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

RUBY TUESDAY, INC. AND 

CATHERINE ANDERSON,

Petitioners,

v. Case No. 5D17-1158

KAREN METALONIS,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 25, 2017

Petition for Certiorari Review 

of Order from the Circuit Court 

for Lake County, Mark J. Hill, 

Judge.

Michael R. D'Lugo, of Wicker Smith 

O'Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, 

for Petitioners.

Kurt Zaner, of Zaner Harden Law, LLP, 

Denver, CO, and Charles T. Douglas, of 

Douglas & Hedstrom, P.A., Palatka, for 

Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners challenge an order compelling the production of an incident report 

prepared after Respondent allegedly was injured when a chair collapsed at a Ruby 

Tuesday restaurant. Although the trial court’s order compelling production of the incident 
2

report does not provide the court’s reasoning, Respondent argued below that the report 

was not made in anticipation of litigation and that she had a demonstrated need for the 

report nevertheless. 

The determination of whether an incident report was prepared in anticipation of 

litigation turns on whether “the document was prepared in response to some event which 

foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim in the future.” Marshalls of MA, Inc. v. 

Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444, 446-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Although the subjective intent of the 

reporter in making the report might be relevant to this determination, it is by no means 

dispositive because an objective standard applies. Here, the reporter testified that she 

made the report in accordance with company policy to report incidents of injury to patrons. 

The fact that the reporter did not personally foresee the potential claim and did not know 

the purpose for the company policy did not negate a finding that the report was work 

product. It was clear that the alleged injury was caused by an object in Petitioners’ control 

and there was some evidence to suggest that Petitioners had prior knowledge of the 

defective condition of the chair. Under the circumstances presented here, it was 

foreseeable that the event might form the basis for a claim. Accordingly, the incident 

report was protected work product.

As for Respondent’s argument regarding need, we conclude without elaboration 

that the present record demonstrates that Respondent did not meet her burden on this 

issue.

ORDER QUASHED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—ALIEN VETERANS OF WORLD WAR I
#### 1501.301 Policy.

The EPAAR is prescribed by the Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

[49 FR 8835, Mar. 8, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 18976, Apr. 21, 1994]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 630

_____________________________ C HARLES S ANMANN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for L eon County

. Karen Gievers , Judge

. November 16, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , K ELSEY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_________ ____________________

Charles Sanmann, pro se
, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Frank X. Moehrle Jr.
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-QSB of Reliability Incorporated (the Issuer) for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2008 (the Periodic Report):



| | 1. | 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|                                                  
|/s/ Larry Edwards                                 
|Larry Edwards Chief Executive Officer May 14, 2008
Exhibit 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*
     /s/ Donald J. RadkoskiDonald J. RadkoskiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
 
 *
    
This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (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 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
§ 720.22 Members or civilian employees subpoenaed as witnesses in Federal courts. ( a ) *Witnesses on behalf of Federal Government.* When members or civilian employees of the Department of the Navy are required to appear as witnesses in a Federal Court to testify on behalf of the Federal Government in cases involving Department of the Navy activities, the Chief of Naval Personnel or the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as appropriate, will issue temporary additional duty orders to that person. The charges for such orders will be borne by the activity to which the required witness is attached. Payment to witnesses will be as provided by the Joint Federal Travel Regulations and U.S. Navy travel instructions. If the required witness is to appear in a case in which the activities of the Department of the Navy are not involved, the Department of the Navy will be reimbursed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Navy Comptroller Manual, section 046268.
( b ) *Witnesses on behalf of nongovernmental parties* — ( 1 ) *Criminal actions.* When members or civilian employees are served with a subpoena to appear as a witness for a defendant in a criminal action and the fees and mileage required by rule 17(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are tendered, the commanding officer may issue the person subpoenaed permissive orders authorizing attendance at the trial at no expense to the Government, unless the person's absence would have an adverse impact on naval operations. In such a case, a full report of the circumstances will be made to the Judge Advocate General or, in the case of civilian employees, to the Associate General Counsel (Litigation). In those cases where fees and mileage are not tendered as required by rule 17(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, but the person subpoenaed still desires to attend, the commanding officer also may issue permissive orders at no cost to the Government. Such persons, however, should be advised that an agreement as to reimbursement for any expenses incident to travel, lodging, and subsistence should be effected with the party desiring their attendance and that no reimnbursement should be expected from the Government.
( 2 ) *Civil actions.* When members or civilian employees are served with a subpoena to appear as a witness on the behalf of a nongovernmental party in a civil action brought in a Federal court, the provisions of § 720.20 apply.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 4.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-92229 pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan and the 1996 Employee Stock
Option Plan of Biovail Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated May 14, 1999
included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Biovail Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-----------------------------------

