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

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 0398

_____________________________ S HAWN J. V ESTAL , S R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

.

August 2, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , M.K. T HOMAS , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur.

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

.

_____________________________2 Shawn J. Vestal, Sr., pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Adam B

. Wilson
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 338 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 338

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify the date as of 
  which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is 
 deemed to be held in trust and to provide for the conduct of certain 
                        activities on the land.

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

SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA.

    Section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (Public Law 106-
568; 114 Stat. 2919) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Notwithstanding'' 
        and inserting the following:
    ``(a) Acceptance of Land.--Notwithstanding'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
        and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Declaration.--The Secretary''; and
            (3) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(c) Treatment of Land for Purposes of Class II Gaming.--
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), 
        notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Lytton 
        Rancheria of California may conduct activities for class II 
        gaming (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
        Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)) on the land taken into trust under this 
        section.
            ``(2) Requirement.--The Lytton Rancheria of California 
        shall not expand the exterior physical measurements of any 
        facility on the Lytton Rancheria in use for class II gaming 
        activities on the date of enactment of this paragraph.
    ``(d) Treatment of Land for Purposes of Class III Gaming.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), for purposes of class III gaming (as 
defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
2703)), the land taken into trust under this section shall be treated, 
for purposes of section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
U.S.C. 2719), as if the land was acquired on October 9, 2003, the date 
on which the Secretary took the land into trust.''.

            Passed the Senate March 12, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 338

