alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MARLIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v SHERMAN

Case No. 90-38 CC 23

County Court, Dade County

February 8, 1991

OPINION OF THE COURT

LINDA DAKIS, County Judge.

*FINDINGS OF FACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ATTORNEYS FEES*

This cause came before the Court on bifuricated hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys Fees and the Court, after being fully advised in the premises by reviewing the controlling cases, and statutes, hearing testimony of the Plaintiffs expert, Scott Willinger, Esq. and the Defendant’s expert, John Lucas, Esq., hearing arguments of the attorneys for respective parties, hereby finds and orders:

That the Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys Fees is hereby granted in that the Defendant was the prevailing party in the instant lawsuit. The Defendant is entitled to attorneys fees pursuant to Florida Statute 83.48. The Court finds and has inspected a valid fee contract between the Defendant, Lee Sherman, and Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., hereinafter referred to as LSGMI.

*153The Court finds after hearing testimony and reviewing the affidavit of attorney Joseph Schwartz that Mr. Schwartz expended 26 hours on behalf of Lee Sherman and is entitled to a reasonable fee in the amount of $150.00 per hour.

In establishing this fee, the Court has considered the rate charged in the community by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation for similar services in accordance with the dictates of *Florida Patient Compensation Fund v Rowe, 472*So.2d 1145, 1151 (Fla. 1985). The Lodestar is $3900.00 (26.0 hours X $150.00 per hour). The Court has also carefully reviewed *Standard Guaranty Insurance Company v Quanstrom,*555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990) and awards a multiplier of 2.0. The Court finds that the instant action is that of a nature contemplated by *Quanstrom,*supra, and the court has determined that the likelihood of success at the onset of the litigation was approximately even to warrant the application of a multiplier of 2.0. Therefore, the Court finds a reasonable fee of $7800.00 for Mr. Schwartz efforts on behalf of Lee Sherman and Final Judgment should be entered accordingly.

The Court has further considered the efforts of Peter Barber, Esq., has determined that his compensation at the prevailing rate in the Miami area is $175.00 dollars per hour and that request is well within the market range for an attorney of such experience, skill and reputation. The Court finds that Mr. Barber has expended the sum of 5.0 hours for his efforts on behalf of Lee Sherman and the Lodestar amount of fee is therefore $875.00 (5.0 hours X $175.00 per hour). The Court accordingly awards a 2.0 multiplier and therefore reasonable fees for Mr. Barber’s efforts totals $1750.00. The Court has subtracted any duplications of services between Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Barber on behalf of Lee Sherman, has considered the Canons of Professional Responsibility and all criteria for awarding attorneys fees. Judgment in accordance with these findings should be submitted by Defendant.

DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MI C HA E L DE ME T R I US B AI L E Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. D . D . C O X , L ie u te n a n t; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 55463 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 5 -cv -0 0 2 2 5 -S JO -JC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S . J a m e s O t e r o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , a n dT A S H I M A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . M i c ha e l D e m e tr i us B a i l e y , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng due p r o c e s s v io la tio n s a r is in g f r o m ad is c ip lin a ryp r o c e e d in g a n dp la c e m e n t in



# FI LED DE C 14 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS/ Res ea r ch 08- 55463 2 s e gr e ga t e d hous i ng. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de n o v o , B i as v . Moy ni han , 5 0 8 F .3 d1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) , a n dw e a f f irm . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty groun ds on B ai l ey ’ s c l ai m s a gai nstdefe nd antC ox because the l aw w as n o t c le a r lye s tab lis h e dth a t th e c o n d itio n s to w h ic h B a ile yw a s e x p o s e din s e gr e ga t e d hous i ng i m pos e d a n a typi c a l a nd s i gni f i c a ntha r ds hi p i n r e l a t i on t o the o r d in aryin c id e n ts o f

p r is o n lif

e . Se e Se rr a n o v . Fr a n c is , 3 4 5 F .3 d1 0 7 1 , 1 0 8 1 ( 9 th C i r. 20 03 ). Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yg r a n t e ds u mma ryj u d g me n to n Ba i l e y ’ s c l a i ms a g a in s t th e r e m a in in g d e f e n d a n ts b e c au s e B a ile yf a ile dto r a is e atr iab le is s u e a s to w hether these defe nd ant s proxi m at el y c ause d the i nj ury of w hi ch B ai l ey c o m p la in s . Se e L e e rv . Mur phy , 844 F . 2d 628, 633 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( “ A pe r s on de pr i ve s a nothe rof

