alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 2

- 1 490

_____________________________
K

ADEEM C ORDALE D EBOSE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the C ircuit Court for Alachua County

. David P. Kreider , Judge

. July 29, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , B ILBREY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant ; Kadeem Cordale Debose, pro se
, Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appell ee

.
**Exhibit 99.1**

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

**LAMAR SIGNAL PROCESSING LTD.**

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of LAMAR SIGNAL PROCESSING LTD. (the“Company”) as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ deficiency and cash flows for each of the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of theCompany’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. 

We conducted our audit inaccordance with the Standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards in Israel, including those prescribed under the Auditors’ Regulations (Auditor’sMode of Performance), 1973. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control overfinancial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by managementas well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion,the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of its operations, changes in shareholders’ deficiency and itscash flows for each of the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in Israel (as applicable to the financial position and results of operations of the Company such principles are practically identical togenerally accepted accounting principles in the United States). 

Without qualifying our opinion we draw attention to Note 1C to the financial statements,according to which as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the Company has a shareholders’ deficiency in the amount of $2.3 and $2.2 million and a working capital deficiency of $2.3 and $2.2 million, respectively. These factors, among othersdescribed in Note 1C raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments with respect to the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities and theirclassification that might be necessary should the Company be unable to continue to operate as a going concern.” 

**/s/ KOST FORER GABBAY &KASIERER**

**KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER**

**An member of Ernst & Young International**

Haifa, Israel 

March 23, 2005
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF
Ref. No. NOV-99-03
SEMINOLE NATION OF
OKLAHOMA

June 3, 1999

Ne ee

Decision of the National Indian Gaming Commission

Appeal to the National Indian Gaming Commission (“Commission” or “NIGC”) of a
Proposed Civil Fine Assessment (“CFA”) issued to the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (“Nation”)
on April 1, 1999. The Nation filed its Notice of Appeal on May 4, 1999.

The Chairman of the Commission issued a Notice of Violation to the Nation for failure to
conduct background investigations on primary management officials and key employees and to
submit employee application, investigative reports and suitability determinations to the
Commission in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Commission’s regulations, and
the Nation’s gaming ordinance. The Chairman then issued a CFA of $4500 on April 1, 1999, in
connection with the Notice of Violation. The Nation appealed within the required time period.’

As required by the NIGC regulations, the Chairman considered the following five factors
outlined in 25 C.F.R. § 575.4 to determine the CFA:

1. Economic benefit of noncompliance;
2. Seriousness of the violation;

3. History of violations;

4. Negligence or willfulness; and

5. Good faith.

In deciding this appeal, we find that the seriousness of the violation and good faith to be

‘Although the CFA was dated April 1, 1999, there was no evidence in the administrative
record of when the Chairman sent the CFA to the Nation. The Nation states that it received the
CFA on April 5, 1999. In interpreting the events in the best possible light for the Nation, the
Commission has decided that the CFA was sent on April 4, 1999, for the sake of determining
when service was complete. Therefore, the Nation had until May 4, 1999, to file its Notice of
Appeal.

Nl”


Na

“we

Vom

the most important factors. One of the most important and effective means of protecting Indian
gaming from criminal or harmful influence is by implementing thorough background and licensing
procedures for potential employees of a gaming operation. If a tribe fails to adhere to these
procedures, the threat to the gaming operation can be potentially catastrophic. Failure by the
Nation to comply with the background and licensing requirements of its gaming ordinance, the
NIGC regulations and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a very serious violation. We find the
Chairman’s assessment of $4500 to be wholly warranted.

We also find, however, that the Nation has made a good faith effort to correct these
violations. In light of these efforts, we will forgive $2000 of the fine if the Nation completes the
required background investigations, makes the necessary suitability and licensing determinations,
and submits all of the required documents to the NIGC within forty-five (45) days of receipt of
this decision.

The Nation is ordered to remit $2500 upon receipt of this decision. The Nation shall remit
$2000 within sixty (60) days of receipt of this decision unless the NIGC’s Tribal Background
Investigation Section certifies that the Nation has fully complied with this decision.

WA >
MontioR. Deer
Chajrman

ta

Phitip N. Hogen
Commissioner
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 118 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that, as a matter of economic and 

national security, the United States Government should protect and 

support United States currency. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 

Mr. COBURN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that, as a matter 

of economic and national security, the United States 

Government should protect and support United States 

currency. 

Whereas the United States dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, is one of our country’s greatest assets; 

Whereas the strength and integrity of the United States dollar provides the United States with economic stability 

and national security; 

Whereas any threat or change to the status of the dollar as 

a world reserve currency would be costly to the United 

States Treasury and could cause national economic instability; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 118 IS 

Whereas international counterfeiting of the dollar is on the 

rise and currency counterfeiting has reportedly been used 

to finance rogue governments and terrorism; 

Whereas on January 26, 2006, President Bush made a 

strong commitment to protect the currency of the United 

States from counterfeiting by the North Korean regime 

or any other adversarial regime or organization; and 

Whereas every dollar issued by the United States Government 

is meant to be representative of the strength and solidarity of this great nation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, as a 

