alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHARLES ANTHONY BURNS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D 20

- 668

[ July 30, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fift eenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Daliah H. Weiss, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2013

- CF

- 006519

- AXXX

- MB

.
Charles Anthony Burns

, Punta Gorda, pro se

.
No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4866

_____________________________
T ERRY L OPEZ B OLDRIDGE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Cour t for Okaloosa County

. Michael A. Flowers , Judge

. December 31, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The appeal is dismissed as untimely. Any request for belated appeal must be filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

L EWIS , W INOKUR , 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

.

_____________________________2 Bruce Miller, Public Defender, and Justina Clara Jassen Turner, Assistant Public De fender, Crestview
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
§ 405.1126 Case remanded by the Council. ( a ) *When the Council may remand a case.* Except as specified in § 405.1122(c), the Council may remand a case in which additional evidence is needed or additional action by the ALJ or attorney adjudicator is required. The Council will designate in its remand order whether the ALJ or attorney adjudicator will issue a decision or a recommended decision on remand.
( b ) *Action by ALJ on remand.* The ALJ or attorney adjudicator will take any action that is ordered by the Council and may take any additional action that is not inconsistent with the Council's remand order.
( c ) *Notice when case is returned with a recommended decision.* When the ALJ or attorney adjudicator sends a case to the Council with a recommended decision, a notice is mailed to the parties at their last known address. The notice tells them that the case was sent to the Council, explains the rules for filing briefs or other written statements with the Council, and includes a copy of the recommended decision.
( d ) *Filing briefs with the Council when ALJ or attorney adjudicator issues recommended decision.* ( 1 ) Any party to the recommended decision may file with the Council briefs or other written statements about the facts and law relevant to the case within 20 calendar days of the date on the recommended decision. Any party may ask the Council for additional time to file briefs or statements. The Council will extend this period, as appropriate, if the party shows that it has good cause for requesting the extension.
( 2 ) All other rules for filing briefs with and obtaining evidence from the Council follow the procedures explained in this subpart.
( e ) *Procedures before the Council.* ( 1 ) The Council, after receiving a recommended decision, will conduct proceedings and issue its decision or dismissal according to the procedures explained in this subpart.
( 2 ) If the Council determines that more evidence is required, it may again remand the case to an ALJ or attorney adjudicator for further inquiry into the issues, rehearing if applicable, receipt of evidence, and another decision or recommended decision. However, if the Council decides that it can get the additional evidence more quickly, it will take appropriate action.
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 65338, Dec. 9, 2009; 82 FR 5124, Jan. 17, 2017]
Exhibit 11.1

                               Centennial Bancorp
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share


                                                 Year Ended December 31,
                                             1995        1994         1993
                                          ----------   -----------  -----------
INCOME:

     Net income (primary)                 $4,551,318   $3,501,579   $2,763,039

     Add Convertible Debenture interest
        expense, net of tax (1)              430,603      310,830          --
                                          ----------   ----------   ---------

     Net income (fully diluted)           $4,981,921   $3,812,409   $2,763,039
                                          ==========   ==========   ==========

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING:

     Weighted average shares outstanding
        (primary)                          4,796,285    4,751,256    4,710,545

     Weighted average shares issuable upon
        conversion of all debentures (1)     892,598      606,478           --
                                           ---------    ---------    ---------

     Weighted average shares outstanding
        (fully diluted)                    5,688,883    5,357,734    4,710,545
                                           =========    =========    =========

NET INCOME PER SHARE:

     Primary                               $     .95    $     .74    $     .59
     Fully diluted                         $     .88    $     .71    $     .59






(1)  The Convertible Debentures were issued April 27, 1994.
# C_2005281EN.01002201.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Luxem v Commission

(Case T-306/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Recruitment - Refusal to appoint a successful candidate in a competition who does not fulfil the conditions of admission to the competition)

(2005/C 281/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Monika Luxem (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Defendant(s):

Application for

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 July 2003 refusing to appoint the applicant as an official

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the application;

| 2) | Orders each party to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders each party to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

