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

FOURTH DISTRICT

WENDY L. MAHLE,

Appellant,

v.

STEPHEN E. MAHLE,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2024

[May 25, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Jessica Ticktin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014DR003592.

Nancy A. Hass of Nancy A. Hass, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Chad R. Laing of Laing & Weicholz, P.L., Boca Raton, for appellee.

ARTAU, J.

Wendy L. Mahle (the former wife) appeals from a final judgment denying 

her petition to modify the permanent periodic alimony awarded to Stephen 

E. Mahle (the former husband) pursuant to a marital settlement agreement 

(MSA) adopted by the trial court as part of their divorce judgment. We 

affirm on all issues because the trial court correctly concluded that the 

former wife failed to sufficiently prove the existence of a substantial and 

material change in the parties’ circumstances to warrant modification of 

the former husband’s alimony award.

In Huertas Del Pino v. Huertas Del Pino, 229 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2017), we held that a trial court may not impute, as income to a recipient 

spouse, the value of that spouse’s eligible, but as-yet unapplied-for, Social 

Security benefits, if the evidence presented demonstrates that the 

receiving spouse “would receive larger benefits if he or she decided to defer 

benefits until a later time” and if there is no evidence to suggest that the 

decision to defer receipt of the benefits was anything other than “a prudent 

investment strategy[.]” Id. at 842.

In the absence of a stipulation in the parties’ MSA or a finding in their 

divorce judgment contemplating retirement at a certain age, we find no 
2

distinction between this case and Huertas Del Pino. See id. at 841-42

(holding that unless a recipient spouse was “receiving Social Security 

benefits ... when the trial court decided alimony” or “absent some other 

compelling reason,” the value of eligible but as-yet unapplied-for Social 

Security benefits is “not subject to imputation”).

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly adhered to 

Huertas Del Pino in declining to impute the value of former husband’s 

eligible, but as-yet unapplied-for, Social Security benefits.

We therefore affirm, because the trial court correctly concluded that the 

former wife failed to sufficiently prove the existence of a substantial and 

material change in the parties’ circumstances to warrant modification of 

the alimony award.

Affirmed.

WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

### TEXAS AUSTIN 

### DtlCSOCMucN
**---**Donorable &me8 E. KU&y, Director, page 3

aertiflcate .of**public** eontehleZW8 and aeoe88ity i88Ued by the Railroad Comtni88ion; and that when the ?IighvayDepartment ha6 iB8Ued ths special p6rc ait above referred to, psrmltting the baullng of oveweight or Over81se or overlength COmWditie8, that the pe66ittee 18authorized t0haul 8uCh load over thehighvays designated by the Blghvay Department .'

we Bl'e6liClOShg B COPY Of thi.8OpiJlio31,**obvloarly th.** 

- PefePred to layour letter.

bbder the applicable statutes, **Article** 

### 827a,**Section 2,**  penal Code, and Article 6701.3,Vernon'8 Annotated Civil Stetutw, **t&e duty**  Of and authority for i66U.i~ the80 8po1a1 **pePdt8** 18 ve8ted in

### th6State Eighvay Departmat. Pre8Umably in the adrtPi8tl'atiOh Of the80 a&8 proper pnd 8UffiCieZlt iIlVe8ti@i~ vi11 bemade by the department before the 188uea~e of the pemit8.

While Article 827a, Section 2, 6upra, enjoIn upon th8 it$@lauaJ~UFtWIlt the 6eQspOhBibility Of 86'eiI2gthat the hati made Under 8nch pemit8 ahall b8 

### bythe 68horte6t praatiaeble wllte," the Hlghuay Department may not enlarge upon aertiflcato tight8 a8 granted by the~Railroad Com~i88ion, ex4ept a6 to **route8** tobe traversed. It ~ay.not by the special pemslt authorise a - per806 to tranaport property for hire rho 1sultbout authority todo 80 from the Railroad Comnia6ion, **or** authorire a servim3 to and from polntr not authorized by the Railroad Ctzimls~lon.