ac ons t i tut i ona l r i ght , w i thi n the m e a ni ng of s e c t i on 1983, i f

he d o e s a n a f

f irm a tiv e a c t, p a rtic ip a te s in a n o th e r ’s a f f irm a tiv e a c ts , o ro m its to p e r f o rm a n a c t w h ic h h e is le g a llyr e q u ir e dto d o th a t ca u ses the de pr i va t i on of w hi c h the pl a i nt i f

f c om pl a i ns . ” ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). B ai l ey ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
Order entered December 20, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00908-CV

HARRIET NICHOLSON, Appellant

V.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-12504

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 19, 2022 second motion for an 

extension of time to file her opening brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the 

time to January 17, 2023. We caution appellant that further extension requests 

will be disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
§ 63.55 Experience requirements. ( a ) An applicant for a flight navigator certificate must be a graduate of a flight navigator course approved by the Administrator or present satisfactory documentary evidence of— ( 1 ) Satisfactory determination of his position in flight at least 25 times by night by celestial observations and at least 25 times by day by celestial observations in conjunction with other aids; and
( 2 ) At least 200 hours of satisfactory flight navigation including celestial and radio navigation and dead reckoning. A pilot who has logged 500 hours of cross-country flight time, of which at least 100 hours were at night, may be credited with not more than 100 hours for the purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( b ) Flight time used exclusively for practicing long-range navigation methods, with emphasis on celestial navigation and dead reckoning, is considered to be satisfactory navigation experience for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section. It must be substantiated by a logbook, by records of an armed force or a certificated air carrier, or by a letter signed by a certificated flight navigator and attached to the application.
#### § 61.9 [Reserved]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Medicare & Your MentalHealth Benefits [electronic resource].**
2009|2012-pdf|2012-epub|2012-mobi|2014|2016|2017
 
SuDoc Number:HE22.49:

Item Number: 0512-A-79 (online)

CGP systemNumber:000932165 
October 3, 2018
§ 450.107 Hazard control strategies. ( a ) *General.* To meet the safety criteria of § 450.101(a), (b), or (c) for the flight, or any phase of flight, of a launch or reentry vehicle, an operator must use one or more of the hazard control strategies identified in § 450.108 through § 450.111.
( b ) *Hazard control strategy determination.* For each phase of flight during a launch or reentry, an operator must use a functional hazard analysis to determine a hazard control strategy or strategies that account for— ( 1 ) All functional failures associated with reasonably foreseeable hazardous events that have the capability to create a hazard to the public;
( 2 ) Safety-critical systems; and
( 3 ) A timeline of all safety-critical events.
( c ) *Flight hazard analysis.* An operator must conduct a flight hazard analysis in accordance with § 450.109 of this part for the flight, or phase of flight, of a launch or reentry vehicle if the public safety hazards cannot be mitigated adequately to meet the public risk criteria of § 450.101(a), (b), and (c) using physical containment, wind weighting, or flight abort.
( d ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit in its application— ( 1 ) The results of the hazard control strategy determination, including— ( i ) All functional failures identified under paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
( ii ) The identification of all safety-critical systems; and
( iii ) A timeline of all safety-critical events.
( 2 ) A description of its hazard control strategy or strategies for each phase of flight.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification of Principal Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or15d-14(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

 

I, David W. Montgomery, certify that:

 

 

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofAdvanstar Communications Inc. (the “registrant”);

 

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

(4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b) **[Reserved]**

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;

 

(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: March 30, 2006 | By:    | /s/ David W. Montgomery |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                      |   | David W. Montgomery     |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of receipt of application.

                    The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,                     *et seq.*).                 

## Permit Number TE 026515 

*Applicant:*                     Glen R. Gill, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.                 

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass) the Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) in southwestern Michigan within the Huron-Manistee National Forest. Activities are for in situ measurements of larvae to determine cohort survival rates to pupation. Results will aid in the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild. 

Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication. 

Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/713-5343); FAX: (612/713-5292). 