1

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCritique of Macro Flow/Damage Surface Representations for Metal Matrix Composites Using MicromechanicsGuidance for the formulation of robust, multiaxial, constitutive models for advanced materials is provided by addressing theoretical and experimental issues using micromechanics. The multiaxial response of metal matrix composites, depicted in terms of macro flow/damage surfaces, is predicted at room and elevated temperatures using an analytical micromechanical model that includes viscoplastic matrix response as well as fiber-matrix debonding. Macro flow/damage surfaces (i.e., debonding envelopes, matrix threshold surfaces, macro 'yield' surfaces, surfaces of constant inelastic strain rate, and surfaces of constant dissipation rate) are determined for silicon carbide/titanium in three stress spaces. Residual stresses are shown to offset the centers of the flow/damage surfaces from the origin and their shape is significantly altered by debonding. The results indicate which type of flow/damage surfaces should be characterized and what loadings applied to provide the most meaningful experimental data for guiding theoretical model development and verification.Document ID19970003006Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsLissenden, Cliff J.*(Pennsylvania State Univ. University Park, PA United States)*Arnold, Steven M.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland,OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107321NAS 1.15:107321E-10422Meeting InformationMeeting: Mechanics Engineering Congress and ExpositionCountry: United StatesStart Date: November 17, 1996End Date: November 22, 1996Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number97N11781Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-12Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970003006.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# C_2005229EN.01003801.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/38

---

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-293/05)

(2005/C 229/79)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone, resident in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 April 2005 answering the applicant's complaint and annulling the career development report drawn up for him for the period from 1 January 2003 to 21 August 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 April 2005 answering the applicant's complaint and annulling the career development report drawn up for him for the period from 1 January 2003 to 21 August 2003;

| — | set out to the Commission the consequences of that annulment, in particular, the annulment of the career development report for 2003 for the subsequent period from 15 September 2003 to 31 December 2003, which was drawn up on the basis of the contested career development report; |
| --- | --- |

—

set out to the Commission the consequences of that annulment, in particular, the annulment of the career development report for 2003 for the subsequent period from 15 September 2003 to 31 December 2003, which was drawn up on the basis of the contested career development report;

| — | establish the non-contractual liability of the European Community incurred by virtue of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish the non-contractual liability of the European Community incurred by virtue of the contested decision;

| — | award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, particularly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in the amount of EUR 3 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, particularly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in the amount of EUR 3 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, challenges with the present action his partial career development report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 21 August 2003, by alleging, inter alia, inconsistency between the assessments of the appraiser and the co-appraiser, and manifest errors of assessment. He further contends that there has been an infringement of the duty to give reasons, of the rights of the defence, and of the principles of good administration and legitimate expectations.

---
#### T. W., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. ZZ-283.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 4, 1982.

Louis 0. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Gregory C. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED on the authority of *R. M. P. v. Jones,*392 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

MILLS, WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
#### WASECO CHEMICAL & SUPPLY CO. v. BAYOU STATE OIL CORPORATION.

No. 65097.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Bayou State Oil Corp., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of *657Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Bossier. 371 So.2d 305.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, C. J., and BLANCHE, J., would grant the writ.
§ 589.405 Exportation and reexportation of goods, services, or technology; provision and receipt of services. ( a ) The prohibition on the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of goods, services, or technology contained in § 589.207 applies to services performed on behalf of a person in the Crimea region of Ukraine or where the benefit of such services is otherwise received in the Crimea region of Ukraine, if such services are performed: ( 1 ) In the United States; or
( 2 ) Outside the United States by a U.S. person.
( b ) The prohibitions contained in § 589.201 apply to services performed in the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located: ( 1 ) On behalf of or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 589.201; or
( 2 ) With respect to property interests of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 589.201.
( c ) The prohibitions contained in § 589.201 apply to services received in the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, where the service is performed by or at the direction of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 589.201.
( d ) ( 1 ) For example, U.S. persons may not, except as authorized by or pursuant to this part, provide legal, accounting, financial, brokering, freight forwarding, transportation, public relations, or other services to any person in the Crimea region of Ukraine or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 589.201, or negotiate with or enter into contracts signed by a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 589.201.
( 2 ) For example, a U.S. person is engaged in a prohibited exportation of services to the Crimea region of Ukraine when it extends credit to a third-country firm specifically to enable that firm to manufacture goods for sale to the Crimea region of Ukraine.
Note 1 to § 589.405 :
*See, for example,* §§ 589.506 and 589.508 for general licenses authorizing the provision of certain legal and emergency medical services.
HomeLibya