3 matter of economic and national security, the United 

4 States Government should provide the currency of the 

5 United States with the protection and support necessary 

6 to defend its integrity throughout the world, effectively 

7 deter counterfeiting, and preserve the status of the dollar 

8 as the world’s reserve currency. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
#### Lisa Bruno, Appellant, v Stephen Bruno et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 19, 2012;

decided May 1, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*18 NY3d 805 (2012)]. Cross motion for the imposition of sanctions denied.
Exhibit 31(f)

CERTIFICATIONS

 
I, Jay A. Lewis, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.;  
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;  
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrants 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 Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 their consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;   
b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter 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 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 functions):   
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

			/s/ Jay A. Lewis
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10644

Conference Calendar

 

RAYMOND CHARLES EARLY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS; JANICE WARDER, District

Court Judge; DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; JOHN VANCE, District Attorney;

WILLIAM J. FAY, Attorney; DALLAS COUNTY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-2813-T

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raymond Charles Early, Texas prisoner # 801583, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and

(iii). Early argues that the district court erred in dismissing

his § 1983 action against Judge Janice Warder; John Vance, the

Dallas County District Attorney; and Williams J. Fay, his trial

attorney. He argues that due to the defendants’ negligence or 
No. 98-10644 

-2-

deliberate indifference, he remained incarcerated for ten days in

excess of his 180-day sentence. Early has not identified any

error in the district court’s dismissal. Early v. State of

Texas, No. 3:97-CV-2813-T (N.D. Tex. April 17, 1998). Early’s

appeal is without arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d

215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Early’s appeal is

DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Early is advised that the district

court’s dismissal of his § 1983 action as frivolous and the

dismissal of his appeal as frivolous each constitute a “strike”

under the “three-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
96-2800.

#### State v. Ledbetter.

Greene App. No. 95CA04. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due February 28, 1997, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte,*effective March 5,1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,909
<SECURITIES>                                     1,328
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                         7
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,558
<PP&E>                                          31,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,097
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,049
<BONDS>                                         17,090
<COMMON>                                        40,849
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,985)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,097
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,348
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   140
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,524
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
MOTION DOCKET

96-1030.

#### Miller v. Bike Athletic Co.

Belmont App. No. 94-B-52. On motion for admission *pro hac vice*of Louis M. Tarasí, Jr. Motion granted.
# Continuation of the National Emergency Relating to Cuba and of the Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels

On March 1, 1996, by Proclamation 6867, a national emergency was declared to address the disturbance or threatened disturbance of international relations caused by the February 24, 1996, destruction by the Cuban government of two unarmed U.S.-registered civilian aircraft in international airspace north of Cuba.  In July 1996 and on subsequent occasions, the Cuban government stated its intent to forcefully defend its sovereignty against any U.S.-registered vessels or aircraft that might enter Cuban territorial waters or airspace while involved in a flotilla or peaceful protest.  Since these events, the Cuban government has not demonstrated that it will refrain from the future use of reckless and excessive force against U.S. vessels or aircraft that may engage in memorial activities or peaceful protest north of Cuba.  On February 26, 2004, by Proclamation 7757, the scope of the national emergency was expanded in order to deny monetary and material support to the repressive Cuban government, which had taken a series of steps to destabilize relations with the United States, including threatening to abrogate the Migration Accords with the United States and to close the United States Interests Section.  Further, Cuba's most senior officials repeatedly asserted that the United States intended to invade Cuba, despite explicit denials from the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense that such action is planned.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Cuba and the emergency authority relating to the regulation of the anchorage and movement of vessels set out in Proclamation 6867 as amended and expanded by Proclamation 7757.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                    and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. E9-1363

Billing code 3195-W9-P
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 on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 of K2 Inc. (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and 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 officers of the Company certifies,
that:



| |  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2006 |  | /s/  RICHARD J. HECKMANN                         
|                     |  | Richard J. Heckmann                              
|                     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer             
|                     | 
|Date: March 16, 2006 |  | /s/  DUDLEY W. MENDENHALL                        
|                     |  | Dudley W. Mendenhall                             
|                     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                     | 
|Date: March 16, 2006 |  | /s/  J. WAYNE MERCK                              
|                     |  | J. Wayne Merck                                   
|                     |  | President and Chief Operating Officer            



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 Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Cleveland Bar Association *v.*Kates.

[Cite as *Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kates*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 69.]

(No. 96-2373

Submitted December 11, 1996

Decided March 26, 1997.)

*70
      *Elmer G. Cowan*and *Robert C. Tucker,*for relator.

*Robert A. Kates, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the board’s factual findings and conclude that by failing to pursue the action he filed for the Kerekis, respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. For that neglect respondent deserves a public reprimand. However, we disagree with the board and do not find it clear and convincing that respondent violated DR 6-102 (attempting to exonerate himself from or limit his liability to his client for his personal malpractice) when, as a part of the settlement of the Kerekis’ malpractice action, he attempted to insulate himself from a disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary proceedings are not actions for malpractice. Respondent’s actions may have violated DR 1-102(A)(2) (cir*71cumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another), but respondent was not charged with such a violation.

Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., concurs in judgment only.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.

Cook, J.,

dissenting. Because respondent failed to advise the Kerekis that their case had been dismissed, lied when they confronted him, and even when challenged as to the truthfulness of his assertion conceded only that it was “possible” that the case had been dismissed, he should be actually suspended from the practice of law. See *Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh*(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237.

Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.