In reply toyour question one, you sbopld honor 8p8oial pemlts issued by the Hi&way Department even though the carrier is thereby anthorissd to traverse routes not lmluded in the certificate Issued by the Railroad Commission, 

### provided the csrrle~, ifnot trarmportlng hi6 oyn property, ha8 authority from the XtailroadCw6is8ion to trBn6pOrt the ~property athand from and to thepoints inYO1Vef.i.

Xourguestlons tvo, thme and ionrare amrwered in the negati*e. If, uader your question five, the carrier posaesse8 a persiltfrom the Elghvay Department, and If the condition6 loentloned ln our ansver toquestion one are existeat, the camler should be permitted toproceed unmolested along the route contained in the permit from the HIghway Departmmt.
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





In connection with the AmendedQuarterly Report of Visualant, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Scott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.





This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive and Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.





/s/ Mark Scott





Mark Scott


Chief Financial Officer


February 28, 2013
#### KAZAKA v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Lorain Co

No. 512.

Decided November 23, 1929

Messrs. Harold J. Peshek and Irwin B. Fried, Canton, for Kazaka.

Messrs. D. W. Myers, Elyria, and J. M. Harding, Lorain, for State.

WASHBURN, J.

There was one other item of evidence which was clearly incompetent, but to which no objection wa's made — to the effect that the search was made because the officers had received complaints of liquor being sold on the Kazaka premises; the right to search the premises was in no way involved in the case, and such eviednce was rank hearsay and so indefinite and general as to be valueless, and we cannot conceive of the same being considered by the trial judge, even though no objection was made to it.

Even if the .intoxicating liquor had been found upon Kazaka’s premises, the evidence in this case would not have warranted a finding that he was guilty. In such a case we have stated the law to be that—

> “3. Where intoxicating liquor is found buried upon the premises of a defendant, and he upon oath denies responsibility for or knowledge of the same, to warrant a finding based upon circumstantial evidence that he knowingly had possession of the liquor the circumstances must be such as make it reasonably certain that he must have known of the presence of liquor upon his premises.”

Glowaski v. State, 20 O. App. 112.

And in the opinion it was observed that:

> “In the Harris case the liquor was found buried in a chicken coop on the premises occupied by him, which place was open and accessible to his two boarders and his neighbors. So far as the state’s case is concerned, that is all of the evidence tending to prove that the defendant had possession of the liquor. One might find from such evidence that the. defendant did have possession of the liquor, if the defendant' failed to offer any evidence denying that the liquor was his, or explaining how it came to be upon his premises, State v. Johnson, 39 Idaho, 44, 227 Pac., 1052, or if the acts and conduct of the defendant at and before the time in question indicated a guilty knowledge in reference to the liquor, or if there was proper evidence tending, to prove that he was, to some extent at least, engaged in thé business of bootlegging **•*.”

In the case at bar, if it be conceded that the liquor found on the adjoining premises might, under all the circumstances in this case, be considered the same as if it had been found upon Kazaka’s premises, which is the most favorable claim that the state can possibly make, still the evidence in the case, under the rules laid down in Glowaski v. State, supra, is not sufficient to prove the guilt of Kazaka beyond a reasonable doubt; and we reaffirm the principles and rules announced in that case.

The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is reversed, and as that court should *42have granted the motion to discharge Kazaka which was made at the close of all the evidence, such judgment may be entered in this court.

Funk, PJ„ and Pardee. J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4305

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL MARTINEZ TAPIA, a/k/a Samuel Martinez, a/k/a Samuel Martinez 

Tapia, a/k/a Frank Cervantes, a/k/a Ariel Vargas, a/k/a Max Hernandez-Tapia,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00089-BO-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 21, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal 

Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United 

States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Samuel Martinez Tapia pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of an alien subsequent to 

an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2012), and 

was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment. Tapia appeals, and argues that his sentence 

is not substantively reasonable. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We examine substantive 

reasonableness considering the totality of the circumstances. Id. “Any sentence that is 

within or below a properly calculated [Sentencing] Guidelines range is presumptively 

[substantively] reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the 

sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [(2012)] 

factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

Tapia posits that his sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. The 

district court meaningfully considered defense counsel’s suggestions for a lower sentence 

and explained its chosen sentence, and Tapia has not rebutted the presumption of 

reasonableness we accord to his within-Guidelines-range sentence. 

