alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

CHERYL H. MORRISON, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D16-1683

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST 

COMPANY, CAPITAL ONE BANK, 

NA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellees. 

__________________________________/ 

Opinion filed March 28, 2017 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Lake County,

William G. Law, Jr, Judge.

Benjamin C. Haynes and Daniel de Paz, 

of Haynes & de Paz, P.A., Longwood, for 

Appellant.

A. Lee Bentley, III, United States Attorney 

and David P. Rhodes and Holly L. 

Gershow, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Tampa, for The United States

of America, Department of Agriculture,

Appellee.

A. Lee Bentley, III, United States Attorney 

and Roberta Josephina Bodnar, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Orlando, for The

United States of America, USDA Rural 

Development, Appellee.

No appearance for other Appellees. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 416 (1941).

EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
96-2878.

#### State ex rel. Sterling v. Mead.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,902]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 7, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Noranda Aluminum, Inc., New Madrid, Missouri.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of May 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13442 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Jennifer A. Joas Gregory F. Zoeller 

Madison, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 39S05-1509-CR-517

GARY ALLEN GIBSON,

Appellant (Defendant below),

 v.

STATE OF INDIANA,

Appellee (Plaintiff below). 

_________________________________

Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court, No. 39C01-1308-FB-845

The Honorable Darrell M. Auxier, Judge

_________________________________

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 39A05-1404-CR-156

_________________________________

September 1, 2015

Per Curiam.

Following a physical altercation with another man, Gary Allen Gibson was charged with 

one count of aggravated battery, two counts of criminal confinement by removal, and one count

of battery resulting in serious bodily injury. A jury acquitted Gibson on one of the confinement 

counts, but convicted him on the other three counts. Due to double jeopardy concerns, the trial 
court entered judgment for only two counts, class B felony aggravated battery and class D felony 

criminal confinement. The trial court sentenced Gibson to sixteen years’ incarceration on the 

battery conviction and two and one-half years on the confinement conviction, with the sentences 

to be served concurrently. 

Gibson appealed on numerous grounds, and the Court of Appeals affirmed Gibson’s 

convictions and sentence in full. Gibson v. State, No. 39A05-1404-CR-156 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 

30, 2015). Gibson seeks transfer, contending, among other things, that there is insufficient 

evidence to support his confinement conviction. 

Gibson was charged with and convicted of confinement by removal under Indiana Code 

section 35-42-3-3(a)(2).1 Gibson’s charging information provided that he “did knowingly 

remove [the victim] by force or threat of force by pulling [the victim] to the ground and battering 

him.” (Appellant’s App. at 83.) The jury instruction for this count mirrored the language of 

section 3(a)(2) of the statute. (Appellant’s App. at 173.)

 

We agree with Gibson that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for 

criminal confinement under section 3(a)(2). Accordingly, we grant transfer and reverse Gibson’s 

criminal confinement conviction and concurrent two and one-half year sentence. In all other 

respects we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

 

All Justices concur.

 

1 At the time of Gibson’s offense, the criminal confinement statute provided in pertinent part: 

A person who knowingly or intentionally: 

(1) confines another person without the other person’s consent; or 

(2) removes another person, by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force, from one (1) 

place to another;

commits criminal confinement. 

Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(a) (2011).
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v George Oliveras, Respondent.

Submitted July 9, 2012;

decided August 28, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

95-1722.

#### State ex rel. Apanovich v. Tubbs Jones.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. On October 10, 1995, relator filed an application for dismissal of this cause. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *nunc pro tunc,*that relator’s application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted, effective October 10,1995.
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 11
                                     
                                     
                   AIR & WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
                     COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                  (in thousands except per share amounts)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Three Months Ended  Nine Months Ended
                                              July 31,            July 31,

                                             1997      1996      1997     1996
                                             ----      ----      ----     ----
<S>                                      <C>        <C>     <C>       <C>
Primary Earnings (Loss) Per Share:
  1. Net income (loss)                    $(4,790)   $ (458) $(81,306) $(4,708)
  2. Less preferred dividends                (825)     (825)   (2,475)  (2,475)
                                          -------    ------   -------  -------  
  3. Net loss applicable to common 
      shareholders                         (5,615)   (1,283)  (83,781)  (7,183)
                                          -------    -------  -------   -------
  4. Weighted average shares outstanding   32,019    32,018    32,019   32,018
                                          -------    ------   -------  -------
  5. Net loss per share                   $  (.18)   $ (.04)  $ (2.62)  $ (.22)
                                          -------    ------   --------  ------

Fully Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share:

  6. Line 3. above                        $(5,615)  $(1,283) $(83,781) $(7,183)
  7. Add back preferred dividends             825       825     2,475    2,475
  8. Add back interest, on assumed
     conversion of the Company's 8% 
     Convertible Debentures                 2,300     2,300     6,900    6,900
                                          -------    ------  --------    -----
  9. Net income (loss)                    $(2,490)   $1,842  $(74,406)  $2,192
                                          -------    ------  --------   ------
10. Weighted average shares
     outstanding (Line 4)                  32,019    32,019    32,019   32,018
11. Add additional shares issuable upon
    assumed conversion of preferred shares  4,800     4,800     4,800    4,800
12. Add additional shares issuable upon 
    assumed conversion of the Company's 
    8% Convertible Debentures               3,833     3,833     3,833    3,833
                                          -------    -------  -------   ------
13. Adjusted weighted average shares
    outstanding                            40,652    40,651    40,652   40,651
                                         --------   -------   -------   ------

14. Net income (loss) per share (9/13)*   $  (.06)  $   .05  $  (1.83) $   .05
                                         ========   =======  ========  ========

</TABLE>
* Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share are not presented as the assumed
   conversion of the Company's 8% Convertible Debentures is anti-dilutive.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Nine Months Ended
September 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         475,370
<SECURITIES>                                    87,924
<RECEIVABLES>                                  255,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,796
<INVENTORY>                                     67,862
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               892,785
<PP&E>                                       3,164,549
<DEPRECIATION>                                 477,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,462,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          590,939
<BONDS>                                      4,229,765
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          512,822
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                           260
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,284,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,462,029
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               463,838
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  195,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               361,757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             279,901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (914,009)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (125,402)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (788,607)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (788,607)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.28)
        

</TABLE>
No. 932.

#### Viles et al. *v.*Prudential Insurance Co.

March 16, 1942.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Cir*817cuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis,*denied.

*Edmond L. Viles*and *Frances N. Viles, pro se. Mr. Horace Phelps*for respondent.
NUMBER 13-14-00382-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

VALERIE CELESTE MOORE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 75th District Court

of Liberty County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Valerie Celeste Moore, by and through her attorney, has filed a motion 

to dismiss her appeal because she no longer desires to prosecute it.1 See TEX. R. APP.

 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant 

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). 
2

P. 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

11th day of September, 2014.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 07-1044

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee,

v.

ELBA GARCÍA-PASTRANA,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1094

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

HÉCTOR RENÉ LUGO-RÍOS,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JUAN RAMOS-HERNÁNDEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

FELIPE ROMÁN-LOZADA,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1097
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JUAN ROLDÁN-VEGA,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

ANDRÉS CARRASQUILLO-COLÓN,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1177

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

ENRIQUE VÁZQUEZ-PRÉSTAMO,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1232

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO MARTÍNEZ-IRIZARRY,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1501

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JORGE L. URBINA-ACEVEDO,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1557
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JESÚS CARABALLO-ORTIZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

No. 07-1558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

LUIS ANDINO-DELBREY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 20, 2009, is

amended as follows:

On page 8, footnote 1, line 1: delete "labor" following

"manager."

On page 49, footnote 35, line 3: delete quotation mark at the

end of the sentence.
NIGC Tribal Gaming Revenues

Number of Revenues Percentage of Mean Median

Gaming Revenue Range Operations (in thousands) Operations Revenues (in thousands) (in thousands)

