to the burglary in the third degree conviction. This appeal ensued.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant upon the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. We discern at least one issue of arguable merit pertaining to the severity of the sentence *(see People v Wasley,*100 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2012]). Accordingly, without passing judgment upon the ultimate merit of this issue, we grant counsel’s application and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose *(see People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]; *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Peters, PJ., Rose, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.
UNITEDSTATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington,D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission File Number 0-10304

 

 

ANGELES PARTNERS X

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DEC 02, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-10578 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00349-JSM-TGW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

llllllllll lllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PASCUAL GARNICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(December 2, 2010)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Daniel L. Castillo, appointed counsel for Pascual Garnica in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire

record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is

correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable

issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Garnica’s

conviction and sentence under Count One are AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit 32.1

                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 Genesis Technology Group, Inc.
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary Wolfson, Chief
Executive 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 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.

January 16, 2007

/S/ Gary Wolfson
----------------
Gary Wolfson,
Chief Executive Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Genesis Technology Group, Inc. and will be retained by Genesis
Technology Group, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed August 11, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0013

Lower Tribunal Nos. 18-192 AP, 18-337 AP, 18-370 AP, 17-11528 SP, 

18-194 AP, 18-190 AP, 18-193 AP, 18-335 AP, 18-358 AP, 18-369 AP, 

18-191 AP, 18-336 AP, 18-334 AP, 18-371 AP, 18-372 AP 

________________

Geico Indemnity Company, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Quality Diagnostic Healthcare Inc., etc.,

Appellee.

Appeals from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gloria 

Gonzalez-Meyer and Lawrence D. King, Judges.

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, and John P. Marino, and Kristen L. 

Wenger, and Drew Krieger, and Lindsey R. Trowell, and Edward K. Cottrell

(Jacksonville), for appellants.

Christian Carrazana, P.A., and Christian Carrazana, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. 
2

PER CURIAM.

Through these consolidated appeals, appellant, Geico Indemnity 

Company, challenges a series of final judgments entered in favor of 

appellee, Quality Diagnostic Healthcare, Inc. Geico contends the lower 

tribunal erred in interpreting section 672.736(1)(a)(5), Florida Statutes. 

Recognizing the able trial court did not have the benefit of our decision in 

Geico General Insurance Co. v. Beacon Healthcare Center Inc., 298 So. 3d 

1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) at the time judgment was rendered, we agree and 

reverse and remand the orders under review for further proceedings in 

accordance with this binding precedent. 

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 12
 
 Second Quarter
    
    
    First Half2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2010
    
    
    2009Computation of Earnings:Income before income taxes
    
    $
    21,016
    
    
    $
    20,743
    
    
    $
    29,865
    
    
    $
    32,626Add:Interest expense
    
    
    8,224
    
    
    
    9,350
    
    
    
    16,462
    
    
    
    18,043Amortization of debt premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    588
    
    
    
    615
    
    
    
    1,170
    
    
    
    1,218Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    451
    
    
    
    379
    
    
    
    827
    
    
    
    725Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    30,279
    
    
    $
    31,087
    
    
    $
    48,324
    
    
    $
    52,612Computation of Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    8,224
    
    
    $
    9,350
    
    
    $
    16,462
    
    
    $
    18,043Capitalized interest
    
    
    12
    
    
    
    (28
    )
    
    
    77
    
    
    
    51Amortization of debt premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    588
    
    
    
    615
    
    
    
    1,170
    
    
    
    1,218Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    451
    
    
    
    379
    
    
    
    827
    
    
    
    725Fixed charges
    
    $
    9,275
    
    
    $
    10,316
    
    
    $
    18,536
    
    
    $
    20,037Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    3.26
    
    
    
    3.01
    
    
    
    2.61
    
    
    
    2.63
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DOROTHY M. HOLCOMBE, : 

 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

 CIVIL ACTION 15-028-KD-M 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, : 

Commissioner of 

Social Security, : 

 Defendant. : 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff seeks 

judicial review of an adverse social security ruling that denied

a claim for disability insurance benefits (Doc. 11). 

Defendant has filed a Motion to Remand, seeking judgment 

under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with remand of the 

cause to the Defendant (Doc. 14). Defendant has stated that 

Plaintiff’s Attorney has no objection to the motion (Doc. 14). 

In her Motion, Defendant states that “the Commissioner’s final 

decision will be vacated, and a new decision will be issued” 

(Doc. 14, p. 2).

The Court finds that this is a tacit admission that 

Holcombe's application was not appropriately considered and that 

this action should be reversed. Without reviewing the 

Case 1:15-cv-00028-KD-M Document 15 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 2
2

substantive evidence of record, this Court accepts Defendant's 

acknowledgment of error.