Dated: May 4, 2000. 

Charles M. Wooley, 

Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

[FR Doc. 00-11938 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
#### Gail L. Haymes, Appellant, v Stephen D. Haymes, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 851]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered April 16, 1999, which denied plaintiffs motion for a partial distribution of marital property, made after entry of a judgment dissolving the marriage but before trial of the equitable distribution claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied given highly contested issues of fact as to the value of the marital property and plaintiffs financial needs. We would also note that the trial on *59equitable distribution had begun and substantial proceedings had been conducted therein at the time of argument of this appeal. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
§ 91.1439 CAMP: Maintenance recording requirements. ( a ) Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP must keep (using the system specified in the manual required in § 91.1427) the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section: ( 1 ) All the records necessary to show that all requirements for the issuance of an airworthiness release under § 91.1443 have been met.
( 2 ) Records containing the following information: ( i ) The total time in service of the airframe, engine, propeller, and rotor.
( ii ) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.
( iii ) The time since last overhaul of each item installed on the aircraft that are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.
( iv ) The identification of the current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspections required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained.
( v ) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives, including the date and methods of compliance, and, if the airworthiness directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.
( vi ) A list of current major alterations and repairs to each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.
( b ) Each program manager must retain the records required to be kept by this section for the following periods: ( 1 ) Except for the records of the last complete overhaul of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance the records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for one year after the work is performed.
( 2 ) The records of the last complete overhaul of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance must be retained until the work is superseded by work of equivalent scope and detail.
( 3 ) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be retained as specified unless transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.
( c ) The program manager must make all maintenance records required to be kept by this section available for inspection by the Administrator or any representative of the National Transportation Safety Board.
#### OKLAHOMA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. OZMENT et al.

No. 29657.

July 2, 1940.

*104 P. 2d 235.*

Warren B. Kice, of Ada, for petitioner.

Anton Koch, of Henryetta, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in this court brought by Oklahoma Portland Cement Company, hereafter referred to as petitioner, to obtain a review of an award which was made on December 19, 1939, by a trial commissioner of the State Industrial Commission in favor of T. L. Ozment, hereafter referred to as respondent.

The record shows that respondent sustained a compensable injury on June 10, 1924, while in the employ of the petitioner and that he was' furnished necessary medical attention and paid compensation for temporary total disability, *551and that on August 24, 1939, he filed a motion wherein he requested the State Industrial Commission to determine the extent of the permanent disability which he had sustained as a result of his injury; that at the conclusion of hearings held to determine this matter, a trial commissioner of the State Industrial Commission found that respondent had a 15 per cent, permanent partial loss of use of his left foot which was attributable to his original injury, and made an award in conformity therewith. The petitioner presents a single contention, which is, in substance, that the finding so made is without support of any competent evidence.

The respondent produced Dr. R. F. King, who testified that, upon examination and upon the history given him by respondent, in the opinion of said witness the respondent had from 40 to 50 per cent, permanent partial disability to his left foot. The petitioner urges that, since the respondent testified that he had done a large amount of hard manual labor during the 15 years intervening between the injury and the time the hearing was held to determine permanent disability, and since the medical witnesses who appeared on behalf of petitioner were of the opinion that the respondent had no permanent partial disability as a result of his injury, that therefore there was no competent evidence to support the finding as made by the trial commissioner. We are unable to agree with this contention. The petitioner in effect requests that we weigh the evidence of the medical witnesses and that of the respondent. This we will not do. Magnolia Pet. Co. v. Watkins, 177 Okla. 30, 57 P. 2d 622. The award is reasonably supported by competent evidence and was made in the course of the administration of relief under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and therefore will not be disturbed. McKeever Drilling Co. v. Egbert, 170 Okla. 259, 40 P. 2d 32.

Award sustained.

BAYLESS, C.J., WELCH, V.C.J., and RILEY, HURST, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

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

             (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF

                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)



         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Amalgamated Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

         The Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Form
10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



       Dated: May 21, 2004                     /s/ ROBERT ELLIN
                                               ----------------

                                           Robert Ellin, President




       Dated: May 21, 2004                     /s/ IRWIN GROSS
                                               ---------------

                                           Irwin Gross, Chief Financial Officer




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.