Chartered Accountants

April 19, 2000
Exhibit 21
 COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. CONSOLIDATEDLIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JANUARY 3, 2010
 State/Country &Legal Name
    
    Date Inc./Organized
    
    Owned by
    
    Ownership %CCBCC, Inc.
    
    Delaware
12/20/93
    
    Consolidated
    
    
    100
    %CCBCC Operations, LLC
    
    Delaware
10/15/2003
    
    Consolidated
    
    
    100
    %Chesapeake Treatment Company, LLC
    
    North Carolina
6/5/95
    
    Operations
    
    
    100
    %Coca-Cola Ventures, Inc.
    
    Delaware
6/17/93
    
    Consolidated
    
    
    100
    %Consolidated Beverage Co.
    
    Delaware
1/8/97
    
    Consolidated
    
    
    100
    %Consolidated Real Estate Group, LLC
    
    North Carolina
01/04/2000
    
    Consolidated
    
    
    100
    %BYB Brands, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
03/08/2006
    
    Consolidated
    
    
    100
    %Data Ventures, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
09/25/2006
    
    Consolidated
    
    
    100
    %Heath Oil Co., Inc.
    
    South Carolina
9/9/86
    
    Operations
    
    
    100
    %TXN, Inc.
    
    Delaware
01/03/90
    
    Data Ventures Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Tennessee Soft Drink
Production Company
    
    Tennessee
12/22/88
    
    Operations
    
    
    100
    %Piedmont Coca-Cola Bottling
Partnership
    
    Delaware
07/02/93
    
    CC Ventures
    
    
    77.326
    %CCBC of Wilmington, Inc.
    
    Delaware
06/17/93
    
    Piedmont
    
    
    100
    %Swift Water Logistics, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
04/24/2006
    
    Consolidated
    
    
    100
    %Data Ventures Europe BV
    
    Netherlands
01/23/2007
    
    Data Ventures Inc.
    
    
    100
    %Red Classic Brokerage, Inc.
    
    North Carolina
09/21/2007
    
    Operations
    
    
    100
    %
Exhibit No. 5
Form 10KSB
SPM Group, Inc.

                       ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                              TO THE
                     ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

      Pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Corporation Code,
the  undersigned  corporation adopts  the  following  Articles  of
Amendment to its Articles of Incorporation:

     FIRST:     The  name of the Corporation is     S P  M  GROUP,
INC.

     SECOND:   The   following  amendment  was  adopted   by   the
               shareholders of the corporation on 29 July 1985, in
               the  manner  prescribed by the Colorado Corporation
               Code:

               Paragraph 1 of Article IV be deleted and  that  the
               following inserted in place thereof:

               1.   The  aggregate  number  of  shares  which  the
                    corporation  has authority to issue  is  fifty
                    million (50,000,000) common shares, of no  par
                    value.

     THIRD:    The number of shares of the corporation outstanding
               at the time of such adoption was 20,089,984 and the
               number  of  shares  entitled to  vote  thereon  was
               20,089,984

     FOURTH:   There is only one class of shares.

     FIFTH:    The  number of shares voted for such Amendment  was
               13,549,785  and the number of shares voted  against
               such Amendment was 73,150.

     SIXTH:     There is no change in stated capital  effected  by
     this Amendment.

                                   SPM GROUP, INC.

