alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0124
STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. RICHARD WAYNE SPARKS,

Defendant and Appellant. 

# FLED MAR 22 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Richard Wayne Sparks petitions this Court for an out-of-time appeal from the order revoking his sentence and imposing a revocation sentence, enteredby the District Court on April 6, 2021. Revocation was ordered upon Sparks' entry ofa trueplea to the allegations of the petition, which asserted that Sparks had violated his suspended sentence by being charged with the new crimes ofassaultwith a weapon, criminal endangerment, and partner or family member assault. Sparks states that he discussed filing a timely appeal with his attorney, but that his attorney failed to file an appeal. He explainsthat he requested a copy ofhis finaljudgment from the District Court and that he never received any document, even after several attempts. He includes other documents with his verified Petition. M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to grant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross miscarriage ofjustice[t Available electronic records providethat the Cascade County District Court held an evidentiary and dispositional hearing on April 6, 2021, on the State's petition to revoke Sparks' sentence upon the alleged violations ofhis probationary conditions. The District Court revoked his prior sentence and imposed a ten-year prison sentence for felony escape, 03/22/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0124

### with notime suspended, which had been recommended by bothparties. The court awarded

credit forjail time served and street time. We conclude that Sparks has made a plausible argument for an out-of-time appeal from hisrelatively recentjudgmentunderthe Rules ofAppellateProcedure. M. R.App. P. 4(6). Sparks has indicated that he iswithout counsel to represent him. He may be entitled to representation ofcounsel. Section 46-8-104, MCA. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Sparks's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal is GRANTED. IT ISFURTHER ORDEREDthat theAppellateDefender Division isAPPOINTED to represent Richard Wayne Sparks. The Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty days from the date ofthis Order within which either to file a Notice ofAppeal or a Motion to Rescind this Order Appointing Counsel. In the event that Sparks qualifies for appointed counsel, the Appellate Defender Division shall immediately order the appropriate transcripts, ifthey have not been already ordered. The Clerk ofthe Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to the Appellate Defender Division,h to counsel ofrecord, and to Richard Wayne Sparks. DATED this day ofMarch, 2022.

2 

### ChiefJustice

# 94
Justices

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,942
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,710
<PP&E>                                         305,224
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,853,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,334
<BONDS>                                      1,806,398
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          278,627
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,796
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,396,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,399,507
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               324,513
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               104,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,471
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,183)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,871)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,355)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00871-CV

Shalanda D. Moore, J.D.; and Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D., Appellants

v.

Riecke Baumann, Receiver and Master in Chancery, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-11-012239, HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants have filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal pending settlement

negotiations. The motion is granted and the appeal is abated until February 18, 2013. The parties

shall submit either a motion to reinstate or a joint status report concerning the status of settlement

negotiations no later than February 18, 2013.

_____________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Abated

Filed: December 19, 2012
#### GREAT BAY CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff—Appellee, v. 6101 GARDENIA LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company, Defendant, v. Latonya M. Brooks, Movant—Appellant.

No. 10-1649.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 26, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 10, 2011.

LaTonya M. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Burns, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

LaTonya Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this case to the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands, from which it was removed. We dismiss the appeal.

Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). The Supreme Court has instructed that “ § 1447(d) must be read *in pari materia*with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c) [(2006)], so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” *Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca,*516 U.S. 124, 127, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995). Thus:

> § 1447(d) bars ... review of a district court’s remand order only if the order was issued under § 1447(c) and invoked the grounds specified therein, ... either (1) that the district court granted a timely filed motion raising defect in removal procedure or (2) that it noticed a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

*Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,*519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” *Borneman v. United States,*213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir.2000).

In this case, the district court remanded the action because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the cited authorities, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order, and we dismiss the appeal. 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.*
<TABLE>


                                                                                                       Exhibit 11.1

                                     WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                             COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                           (in thousands, except loss per share)


<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Years Ended
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   December 31, 1996          December 31, 1995         December 31, 1994
                                                  ---------------------     ----------------------     ---------------------

<S>                                                <C>                         <C>                       <C>               
Net loss                                           $          (14,589)         $          (6,492)        $         (49,380)

Dividends on preferred stock                                  (14,251)                   (10,455)                   (3,447)

Accretion of preferred stock discount                          (6,458)                    (2,836)                     (339)
                                                  ---------------------     ----------------------     ---------------------

Net loss applicable to common
      and common equivalent shares                 $          (35,298)         $         (19,783)        $         (53,166)
                                                  =====================     ======================     =====================

Weighted average shares of
      common stock outstanding (a)                              9,059                      8,825                     8,717
                                                  =====================     ======================     =====================

Loss per share of common stock                     $            (3.90)         $           (2.24)        $           (6.10)
                                                  =====================     ======================     =====================





<FN>
(a)  Because of the net loss applicable to common stock,  the assumed  exercise
      of common stock  equivalents  has not been included in the  computation of
      weighted  average  shares  outstanding   because  their  effect  would  be
      anti-dilutive.
</FN>

                                                  Page 101 of 105
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08-18-00201-CR

§

ERIC DEE MILDON,

Relator.