We therefore affirm Tapia’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
(80 South. 622)

#### STATE v. GAMBRELL.

(6 Div. 503.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 17, 1918.)

Habeas Corpus <&wkey;113(2) — Order Based on Conflicting Evidence — Review.

Order of circuit court in habeas corpus proceeding, allowing bail to defendant, hold under an indictment charging him with murder in the first degree, will not be disturbed, where the evidence discloses a conflict and the judgment of the court can well be founded thereon.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County ; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

Cuba Gambrell, alias, etc., was indicted for murder in the first degree. Prom an order of the circuit court in habeas corpusi proceeding allowing the defendant bail, the State appeals.

Affirmed.

Emmett S. Thigpen, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Horace C. Alford, of Birmingham, and O. R. Robinson, of Ashville, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

This appeal is by the state from an order made by the judge of the Tenth judicial circuit in a habeas corpus proceeding, in which the court, after hearing all-the evidence, allowed the defendant bail!

*619The .defendant was held under an indictment charging him with murder in the first degree. An exámination of the evidence discloses a conflict, and the judgment of the court can well he founded thereon. It has often been held that in reviewing the finding of the primary tribunal, unless his finding is contrary to the great weight or preponderance of the evidence, such finding will not be disturbed. State v. Chancey, 14 Ala. App. 119, 72 South. 213; State v. Lacey, 158 Ala. 16, 48 South. 343.

The Attorney General, who represents the state before this court, concedes by brief filed that an affirmance of the order of the lower court should he had. The order of the judge of the Tenth judicial circuit in granting the petition and allowing hail is affirmed.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40471 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. JUAN ANTONIO LOPEZ

Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-99-CR-457-1

-------------------- March 16, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Juan Antonio Lopez appeals his jury conviction for importation of Freon. 18 U.S.C. § 545. Lopez argues that the district court erred in giving the jury a “deliberate ignorance” instruction. Having reviewed the record, we find that there was insufficient evidence to support the deliberate ignorance instruction. See United States v. Gray , 105 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 1997). However, the district court’s error in giving the deliberate ignorance instruction was harmless because the record contained substantial evidence of actualNo. 00-40471 -2- knowledge. United States v. Threadgill , 172 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 871 (1999). Lopez also argues that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to give his requested jury instruction on the mens rea required for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545. Title 18 U.S.C. § 545 does not require that a defendant have knowledge of the provisions of the specific law being violated. Because Lopez’ requested instruction would have required the Government to prove such knowledge, it was not a correct statement of the law and the district court did not commit reversible error in refusing to so instruct the jury. See Babb v. United States , 252 F.2d 702, 708 (5th Cir. 1958).
AFFIRMED.
(77 South. 1005)

#### WOODRUFF v. STATE.

(7 Div. 534.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge. Y. C. Woodruff, alias, etc., was convicted of burglary, and appeals.

Affirmed.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted in the circuit court of Calhoun county on March 27, 1917, under an indictment charging him with burglary, from which judgment of conviction this appeal is taken. There is no bill of exceptions, and no error of a reversible nature appearing in the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 9, 2015

a1202

Order 

Clerk

December 9, 2015

151959

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 151959

COA: 320032

Huron CC: 13-305667-FH

RONALD MATTHEW HARTMAN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals 

judgment that found the evidence insufficient to convict the defendant of possession of 

methamphetamine, MCL 333.7403(2)(b)(i), and we REINSTATE that conviction, for the 

reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

02 

FEB 4. - 2011 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Katherine L. Adams 

Senior Vice President and General Counsel 

Honeywell 

101 Columbia Road 

P.O. Box 3000 

Morristown, New Jersey 07962-3000 

Dear Ms. Adams: 

Thank you for meeting with Administrator Jackson and members of my staff on 

December 20, 2010, to discuss Honeywell's new, low-global warming potential (GWP) 

refrigerant for use in motor vehicle air conditioning . The matter you raised in your December 1 

letter comes under the jurisdiction my office and, therefore, I am writing to respond. 