                                   /s/ Konrad Ruckstuhl, President

ATTEST:

/s/ Robert Wiegand II, Secretary

                               E-13
<PAGE>
### §394. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10703(c)(3), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 518

Section, act July 24, 1919, ch. 26, 41 Stat. 241, related to overtime of employees engaged in enforcement of Meat Inspection Act.
Exhibit
32(a)


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


FOR PPL
CORPORATION'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008





In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Corporation (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the
principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that:





·
            The
      Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and·
            The
      information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.











Date:  February
      27, 2009
            /s/ James
      H. MillerJames
      H. Miller
              Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer
              PPL
      Corporation





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of UST Corp.(*)

            USTrust (1)
            United States Trust Company
            Mosaic Corp.
            Firestone Financial Corp. (2)
            Firestone Financial Canada Ltd. (3)
            UST Leasing Corporation (2)
            UST Securities Corp. (2)
            UST Capital Corp. (4)
            Walden Financial Corp. (2)
            Walden Securities Corporation, Inc. (2)
            Bra-Prop Corp. (2)
            Braintree Securities Corp. (2)
            Braintree Savings Corporation (2)
            UST Auto Lease Corp. (2)
            USTrust Securities Corp. (5)
            UST Realty Trust, Inc. (6)

         (*)Each of the above subsidiaries of UST Corp. is a Massachusetts
            corporation or trust company. Other than USTrust which does business
            under the names of both USTrust and USTrust Bank, each of the above
            entities does business only under its corporate name. The foregoing
            list does not include the names of inactive subsidiaries or the
            names of subsidiaries of banking entities which subsidiaries have
            been organized to hold foreclosed property, or other assets held in
            satisfaction of debts previously contracted by the applicable
            banking entity.

        (1) Wholly-owned by Mosaic Corp.

        (2) Wholly-owned by USTrust.

        (3) Wholly-owned by Firestone Financial Corp.

        (4) Wholly-owned by United States Trust Company.

        (5) Wholly-owned by UST Securities Corp.

        (6) Organized in February, 1998 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
            Bra-Prop Corp.
1

Sutton, Tia

From: Whiteman, Chad <Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:50 PM

To: Sutton, Tia; Owens, Nicole

Cc: Hengst, Benjamin

Subject: RE: Aircraft GHG to OMB 6-9-15_clean.docx

All, OMB just concluded review of the following action. Chad 

RIN: 2060-AS31 (201510) 

Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage 

Title: Proposed Greenhouse Gas Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings Under CAA Section 231 for Aircraft, 

and ANPRM on the International Process for Reducing Aircraft GHGs and Future Standards 

From: Sutton, Tia [mailto:sutton.tia@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:24 PM 

To: Owens, Nicole; Whiteman, Chad 

Cc: Hengst, Benjamin 

Subject: RE: Aircraft GHG to OMB 6-9-15_clean.docx 

Thank you!! 

From: Owens, Nicole 

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:20 PM 

To: Sutton, Tia; Whiteman, Chad 

Cc: Hengst, Benjamin 

Subject: Re: Aircraft GHG to OMB 6-9-15_clean.docx 

The document has been uploaded. 

 

Thanks, 

Nicole 

From: Sutton, Tia 

Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 6:01 PM 

To: Whiteman, Chad 

Cc: Hengst, Benjamin; Owens, Nicole 

Subject: Aircraft GHG to OMB 6-9-15_clean.docx 

 

Hi Chad, 

Clean version of the Aircraft package is attached. 

 

Thanks, 

 Tia
162 So. 639

#### ROSS v. BOARD OF LEVEE COM’RS OF NINETEENTH LOUISIANA LEVEE DIST.

No. 33236.

June 19, 1935.

Harry Fuller, of Winnfield, and Vinson M. Mouser, of Columbia, for appellant.

