alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARKEE DESHAWN FELTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1190

[April 9, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

432017000243CFJXMX.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 JUNE 30, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16305

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-20397-CR-UUB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KAREEM JACKSON,

a.k.a. Jamar Fields,

a.k.a. Face,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(June 30, 2009)

Before CARNES, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Nathan D. Clark, appointed counsel for Kareem Jackson, has moved to

withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Jackson’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                        9
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
<RESTATED>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1998

<CASH>                                   3,025,546
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     175,118
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           139,090
<TRADING-ASSETS>                           106,501
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             13,448,247
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   2,544,400
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     2,621,122
<LOANS>                                 47,716,820
<ALLOWANCE>                                718,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          72,553,500
<DEPOSITS>                              52,054,513
<SHORT-TERM>                             7,394,169
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                      1,191,301
<LONG-TERM>                              5,347,846
<COMMON>                                     9,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                               6,555,836
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          72,553,500
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          2,941,683
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          744,479
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            90,101
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         3,776,263
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       1,391,937
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       1,897,018
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    1,879,245
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              124,885
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          10,690
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                          1,717,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,059,636
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               1,059,636
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               702,280
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                4.04
<LOANS-NON>                                237,444
<LOANS-PAST>                               159,422
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             6,545
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           657,098
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              167,117
<RECOVERIES>                                56,342
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          718,901
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       718,901
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0


</TABLE>
#### Hoffman v. Hoffman

*713
      *Robert M. Frey,*for plaintiff.

April 21, 1958.

Shughart, P. J.,

— The report of the master in the above proceedings indicates that the whereabouts of defendant have been unknown since her original departure from the home in which the parties were living on or about May 23, 1953.

Various parties, including plaintiff, testified that they have not seen or heard of her since that time; however, there was no testimony from any of the four children of the parties, who range in age from 20 to 26 years, as to their knowledge of the whereabouts of the wife-defendant.

The likelihood that a mother would be in touch with a child is far greater than the likelihood that she would be in touch with anybody else; therefore, before concluding this matter without notice to defendant, the record should disclose what knowledge of the mother’s whereabouts the children have.

It is always of great importance that a defendant in a divorce action have knowledge of the proceedings whenever possible; therefore, this matter will be referred back to the master for further efforts to the end that notice may be given to defendant.

If a better address can be obtained, then a rehearing should be scheduled so that defendant has an opportunity to appear and be heard. If no better address can be obtained, then the master is directed to file a report as to his efforts to obtain any better address, together with any testimony taken in connection therewith, and said report to be filed without further notice of the filing of the same. Defendant has already had notice of a hearing by publication; further notice in this manner is unnecessary.

*714And now, April 21, 1958, at 10 a.m., the matter is referred back to the master, heretofore appointed, who shall proceed as indicated in the foregoing opinion.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Robert Foran v. Cameron Roesle and Robert W. Berleth

Appellate case number: 01-21-00556-CV

Trial court case number: 19-DCV-267154

Trial court: 400th District Court of Fort Bend County

On January 27, 2022, this Court advised the parties that it could not determine whether an 

automatic stay as to the instant appeal was in effect in light of the bankruptcy of Preferred 

Ready-Mix LLC, which filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, Cause No. 21-33369 in the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The Court asked the 

parties to respond within ten days, explaining whether this appeal should be stayed in light of the 

bankruptcy.

On January 31, 2022, appellee Cameron Roesle filed an “Emergency Motion to Extend 

Time,” requesting an extension of time in which to respond to the Court’s January 27, 2022

notice. Appellee advised in the motion that a February 23, 2022 hearing in bankruptcy court 

may affect this appeal. Appellee’s motion is granted. The deadline for the parties to respond to 

this Court’s notice is February 28, 2022.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss__________

Acting individually 

Date: February 3, 2022
Exhibit
32.2   Section 1350 Certification





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens First Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Dawn
S. Forbes, Executive Vice President, Finance and Principal Financial Officer, of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








By:
            /s/ Dawn S. ForbesDawn
      S. ForbesExecutive
      Vice President, Finance and Principal Financial OfficerDate:
            November
      14, 2008








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
or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
#### TAXICAB & TOURING CAR CO. v. POOL.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. C. W. Ferguson.

John S. Stone, for appellant.