As was discussed at the meeting, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving 

forward with our reviews and rulemakings for HFO-1234yf. On December 17, 2010, we 

submitted the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program final rule to the Office of 

Management and Budget for interagency review. While the review process is still underway, 

EPA staff is doing everything possible to facilitate discussions and resolve any issues that may be 

identified . 

Our SNAP program offers a menu of options for alternatives in eight industrial sectors, 

including refrigeration and air conditioning . Substances such as HFO-1234yf (with a GWP of 

only 4) could provide additional options that are better for the ozone layer and the climate system. 

We believe that these and similar innovative solutions can help us reduce environmental 

damage while still supporting cost-effective solutions for consumer end-uses. 

EPA recognizes the important role alternative refrigerants will play in reducing overall 

emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles . The Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Standards are a priority for this Administration, providing a reasonable, affordable 

approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to protect the climate system. This rule 

allows motor vehicle manufacturers additional flexibility to meet the emission standards by using 

alternative refrigerants . We understand that the automotive industry considers HFO-1234yf a 

viable tool for implementing those provisions . 

Internet Address (URL) * http ://www .epa .gov 

Recycled/Recyclable e Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Again, thank you for your letter and we will keep you informed of progress on these 

actions. Please contact Drusilla Hufford, Director of the Stratospheric Protection Division, at 

(202)-343-9101 if you have specific questions. 

Assistant Administrator 

ina McCarthy
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE REPORT 

STUDY TITLE 

Determination of the acute effect on the swimming ability of the water flea 

Daphnia magna STRAUS 

AUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT 

PERFORMING LABORATORY 

LABORATORY PROJECT IDENTIFICATION 

SPONSOR 

This document contains manufacturing and trade secrets of the sponsor. It is the property of the sponsor and may be used only for 

that purpose, for which it was intended by the sponsor. Every other or additional use, exploitation, reproduction, publication or 

submission to other parties require the written permission of the sponsor, with the exception of regulatory agencies acting within the 

limits of their administrative authority. 

This document is the property of the sponsors {specified on page 1), use by other parties requires written permission by the sponsors 

Page 1 of 6 
Amendment no. 1 to the Report; 

This document Is the property of the sponsors (specified on page 1), use by other parties requires written pennlsslon by the sponsors 

Page 2 of6 
Amendment no. 1 to the Report; 

STATEMENT OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE UNIT 

The Quality Assurance Unit ( ctions given below, and 

reported any inspection results to the Study Director and to Management. The conduct 

of this short-term study was not inspected; the processes of the laboratory and of the 

study involved are inspected in regular intervals. 

The final report reflects the raw data. 

This document is the property of the sponsors (specified on page 1), use by other parties requires written permission by the sponsors 

Page 3 of 6 
Amendment no. 1 to the Report; 

MODIFICATION OF THE REPORT 

An amendment was added

Reason: 

the description of the gradient run conditions was incorrect. 

This document is the.property of the sponsors (specified on page 1), use by other parties requires wriHen permission by the sponsors 

Page 4 of 6 
Amendment no. 1 to the Report;

This document is the property of the sponsors (specified on page 1), use by other parties requires written permission by the sponsors 

Page 5 of6 
Amendment no. 1 to the Report; 

Statement of the Quality Assurance Unit 

The Quality Assurance Unit inspects the laboratories of the department

Analytics in regular intervals. Besides these general inspections we inspected the following Items of this 

study in accordance with the OECD Principles of Good laboratory Practice and the GLP Principles of 

Findings are reported to study director and to 

management. 

The final report reflects the raw data. 

This document is the property of the sponsors (specified on page 1), use by other parties requires written permission by the sponsors 

Page 6 of6