alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LERONNIE LEE WALTON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 10

- 6776

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed July 14, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark H. Mahon , Judge

. Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell

, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bond i, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Perrone, A ssistant Attorney General

, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the mandate issued by our supreme court, we reverse and

remand for a new trial in acco rdance with Walton v. State , 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla.

2016).2 REVERSED and REMANDED

.

B.L. THOMAS

, C.J., WETHER E LL and JAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 D0 04 9 . J OHNATHON NELSON STARNES v . THE STATE.

On Jan u ary 9 , 2 0 1 8 , t h e t r i a l co u rt rev o k ed J o h n at h on Nel s o n St arn es ’ s p ro b at i o n b as ed o n h i s fai l u re t o p ay res t it u t i o n . On M ay

1 6 , 2 0 1 8 , St arn es fi l ed an ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i on ar y r e v i ew i n t h e Su prem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a, wh i ch
t r a n s f e r r e d t h e cas e t o t h i s Co u rt

. See Cas e No

. S1 8 D 1 3 43 (J u n e 1 5 , 20 1 8 ). W e, h o wev er, al s o l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. To b e v al i d , an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i scret io n ary ap p eal m u s t b e fi l e d w i t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f t he en t ry o f t h e o rd er t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ); Hi ll v. S ta t e , 2 0 4 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 2 , 5 82 (4 2 0 SE2 d 3 93 ) (1 9 9 2 ). Bu t St arn es fi l ed hi s ap p l i cat i o n 1 2 7 day s aft er en t ry o f t he rev o cat i on ord er. Acco rd i n gl y , t h is ap p l i cat i on i s u n ti m el y , an d i t i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. August 24, 2018

08/24/2018
#### Maria Nina Priscilla MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70363.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Rodel E. Rodis, Esq., Law Offices of Rodel E. Rodis, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Stephen Flynn, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Torts Branch, Joanne E. Johnson, Esq., San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Maria Nina Priscilla Martinez, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. *See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS,*225 F.3d 1084, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

We uphold the agency’s conclusion that Martinez failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. Martinez’s claimed social group is not “united by a voluntary association, including a former association, or by an innate characteristic that is so fundamental to the identities or consciences of its members that members either cannot or should not be required to change it,” and therefore, does not qualify as a particular social group. *Ochoa v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.2005). The record does not compel the conclusion that Martinez’s alleged future persecutors would impute a political opinion to her. *See id.*at 1171-72.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Martinez is not eligible for CAT protection because she has failed to establish that it “is more likely than not” she would be tortured if removed to the Philippines. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

We are not persuaded by Martinez’s arguments regarding the motion to remand.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Forms 10-K for the years ended September 30, 1997, and Septembert 30, 1996,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
The Financial Data Schedules have been restated to reflect the Company's
adoption of FAS 128, Earnings Per Share.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                          <C>            <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              SEP-30-1997    SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1997    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                              19,734          4,855
<SECURITIES>                             0          6,968
<RECEIVABLES>                        8,558         14,950
<ALLOWANCES>                           119            269
<INVENTORY>                             76            178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    30,510         27,680
<PP&E>                              12,349         10,112
<DEPRECIATION>                       5,708          4,517
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      41,139         36,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                8,321          8,742
<BONDS>                                  0              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0              0
<PREFERRED>                              0              0
<COMMON>                                55             58
<OTHER-SE>                          31,387         27,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        41,139         36,661
<SALES>                             35,369         38,582
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    35,369         38,582
<CGS>                               12,801         13,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       29,499         31,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    (780)          (590)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      6,658          7,201
<INCOME-TAX>                         2,164          2,747
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  4,494          4,454
<DISCONTINUED>                           0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0              0
<CHANGES>                                0              0
<NET-INCOME>                         4,494          4,454
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .81            .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .81            .80
        

</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:         Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities,Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-LC12

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of July 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)          A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF
THE chief FINANCIAL
OFFICER 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 (the
"Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2015,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada Jr., the Chief Financial 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,



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



|July 31, 2015 | By | /s/ Antonio Estrada Jr.
|------------- | -- | -----------------------
|              |    | Antonio Estrada Jr.    
|              |    | Chief Financial Officer
|              |    |
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE

#### Janet Young v. Tama J. Waddell et al

May 9, 2002

Case No. 00-215CL

By Judge Joseph W. Milam, Jr.

In reliance upon the decisional authorities cited in counsels’ letters, the penultimate paragraph on page 2 of Mr. Kushner’s letter accurately frames the issue before the Court. Plaintiff is entitled to increase her *ad damnum*provided the amendment does not unfairly prejudice defendants’ ability to defend the case.

Here, the salient facts upon which the defendants rely in suppoit of their opposition to the motion do not appear to be in dispute. On November 15, 2002, Plaintiff filed her motion for judgment seeking damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident which is alleged to have occurred November 27,1998. Now, approximately sixty days prior to trial, plaintiff seeks to increase her *ad damnum*from two to ten million dollars. Defendant City of Danville proffered evidence of liability insurance coverage applicable to plaintiff’s claim in the amount of three million dollars.

Defense counsel argues that the requested amendment comes too late, particularly where it exposes City of Danville to excess liability. More specifically, defense counsel asserts that by opening the door to excess liability in the amount of seven million dollars sixty days prior to trial, plaintiff’s motion unfairly prejudices defendants’ right to defend themselves. Had they known about excess exposure, defendants assert the case would have been evaluated and defended differently. Among other differences, defense counsel *493asserts that excess liability exposure would have been considered and factored in City of Danville’s budgetary process.