§

§

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Yahara Gutierrez, Judge of the 65th District Court of El Paso County, Texas, and 

concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
2009-1300.

#### [State ex rel.] Body v. Hall.

In Prohibition. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
# ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# IIS5-/5'
COA # 02-14-00405-CR OFFENSE: 43.26 Mark Massimo Cardarelli v. The 

## STYLE: stateof Texas COUNTY: Parker COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 43rd District Court 

### DATE:08/25/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR13-0129



## IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Mark Massimo Cardarelli v. The 

### STYLE: State ofTexas CCA#: 

# \\%s-ts APPELI^MT^S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# KcFU£>^h DATE: JUDGE: 

## CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR


### ELECTRONIC RECORD
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”), I, Kendra A. Borrego, Chief Financial Officer of IMPAC MedicalSystems, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. 

 

May 14, 2004
Order entered February 1, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01300
- CR RAUL R. RICOY, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 54024
- P 

### O RDER
We GRANT Official Court Reporter Lisabeth Kellett’s January 29, 2013 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,367,892
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,740,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  8,751,189
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     48,988,643
<ALLOWANCE>                                    753,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              65,144,485
<DEPOSITS>                                  56,481,254
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            281,855
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       951,580
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,429,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              65,144,485
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,327,523
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              138,013
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               107,491
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,573,027
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             653,399
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             653,399
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          919,628
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   79,049
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                145,420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                168,297
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     168,297
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   168,297
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.02
<LOANS-NON>                                     52,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               674,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              753,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           753,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
# baseline noHIMP EVIS

# Baseline noHIMP POST

# Routine noHIMP POST

# HIMP EVIS

# HIMP POST

# HIMP Routine

# All Establishments

# 35 Table2 EVIS

# 35 Table2 POST

# 35 Table2 Routine

# 35 used for model 2330
<header><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; URL='/resources/bankers/bank-financial-reports/'"/></header>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-26297, 333-65379, 333-86222, and 333-88973 of Kontron Mobile Computing, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form S-8 of our report dated January 24, 2003 (February 27,
2003 as to the last sentence of Note 2) relating to the financial statements of
the Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 30, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Caesar Humberto SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-51088

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 28, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*751Scott Peterson, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Caesar Humberto Salinas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Salinas has not filed a response. We do not enforce the appeal waiver in light of the district court’s failure to admonish Salinas of its consequences. Nevertheless, our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Derell HAWK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4649.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 3, 2011.

Amy Lee Copeland, Amy Lee Copeland, LLC, Savannah, Georgia, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, Office of the United States Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Derell Hawk pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)© (2006). Granting the motion of the United States for a downward departure, the district court sentenced Hawk to consecutive fifty month sentences, ten months below the mandatory five-year minimum applicable to both counts. Hawk now appeals his 100-month active sentence. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but asking the court to review the extent of the sentencing departure. Hawk was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Hawk’s sentence.

Appellate courts “lack jurisdiction to review the *extent*of the district court’s downward departure.” *United States v. Hill,*70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir.1995) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the ground raised for appeal by counsel on appeal lacks merit. We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of *Anders*and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hawk’s conviction.

This court requires that counsel inform Hawk, in writing, of the right to petition *569the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hawk requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Hawk. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Annual Report of KabeExploration, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the periodending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Erik Ulsteen, President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certifies to the best of myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
|   | 1      |   | Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for  the year ending December 31, 2007, 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 such Annual Report on  Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007, fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company. |

 
| Date: March 28, 2008 |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
| */s/**Erik Ulsteen*       | * * |
| Erik Ulsteen              |     |
| President                 |     |
| Chief Financial Officer   |     |
| Secretary                 |     |

 

----
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**906 CERTIFICATION**

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the amended annual report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

Ignacio Antoñanzas A., the Chief Executive Officer and Eduardo Escaffi J., the Chief Financial Officer of ENERSIS S.A., each certifies that, to the best of their knowledge:

 

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

 

2.               the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Enersis.

 

Date: October 17, 2012.

 

 
|   | /s/   Ignacio Antoñanzas A. |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   | Name: Ignacio Antoñanzas A. |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer        |
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   | /s/   Eduardo Escaffi J.         |
|   | Name:   Eduardo Escaffi J.       |
|   | Chief   Financial Officer        |

 

----