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify the date as of 
  which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is 
 deemed to be held in trust and to provide for the conduct of certain 
                        activities on the land.
```
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1





                      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
                  OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



         I, Steven A. Schumm, the Chief Administrative Officer of Enstar
Income/Growth Program Six-A, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission:

    o     fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                                    /s/  Steven A. Schumm
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Steven A. Schumm
                                                    Chief Administrative Officer
                                                    November 14, 2003
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Michael R. Kramer, Senior Director of Finance of ATS Medical, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September
30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

Date: November 8, 2006


/s/ Michael R. Kramer
-------------------------------------
Name: Michael R. Kramer
Title: Senior Director of Finance


                                       33
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated March 9, 2006, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of BKF
Capital Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of BKF Capital Group, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-50132,
effective November 17, 2000 and 333-75014, effective December 13, 2001).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York
March 9, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                               105,150
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     105,192
<PP&E>                                                13,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                        13,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       105,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 15,472
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                               1,800
<OTHER-SE>                                          (69,041)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         105,192
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      56,682
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      13,179
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       43,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          43,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fabricio Vergara, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 18]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John G. Ingram, J.), rendered April 29, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The amelioration doctrine does not apply where, as here, a defendant was sentenced before the effective date of the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738) *(People v Utsey,*7 NY3d 398*564[2006]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         244,923
<SECURITIES>                                 2,346,333
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               516,386
<PP&E>                                         995,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                 286,303
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,241,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          355,411
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,043,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,241,594
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,874
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               356,477
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (792,149)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (792,149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (792,149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (30.67)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (30.67)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6807

ANTHONY W. TIMMONS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD MOATS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-515-S) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Anthony W. Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony W. Timmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Timmons v. Moats , No. CA-98-515-S (D. Md. May 5, 1998). Timmons’ motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-95,630-01

EX PARTE STANLEY LEE JOHNSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1087344-A IN THE 230TH DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam. KELLER, P.J. filed a dissenting opinion joined by SLAUGHTER, J. 

YEARY, J. filed a dissenting opinion.

O P I N I O N

Applicant pleaded guilty, was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, and

sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in this cause. Applicant filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and violates due process because he was

not aware of a lab report showing that he possessed less than the required four grams of controlled

substance to sustain the charge. Based on the record, the amount of drugs possess was less than four

grams.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Brady v. United
2

States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). The judgment in cause number 1087344 in the 230th District Court of

Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County

to answer the charge as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench

warrant within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexasDepartment ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: June 19, 2024

Do not publish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUEST PRODUCTS CORPORATION


                                  Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quest Products Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burton
A. Goldstein, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1)    The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


                                                   /s/ Burton A. Goldstein
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Burton A. Goldstein
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                                   August 14, 2002


                 6900 Jericho Turnpike, Syosset, New York 11791
                    Tel: (516) 364-3500 Fax: (516) 364-6268
#### Donald L. Heimlich, Appellant-Respondent, v St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center et al, Respondents-Appellants.

[610 NYS2d 3]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered December 10, 1992, which, *inter alia,*granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied defendant’s request for costs and counsel fees pursuant to 42 USC § 11113, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon a de novo review of the record pursuant to Public Health Law § 2801-c *(see, Hauptman v Grand Manor Health Related Facility,*121 AD2d 151, 154-155), we agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff was adequately notified of the reasons why defendants revoked his hospital privileges and given a full and fair opportunity to contest them. Plaintiff’s reliance on the finding by the State Board of Medical Conduct that performance of the surgery involved was not contraindicated is unavailing, since such finding does not demonstrate that the hospital’s contrary determination was devoid of reason and thus frivolous or in bad faith *(see, Fried v Straussman,*41 NY2d 376, 381-382). Moreover, the degree of merit to the charges of medical incompetence would not affect the determi*362nation that plaintiff’s untoward behavior was disruptive to the hospital community, an independent basis for revoking his privileges.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                   FORM 10-QSB/A-1
                                           
                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                Washington, DC  20549
                                           
[Mark  One]

[X] Quarterly report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
For the Quarterly period ended September 29, 1996 or

[   ] Transition report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act
For the Transition period from ________ to _______ 

Commission File Number     0-18707

                            SPECIALTY RETAIL GROUP,  INC.
          (Exact Name of Small Business Issuer as specified in its charter)    
                                           
         Florida                                 59-2824411
         --------------------------------------------------
         (State or other jurisdiction Of    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
           incorporation or organization)   

         1720 Post Road East, Suite 112,  Westport,  Connecticut  06880
                            (Address of principal offices)
                                           
                                    (203) 256-4380
                             (Issuer's telephone number)
                                           

    Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes  X   No
                                                                   ---    ---

On November 5,  1996,  9,538,071 shares of the issuer's Common Stock were
outstanding.
                                There are no exhibits

<PAGE>


                                      SIGNATURES
                                           
    In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant
caused this amendment to the Report on Form 10-QSB to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned, thereto duly authorized.

                             
                                       SPECIALTY RETAIL GROUP, INC.

Date: December 6, 1996                 By /s/ Kevin R. Greene   
                                         --------------------
                                       Kevin R. Greene
                                       Chairman of the Board,
                                       Chief Executive and
                                       Financial Officer




<PAGE>
                                  INDEX TO EXHIBITS
                                           

Exhibit No.        Description

27                 Financial Data Summary
97-242.

#### State v. Garland.

Fayette App. No. CA96-05-011. Reported at 78 Ohio St.3d 1453, 677 N.E.2d 814. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.
#### STEWART-WARNER CORPORATION v. STALEY.

No. 3342.

District Court, ,W. D. Pennsylvania.

July 13, 1942.

*447See, also, 42 F.Supp. 140; 2 F.R.D. 199.

Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Williams, Bradbury & Hinkle, of Chicago, 111., for plaintiff.

Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Leonard L. Kalish, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

On October 6, 1937, plaintiff filed a bill of complaint in equity charging Universal Lubricating Systems, Inc., with infringement of Zerk Patent No. 1,676,626, and seeking injunctive relief, and an accounting of damages and profits accruing by reason of such alleged infringement. Issue was joined on this bill of complaint by defendant’s answer filed December 6, 1937.

The proposed amended complaint charges defendant with infringement of this Zerk patent, but omits the prayer for an injunction and an accounting, merely asking for a judgment for $4,500 damages on account of the alleged infringement. In this proposed amended complaint plaintiff demands a jury trial. The plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial on the issues raised by the complaint, and answer, as originally filed in 1937.

The evident purpose for amending its complaint is merely an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to secure a jury trial to which it was not entitled in the action as originally brought. If we were to apply Rule 38 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, in this case (not in force when this action was brought), the plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial is too late, not having made its demand therefor in writing within ten days after the service of the last pleading directed to the issue of patent infringement. The issues involved in the ordinary patent suit are such that we would not ordinarily avail ourselves of the provisions of Rule 38 (b) to order a jury trial on those issues.

The plaintiff suggests that in view of the fact that the defendant has filed a counterclaim charging plaintiff with violations of the anti-trust laws and demanding a jury trial on that counterclaim, both issues *might*properly be tried before the same jury. With that suggestion we cannot agree. The issues are different and the facts that would be involved in each issue are so complicated that, in our opinion, the two issues should not be tried before the same jury.

In our view, the plaintiff’s attempt to convert this action into a jury action comes too late; and its motion to file an amended complaint will be denied. An order may be submitted accordingly.