# Libya

130 items

        -    TIAS  		Libya (18-1114) – Protocol Extending and Amending the Agreement of January 3, 2008 on Science and Technology	  November 14, 2018 
        -    Report  		Stabilization Assistance Review: A Framework for Maximizing the Effectiveness of U.S. Government Efforts To Stabilize Conflict-Affected Areas	  July 5, 2018 
        -    Report  		Libya	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Libya	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Libya	  April 20, 2018 
        -    TIAS  		Libya (18-223) – Memorandum of Understanding on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material	  February 23, 2018 
        -    Report  		Libya	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Libya	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Libya	  March 3, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction – Metrics Implementation (Summary)	  February 29, 2016 

previous page1…10111213next page

Back to Top
# C_2005217EN.01003202.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Removal from the register of Case C-256/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 217/65)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 16 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-256/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

1

---
# C_2005271EN.01001001.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-448/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals - Failure to implement within the required time-limit)

(2005/C 271/18)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-448/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchard-Joët) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to comply with obligations, brought on 27 October 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, with the exception of Article 7 thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, with the exception of Article 7 thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004

1

---
Exhibit 10.2




PROXY
 
 WHEREAS, Chi Lin Technology Co., Ltd. ("Chi Lin"), an entity of the Republic of China (Taiwan), doing business at No. 18, Sheng Li 1st Street, Jen Te Hsiang, Tainan County 71758, Taiwan, Republic of China, is the owner of 6,043,704 shares (the "InMedica Shares") of restricted common stock of InMedica Development Corporation, a Utah corporation ("InMedica"); and
 WHEREAS, Larry Clark and Richard Bruggeman, former officers of InMedica, desire to acquire an irrevocable proxy to be able to vote the InMedica Shares owned by Chi Lin in any vote or consent of InMedica shareholders; and
 
 THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged:
 
 Chi Lin hereby appoints Larry Clark and Richard Bruggeman, and any successors of them, with full power of substitution, its proxy to vote the InMedica Shares for a period commencing with the date hereof through and including September 30, 2010, at any shareholders' meeting or any consent resolution of the shareholders of InMedica, without restriction except any vote by the proxies must be unanimous. This Proxy is coupled with an interest in that Clark and Bruggeman are creditors of InMedica and continue to forebear collection of amounts owing to them based on, among other things, this Proxy being granted to enhance their security for debts due to them.  Mr. Clark and Bruggeman agree that they will be responsible to report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission any change in their beneficial ownership in InMedica caused by this Proxy, pursuant to the appropriate forms under Section 16A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Williams Act of the federal securities laws.
 
 Dated the 20th day of July, 2010.
 CHI LIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD/s/ Yeou-Geng HsuYeou-Geng Hsu, President
§ 2a.8 Termination. ( a ) A Confidentiality Certificate is in effect from the date of its issuance until the effective date of its termination. The effective date of termination shall be the earlier of: ( 1 ) The expiration date set forth in the Confidentiality Certificate; or
( 2 ) Ten days from the date of mailing a Notice of Cancellation to the applicant, pursuant to a determination by the Secretary that the research project has been completed or discontinued or that retention of the Confidentiality Certificate is otherwise no longer necessary or desirable.
( b ) A Notice of Cancellation shall include: an identification of the Confidentiality Certificate to which it applies; the effective date of its termination; and the grounds for cancellation. Upon receipt of a Notice of Cancellation the applicant shall return the Confidentiality Certificate to the Secretary.
( c ) Any termination of a Confidentiality Certificate pursuant to this section is operative only with respect to the names and other identifying characteristics of individuals who begin their participation as research subjects after the effective date of such termination. (See § 2a.4(k) requiring researchers to notify subjects who enter the project after the termination of the Confidentiality Certificate of termination of the Certificate). The protection afforded by a Confidentiality Certificate is permanent with respect to subjects who participated in research during any time the authorization was in effect.
# Iran

595 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 9, 2021	  Jalina PorterApril 9, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 8, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 8, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 7, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 7, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 6, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 6, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 5, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 5, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 2, 2021	  Jalina PorterApril 2, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 1, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 1, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 31, 2021	  Ned PriceMarch 31, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Islamic Republic of Iran	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Key Outcomes at the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council	  March 24, 2021 

previous page1…5253545556…60next page

Back to Top