H. B. Parrish, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
# Úradný vestník C 194A/30.

| | ISSN 1725-5236 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 194A |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 4730. júla 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5236

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 194A

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 4730. júla 2004

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Oznámenia |
| | Rada |
| 2004/C 194A/1 | Oznámenie o voľnom pracovnom mieste — Európska obranná agentúra — Riaditelia | 1 |
| | Európske stredisko pre monitorovanie rasizmu a xenofóbie |
| 2004/C 194A/2 | Výzva na podávanie prihlášok HOUA-A-2004 | 2 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

III   Oznámenia

Rada

2004/C 194A/1

Oznámenie o voľnom pracovnom mieste — Európska obranná agentúra — Riaditelia

1

Európske stredisko pre monitorovanie rasizmu a xenofóbie

2004/C 194A/2

Výzva na podávanie prihlášok HOUA-A-2004

2

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

III Oznámenia

Rada

| 30.7.2004 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 194/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 194/1

---

OZNÁMENIE O VOĽNOM PRACOVNOM MIESTE

Európska obranná agentúra

Riaditelia

(2004/C 194 A/01)

Európska obranná agentúra má v úmysle prijať štyroch riaditeľov pre svoje štyri riaditeľstvá:

| — | Rozvoj vojenských kapacít (Ref. EDA/A/2004/012), |
| --- | --- |

—

Rozvoj vojenských kapacít (Ref. EDA/A/2004/012),

| — | Výskum a technológia (Ref. EDA/A/2004/0029), |
| --- | --- |

—

Výskum a technológia (Ref. EDA/A/2004/0029),

| — | Vyzbrojovanie (Ref. EDA/A/2004/042), |
| --- | --- |

—

Vyzbrojovanie (Ref. EDA/A/2004/042),

| — | Obranný priemysel a trh (Ref. EDA/A/2004/051). |
| --- | --- |

—

Obranný priemysel a trh (Ref. EDA/A/2004/051).

Viac informácií (dostupných v angličtine) a prihlášky je možné získať na webovej stránke Rady na tejto adrese: http://ue.eu.int (kontakty/ponuky práce).

Termín: 3. september 2004, rozhoduje dátum na poštovej pečiatke.

---

Európske stredisko pre monitorovanie rasizmu a xenofóbie

| 30.7.2004 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 194/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 194/2

---

VÝZVA NA PODÁVANIE PRIHLÁŠOK HOUA-A-2004

(2004/C 194 A/02)

Európske stredisko pre monitorovanie rasizmu a xenofóbie (EUMC) hľadá kandidátov na obsadenie určitých pracovných miest. Podrobné informácie o týchto voľných miestach, o poslaní strediska a postupe pri príprave prihlášky sú uverejnené na webovej stránke EUMC Internet na adrese: http://eumc.eu.int.

---
#### BOBST et v FENTON et

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

No 248.

Decided March 12, 1930

William J. Meyer, Portsmouth, for Bobst et.

A. Z. Blair, Portsmouth, for Fenton, et.

BY THE COURT.

Following the election for members of the County Board of Education of Scioto County at the November election, 1929, Fred' Bobst and others undertook to contest the election of Fenton and others who had been declared elected. The contestors filed the notice of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas contemplated by 5149 GC. That court upon motion dismissed the appeal upon the gro.und that no contest could be had for this particular office under the section referred to. The right to contest was asserted under the provisions of Section 5148 and following of the General Code. Section 5148 gives the right to contest the election of anyone who has been declared elected “to any county office or to the office of probate judge”. It is now sought, to reverse the order of the Common Pleas dismissing the appeal, and the soundness of that order depends upon whether or not a member of a county board of education is a county officer.

The election of members of all of the different boards of education are by statute required to be made in the odd numbered years. Section 1, Article XVII, of the Constitution as adopted in 1905, requires county officers to be elected in the even numbered years. If we were to hold that members of the county board of education are county officers we would be required to hold that the section providing for their election in the odd numbered years is unconstitutional. State ex rel v. City of Cincinnati, 19 Ohio 178, and Cline v. Martin, 94 OS. 420, require an affirmance of the judgment.

Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-13-0003586 13-AUG-2014 08:48 AM

SCAD-13-0003586
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs. CHRISTOPHER M. FUJIYAMA, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 13-031-9101)
ORDER OF SUSPENSION ( By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ' i recommending this court suspend Respondent Christopher M. Fujiyama for two years and require him to bear the cost of the disciplinary proceedings, and upon review of the record, this court reaches the following findings and conclusions by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent Fujiyama did, in 2012, intentionally and knowingly traffic in counterfeit goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a)(1), and is currently serving a three-year period ofprobation for that federal offense. Such conduct reflects adversely on Respondent Fujiyama’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer, and is conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the Hawai ' i Rules of Professional Conduct (1994). In aggravation, we find Respondent Fujiyama acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and engaged in a pattern of misconduct which injured the corporate owners of the rightful trademarks. In mitigation, we note his previously clean disciplinary record, his timely, good-faith effort at restitution, his cooperative attitude with federal investigators, his full disclosure to the Disciplinary Board, his cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, the other penalties imposed upon himfor his conduct, including a six-month home detention during nonworking hours and full payment of a $ 20,000.00 fine, the support he received from 19 individuals attesting to his character, and his expressions of genuine remorse. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Fujiyama is suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a period of two years, effective 30 days after the date of entry of this order, as provided by Rules 2.3(a)(2), 2.13(d), and 2.16(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ' i (RSCH). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the

2Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ' i, Respondent Fujiyama shall pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon the timely submission of a bill of costs, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c). IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Fujiyama shall, within ten days after the effective date of his suspension, file with this court an affidavit that he is in full compliance with RSCH Rule 2.16(d). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, August 13, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

3
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 09, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 09, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0288. IN THE INTEREST OF: L. B., A CHILD (FATHER).