Stephens & Gahagan, of Natchitoches, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This case was before this court in 1934. There is an accurate statement of the case in the opinion we handed down at that time, which is reported in 180 La. 227, 156 So. 230. In that opinion all of the issues presented to the court were decided except one, viz.: ■ Whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to recover the assessed value of 140.1 acres of land that was left between the levee and the river by the removal of the levee some distance back of its original location. With respect to that issue, the case was remanded to the lower court for the purpose, of enabling the board of levee commissioners to introduce proof that the “land between the levee and .the river was not ‘destroyed’ or rendered worthless by the building of the levee behind it.”

This issue was tried in the lower court and the same judgment was rendered thereon as was rendered on the- original trial. It is from this judgment that the defendant has appealed.

*843By agreement of counsel, the testimony taken on the former trial of the case is made a part of this record. There is, therefore, considerable testimony in the record, expert and otherwise. We find, however, that so .far from the land outside the levee having been destroyed by the removal of the levee, excellent crops of cotton and corn were grown upon a considerable part of that land during the year 1934, and the balance of the land was profitably used as pasture for cattle and work animals. This is a far cry from destruction for levee purposes within the meaning of the constitutional provision. It is true that in years of abnormal flood stages of Red river the land is inundated, and sometimes the recession of the water leaves an injurious silt or sand deposit on a part of the land, but it is shown that a recurring flood stage of the river washes the soil and, by silt deposit, restores the fertility of the land.

These are facts of such common knowledge in this state that, even without direct proof of them, the court is justified in taking judicial notice of the fact.

Our review of the evidence leaves no doubt in our minds that no part of the 140.1 acres of land, for which the plaintiff is seeking to recover from the defendant the assessed value thereof, is land which was destroyed for levee purposes, within the intendment of the Constitution and laws of this state.

For these reasons, the judgment appealed from is avoided and reversed, in so far as the 140.1 acres of land lying outside the levee is concerned, but in all other respects it is affirmed. The costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellee.
#### Michael De Fillipo, Appellant, v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., Inc., Respondent.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, and appeal dismissed. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard A. Santa, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | July 29, 2010                                 |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                               |   |
|   |                                               |   |
|   | /s/  Richard A. Santa                              |   |
|   | Richard  A. Santa                                  |   |
|   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | of  Dynamic Materials Corporation                  |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
§ 516.58 Policies. ( a ) Procurement fraud and irregularities will be promptly and thoroughly addressed whenever encountered. Reports will be initiated in a timely manner and will be supplemented as appropriate.
( b ) Investigations will be monitored to see that interim corrective action is taken and that final action is taken as expeditiously as possible.
( c ) This regulation establishes the Procurement Fraud Division (PFD), U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, as the single centralized organization within the Army to coordinate and monitor criminal, civil, contractual, and administrative remedies in significant cases of fraud or corruption relating to Army procurement.
( d ) The key elements of the Army's procurement fraud program follow: centralized policy making and program direction; fraud remedies coordination; decentralized responsibility for operational matters, such as reporting and remedial action; continuous case monitorship by PFD from the initial report until final disposition; and, command-wide fraud awareness training.
( e ) Remedies for PFI will be pursued in a timely manner and properly coordinated with other agencies. Every effort will be made to support criminal investigation and prosecution of fraudulent activity.
( f ) A specific remedies plan will be formulated for each significant case of fraud or corruption involving procurement.
( g ) Coordination on the status and disposition of cases will be maintained between PFD, OTJAG, PFI Coordinators at MACOMs, and Procurement Fraud Advisers at subordinate commands. Coordination of procurement and personnel actions will be accomplished with investigative agencies as required by those agencies.
( h ) Training which relates to fraud and corruption in the procurement process is a significant element of this program.
#### Adela Holzer, Respondent, v Peter Holzer, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 27, 1978, granting plaintifi's application and directing payment of $750 per week as temporary alimony and child support, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the amount to $350 per week unallocated alimony and support retroactive to December 29, 1977, without credit for overpayments, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We find that, under all the facts and circumstances, the amount awarded pendente lite was excessive to the extent indicated. The parties are directed to proceed to trial expeditiously, where the finances of the parties can be more clearly ascertained and a permanent award made. Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Lane, JJ.