Plaintiffs counsel cites plaintiffs right to seek full redress for her injuries and notes the court’s obligation pursuant to Rule 1:8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Plaintiffs counsel asserts that the nature, duration, and degree of plaintiffs claim were not apparent until recently. Plaintiff argues that prejudice based upon an increase in the amount sued for is not the type of prejudice which can be relied upon by a defendant under the present circumstances.

After considering the facts, the law, and the arguments of counsel, this court is of the opinion that defendants have made an adequate showing of prejudice in so far as the requested amendment exposes the defendants to uninsured liability sixty days prior to trial. Plaintiff will be permitted to increase her *ad damnum*one million dollars to three million dollars. Therefore, plaintiffs motion will be granted in part, and denied in part.

I ask counsel to coordinate preparation and submission of an order consistent with the foregoing. Plaintiffs objection to the court’s refusal to increase the *ad damnum*over three million dollars may be noted as well as defendant’s objection to the increase from two to three million dollars.
Exhibit 32
   (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation and its
subsidiary.
 /s/ Steven C. Futrell
    
    /s/ Kendall W. RiemanSteven C. Futrell, President and CEO
    
    Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Date: July 28, 2009
    
    Date: July 28, 2009
 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or
otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Corporation specifically incorporates this
certification by reference.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19274]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 
12, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 353 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-189, CP2017-290.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-19274 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    KRONOS INCORPORATED
                                   Exhibit 11 - Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                                 (In thousands, except share data)

                                                   Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                                -----------------------   -----------------------
                                                 June 28,      June 29,    June 28,     June 29,
                                                   1997          1996        1997         1996
                                                ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
<S>                                             <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>       
Net income ..................................   $    2,533   $    2,954   $    6,498   $    7,470
                                                ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========


Net income per common share:
      Primary:
          Weighted average shares outstanding    8,211,414    8,076,878    8,175,900    8,015,612
          Common Stock equivalents ..........      189,357      274,541      228,017      301,915
                                                ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
          Total .............................    8,400,771    8,351,419    8,403,917    8,317,527
                                                ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

          Net income per common share .......   $     0.30   $     0.35   $     0.77   $     0.90
                                                ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========


      Fully diluted:
          Weighted average shares outstanding    8,211,414    8,076,878    8,175,900    8,015,612
          Common Stock equivalents ..........      189,373      303,481      236,687      316,424
                                                ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
          Total .............................    8,400,787    8,380,359    8,412,587    8,332,036
                                                ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

          Net income per common share .......   $     0.30   $     0.35   $     0.77   $     0.90
                                                ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
Retail salespersons

Sell merchandise, such as furniture, motor vehicles, appliances, or apparel 

to consumers.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make decisions, 

interact with others, and adapt to changes in jobs.

In 2023, work was reviewed by a supervisor more than once per day for 

53.8 percent of retail salespersons, and once per day for 26.8 percent.

Table 1. Percentage of retail salespersons with cognitive and mental requirements, 

2023

Requirement Yes No

Pace: Pause control 35.9 64.1

Interaction with general public >99.5 <0.5

Working around crowds 3.1 96.9

Telework 0.5 99.5

Work review: Supervising others 1.8 98.2

Work review: Presence of supervisor 84.2 15.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, training, and experience requirements

The minimum level of formal 

education required, 

credentials necessary, on-thejob training, and prior work 

experience necessary for 

average performance in jobs.

In 2023, credentials were 

required for 15.2 percent of 

retail salespersons. Prior work 

experience was required for 

16.0 percent and on-the-job 

training was required for 96.6 

percent.

No minimum education was 

required for 67.9 percent of 

retail salespersons and a high 

school diploma was required 

for 31.9 percent.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete hazards or 

difficulties that are in the vicinity of where jobs’ 

critical tasks are performed.

In 2023, 99.3 percent of retail salespersons 

were not exposed to extreme cold, and greater 

than 99.5 percent were not exposed to extreme 

heat. Wetness was not present for 87.2 

percent, greater than 99.5 percent were not 

exposed to heavy vibrations, and 66.3 percent 

were not exposed to the outdoors.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities required to 

perform tasks in jobs. The presence and, in 

some cases, duration of these activities are 

published.

In 2023, reaching at or below the shoulder 

was required for 92.5 percent of retail 

salespersons and was not required for 7.5 

percent.

Performing work in low postures was 

required for 83.1 percent of retail 

salespersons and was not required for 16.9 

percent.

The choice to sit or stand when performing 

critical tasks was available to 10.1 percent 

of retail salespersons. On average, workers 

spent 12.8 percent of the workday sitting and 87.2 percent of the workday standing.

Table 2. Percentage of retail salespersons with physical demands, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing 10.1 89.9

Driving 11.7 88.3

Climbing structure-related ramps or stairs 7.5 92.5

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
Exhibit 32.2


   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C.
 SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
                                      2002

         In connection with the filing of Zunicom,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries  (the
"Company")  Amendment to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the year ending
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"),  I, Julie  Sansom-Reese,  Chief Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C.
(SS) 1350, as enacted 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 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/ Julie Sansom-Reese
----------------------
Julie Sansom-Reese
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)

August 19, 2004


























                                     32.2-1
#### John Durakowski vs. Commonwealth.

November 9, 2007.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

*John Durakowski,*pro se.

The petitioner, John Durakowski, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

The petitioner filed his petition in the county court after a judge in the underlying case in the trial court denied his renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty after discharge of the jury, motion for reconsideration, and motion to have the trial judge recuse herself. Although it appears that the petitioner’s “Memorandum of Law -and, Record of Appendix” filed with this court is intended to be a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), he does not appear to be challenging any interlocutory ruling of the trial court. Regardless whether rule 2:21 applies, however, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he cannot otherwise obtain adequate appellate review. See *Norris*v. *Commonwealth,*447 Mass. 1007 (2006); *Sterling*v. *Delmonico,*443 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2005). The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

*Judgment affirmed.*