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

1601195
Due to the fi l e size of the CALPUFF modeling files, they are not available from the electronic docket. These files are available upon request.

Please email your request to: Erik Snyder ( snyder.erik@epa.gov ) and Michael Feldman

( f eldman

. michael@epa.gov ) or call 214

- 665

- 7200

Thank you
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12722]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-281-000]


Trailblazer Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 16, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 11, 2000, Trailblazer, Pipeline Company 
(Trailblazer) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to 
the filing, to be effective June 1, 2000.
    Trailblazer states that these tariff sheets are being filed in 
compliance with the Commission's Order No. 587-G issued April 16, 1998 
in Docket No. RM96-1-008, which order relates to interstate pipelines' 
business transactions using Internet communication as well as to 
various issues relating to the standardization of these business 
communications using the Internet.
    Trailblazer requested any waivers which may be required for the 
tendered tariff sheets to become effective June 1, 2000, consistent 
with Order Nos. 587-G and 587-I.
    Trailblazer states that copies of the filing have been mailed to 
its customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out on 
the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RM96-1.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12722 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### MUTUAL LOAN SOCIETY, INC., v. LEONARD.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

G. W. Yancey, for appellant.

David S. Anderson, for appellee.

Evans, J.

Affirmed on authority of *Mutual Loan Society, Inc., v. C. R. Stowe, infra,*73 South. 202.
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0518(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0518(01)

**Council Decision of 2 May 2000 appointing the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) **

*
Official Journal C 139 , 18/05/2000 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Council Decision

of 2 May 2000

appointing the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)

(2000/C 139/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark(1), and in particular Article 120(1) and (2) thereof,

Having regard to the Council Decision of 16 June 1994 appointing the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)(2),

Having regard to the Council Decision of 3 December 1998 renewing the term of office of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)(3),

Having regard to the candidatures presented by the Administrative Board of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) on 6 March 2000,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Mr Wubbo de BOER, born on 27 May 1948, is hereby appointed President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) from 1 October 2000 until 30 September 2005.

Done at Brussels, 2 May 2000.

For the Council

The President

J. Coelho

(1) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1. Regulation amended by Regulation (EC) No 3288/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 83).

(2) OJ C 314, 25.11.1995, p. 1.

(3) OJ C 409, 30.12.1998, p. 1.
#### DICK v McKELVEY CO

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided June 6, 1930

Knight & Gluck, Youngstown, for Dick.

Harrington, DeFord, Huxley & Smith, Youngstown, for McKelvey Co.

POLLOCK, J:

The plaintiff in error brought an action against G. M. McKelvey Company, which is engaged in the conduct of a general store in this city, in which she alleges that on February 20th, 1925, she entered this store for the purpose of making a purchase and as she was leaving an elevator she tripped and fell and suffered personal injury thereby; that this was caused by the negligence of the company in operating their elevator. There was an answer filed which raised several defenses and one of them is the defense of two year satute of limitations. A jury was called and the case went to trial in the Court of Common Pleas to a jury, and at the close of the statement of the plaintiff in the case a motion was made by the defendant to direct a verdict, on the ground that the .action was not brought within the statutory period of limitations.

It appeared in the opening statement of counsel, and also in the petition, that the injury had occurred as we have stated, on the 20th of February, 1925. A petition was filed in the Court of Common Pleas on September 26th, more than three years after the accident had occurred. The cause of action arose prior to the amendment to 11224-1 GC which is the statute of limitations for personal injury actions, limiting the action to two years. This action, as we have said, arose prior to the amendment we have spoken of. The action was not filed in the court below until after the amendment had become effective.

The Supreme Court in the case of Tilby L. Smith vs. New York Central Railroad Company, a very recent case, (See 8 Abs 192; 170 NE 637; 122 Oh St 45, has held that where the cause of action arose prior to the amendment, but that the petition was not filed until after the amendment became effective, that the two year statute applies, and as that is the case in this present action that we are considering, the judgment of the court below was well taken, and it is affirmed.

Roberts and Farr, JJ, concur.