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2008

$250 million and over 23 11,197,566 5.7% 41.9% 486,851 415,966

$100 million to $250 million 47 7,764,163 11.6% 29.0% 165,195 164,918

$50 million to $100 million 52 3,605,181 12.8% 13.5% 69,330 67,054

$25 million to $50 million 66 2,286,574 16.3% 8.6% 34,645 32,179

$10 million to $25 million 85 1,409,292 21.0% 5.3% 16,580 16,214

$3 million to $10 million 69 408,109 17.0% 1.5% 5,915 5,867

Under $3 million 63 67,941 15.6% 0.3% 1,078 908

Total 405 26,738,826

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2007

$250 million and over 22 10,999,559 5.6% 42.1% 499,980 417,707

$100 million to $250 million 47 7,807,413 12.0% 29.9% 166,115 158,777

$50 million to $100 million 46 3,281,581 11.8% 12.6% 71,339 71,113

$25 million to $50 million 58 2,070,824 14.8% 7.9% 35,704 33,423

$10 million to $25 million 90 1,529,902 23.0% 5.9% 16,999 16,192

$3 million to $10 million 67 396,957 17.1% 1.5% 5,925 5,699

Under $3 million 61 57,236 15.6% 0.2% 938 755

Total 391 26,143,472

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2006 

$250 million and over 23 11,006,025 5.8% 44.2% 478,523 413,556

$100 million to $250 million 40 6,730,419 10.2% 27.0% 168,260 157,987

$50 million to $100 million 45 3,185,470 11.4% 12.8% 70,788 66,955

$25 million to $50 million 64 2,241,013 16.2% 9.0% 35,016 32,652

$10 million to $25 million 73 1,241,706 18.5% 5.0% 17,010 17,363

$3 million to $10 million 67 416,098 17.0% 1.7% 6,210 6,423

Under $3 million 82 68,293 20.8% 0.3% 833 347

Total 394 24,889,022

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2005

$250 million and over 21 9,691,959 5.4% 42.9% 461,522 379,129

$100 million to $250 million 39 6,206,788 9.9% 27.5% 159,148 145,771

$50 million to $100 million 43 2,897,277 11.0% 12.8% 67,379 63,211

$25 million to $50 million 58 2,019,686 14.8% 8.9% 34,822 33,116

$10 million to $25 million 75 1,267,891 19.1% 5.6% 16,905 16,383

$3 million to $10 million 68 411,501 17.3% 1.8% 6,051 5,474

Under $3 million 88 83,698 22.4% 0.4% 951 417

Total 392 22,578,800

Gaming operations with fiscal years ending in 2004

$250 million and over 15 7,200,911 4.0% 37.0% 480,061 376,449

$100 million to $250 million 40 6,277,698 10.7% 32.2% 156,942 155,160

$50 million to $100 million 33 2,240,010 8.8% 11.5% 67,879 67,233

$25 million to $50 million 60 2,144,496 16.0% 11.0% 35,742 33,391

$10 million to $25 million 71 1,180,438 18.9% 6.1% 16,626 16,035

$3 million to $10 million 58 354,050 15.5% 1.8% 6,104 6,040

Under $3 million 98 81,531 26.1% 0.4% 832 530

Total 375 19,479,134

Source: Complied from gaming operation audit reports received and entered by the NIGC through 5/11/09.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 24, 2020

b0721

Order 

Clerk

July 24, 2020

161579 & (22)

MARCIE GLOWACKI,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161579

COA: 350691

Oakland CC: 2017-856477-DO

MARTIN GLOWACKI,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the July 1, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, 

and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be 

reviewed by this Court.
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 110 Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May ___, 2005 (the "Report"), I,
Darren Cioffi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Darren Cioffi
------------------------------------
Darren Cioffi
Chief Financial Officer
May 23, 2005

A signed original of this certification 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.
**Exhibit21.  List of Subsidiaries**

 

 

The subsidiaries of BarnwellIndustries, Inc., at September 30, 2005 were:

 

 

 

 
| ** **                                    | ** ** | **Percentage**   | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of** |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------|------------------|------------|---------------------|
| **Name of Subsidiary**                        |       | **of Ownership** |       | **Incorporation**   |
|                                          |       |             |       |                |
| Barnwell  of Canada, Limited                  |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Barnwell  Hawaiian Properties, Inc.           |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Water  Resources International, Inc.          |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Barnwell  Management Co., Inc.                |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Barnwell  Shallow Oil, Inc.                   |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Barnwell  Geothermal Corporation              |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Barnwell  Mining Co.                          |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Barnwell  Overseas, Inc.                      |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Geothermal  Exploration and Development Corp. |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Victoria  Properties, Inc.                    |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Barnwell  Financial Corporation               |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| NDTX,  Inc.                                   |       | 100%             |       | Delaware            |
| Barnwell  Investment Corporation              |       | 100%             |       | Hawaii              |
| Barnwell  Kona Corporation                    |       | 100%             |       | Hawaii              |
| WRI  Properties, Inc.                         |       | 100%             |       | Hawaii              |
| Barnwell  Alakea Properties, Inc.             |       | 100%             |       | Hawaii              |
| Barnwell  Hilo Corporation                    |       | 100%             |       | Hawaii              |
| Barnwell  Israel, Ltd.                        |       | 100%             |       | Israel              |
| Barnwell  Oil & Gas, Ltd.                 |       | 100%             |       | Israel              |
| Bill  Robbins Drilling, Ltd.                  |       | 100%             |       | Alberta,  Canada    |
| Gypsy  Petroleums Ltd.                        |       | 100%             |       | Alberta,  Canada    |
| Dartmouth  Petroleum, Ltd.                    |       | 100%             |       | Alberta,  Canada    |
| J.H.  Wilson Associates, Ltd.                 |       | 100%             |       | Alberta,  Canada    |
|                                          |       |             |       |                |

 

----
[J-43-2015] [MO: Wecht, J.] 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellee 

 v. 

WILLIAM A. JOHNSON, 

 Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 701 CAP 

Appeal from the Order entered on July 

10, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas, 

of Philadelphia County, Criminal 

Division at No. CP-51-CR-0936052-

1991 

SUBMITTED: July 1, 2015 

CONCURRING OPINION 

JUSTICE TODD DECIDED: June 20, 2016

I join the Majority Opinion, except for its handling of Appellant’s Kloiber1 issue in 

Part IV(D). On that issue, I join the analysis of Chief Justice Saylor in his Concurring 

Opinion. 

Justice Donohue joins this concurring opinion. 

 

1

 Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 106 A.2d 820 (Pa. 1954).