It appears to the Court that the decision of the Secretary 

should be reversed and remanded. Such remand comes under 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 

501 U.S. 89 (1991). 

Therefore, it is ORDERED, without objection from Plaintiff, 

that Defendant’s Motion to Remand under sentence four be GRANTED

(Doc. 14) and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED to the 

Social Security Administration for further administrative 

proceedings not inconsistent with the orders of this Court. 

Judgment will be entered by separate order.

DONE this 23rd day of July, 2015. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00028-KD-M Document 15 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 2
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40223

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MERCEDES GAMEZ-BONILLA, also known

as Jose Gamez-Bonilla,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-445-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Mercedes

Gamez-Bonilla raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12

- 405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer

generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. A
- 1
- CA
- 41561 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plainti ff

- Appellant,

v. JADE RIVERA,
Defendant

- Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE METROPOLITAN COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Felicia Blea
- Rivera, Metropolitan Court Judge Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Van Snow, Acting Deputy Solicitor General Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION BOGARDUS, Judge. {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition. Appellant has filed a notice with this Court informing us that they will not be filing a memorandum in opposition. No memorandum opposing the proposed dis position has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, we rely on the reasoning contained in our notice of proposed disposition. A FFIRMED. {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

WE CONCUR: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TROY T. POPE, AIS# 00278311, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00102-WS-N

)

CYNTHIA STEWART, Warden, )

Fountain Correctional Facility, )

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on this date, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and 

DECREED that this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of April 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00102-WS-N Document 8 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Paul Kairis, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 887]

Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cahill, J.), entered September 25, 2012 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review two determinations of respondent denying two requests under the Freedom of Information Law.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was transferred to another correctional facility at the request of a staff member. His Freedom of Information Law *(see*Public Officers Law art 6) request for documents pertaining to “a staff separation that provoked [his] transfer” was denied upon the basis that the documents were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (a), (b) and (f). Petitioner filed a separate Freedom of Information Law request for various items, including documents related to a lost property claim he had made. A final decision was not rendered on that portion of the request, as the inmate records coordinator mistakenly believed that it had been withdrawn. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge both determinations. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, and petitioner now appeals.

Respondent concedes, and we agree, that remittal for further proceedings is required. While the documents related to the “staff separation” may well be exempt from disclosure, remittal is necessary so that respondent may identify the specific documents withheld and submit them to Supreme Court for in camera review *(see Matter of Gomez v Fischer,*74 AD3d 1399, 1402 [2010], *lv dismissed*15 NY3d 858 [2010]; *Matter of Nalo v Sullivan,*125 AD2d 311, 312 [1986], *lv denied*69 NY2d 612 [1987]). It further appears that no search was conducted for *1409documents related to petitioner’s unsuccessful property claim and, accordingly, we remit the matter so that respondent may “make a ‘diligent search’ for the [documents], inform petitioner of their status and take appropriate action” *(Matter of Gomez v Fischer,*74 AD3d at 1401, quoting Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; *see Matter of De Fabritis v McMahon,*301 AD2d 892, 894 [2003]). Inasmuch as “the papers [before us] are insufficient” to permit a resolution of petitioner’s arguments on the merits, we decline his invitation to take any further action in the interest of judicial economy (CPLR 7804 [g]; *see Matter of Foundation for Chapel of Sacred Mirrors, Ltd. v Harkins,*98 AD3d 1044, 1045-1046 [2012]).

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Axesstel, Inc. (the
Company), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included
in such report.

Dated: March 27, 2009



/s/    H. CLARK
HICKOCKH. Clark Hickock, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: March 27, 2009



/s/    PATRICK
GRAYPatrick Gray, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FREDERICK J

. KEITEL, III,

Appellant,

v.

PETER J. CALLAHAN, et al.,

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2 023

- 0275

[ April 11, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; James Nutt , Judge ; L.T. Case No. 502018CA003840

.

Frederick J. Keitel, III, Palm Beach, pro se.

Terry E. Resk and Gary A. Woodfield of Nason, Yeager, Gerson, Harris

& Fumero, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J.

, C IKLIN and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended April 3, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Pullen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert W. Pullen   
|Robert W. Pullen       
|Chief Executive Officer
|Date: May 12, 2009     









A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Axesstel, Inc. (the Company), that, to his
knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.

Dated: March 31, 2006



/S/    MIKE H.P.
KWONMike H.P. Kwon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: March 31, 2006



/S/    PATRICK
GRAYPatrick Gray, Senior Vice President, Financeand Corporate Controller(Principal Accounting Officer)