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

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.

A RTAU , J.

Wendy L. Mahle (the former wife) appeals f rom 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 the ir divorce judgment. We affirm on all issues because the trial court correctly concluded that t he former wife failed to sufficiently prove the existence of a substantial and material change in the parties ’ c ircumstances 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
, S ocial S ecurity benefits
, if the evidenc e 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 84 2.

I n the absence of a stipulation in the parties ’ MSA or a finding in the ir divorce judgment contemplating retirement at a certain age , we find no2 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 b ut as

- yet unapplied

- for S ocial S ecurity benefits is “not subject to imputation” ).

Accordingly, w e conclude that t he trial court properly adhered to Huertas Del Pino in declining to impute the value of former husband’s eligible
, but as

- yet unapplied

- for
, S ocial S ecurity 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.

W ARNER and G ROSS , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT10.92**

 

 

**STRAIGHT NOTE**

 

 
| $600,000 |   | South El Monte,  California |   | July 1, 2002 |
|----------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------------|

 

For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises topay The Monticello Companies, Inc. or order, at South El Monte, California thesum of SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, with interest adjusted to the date fundsare received, on unpaid principal at the rate of ten (10) per cent perannum.  Interest only will be payable onthe 20th of each month commencing on August 20, 2002.  Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the unpaid principalbalance daily, based on a 365-day year, actual day month and payablemonthly.  Principal and interest shallbe payable in lawful money of the United States.  If action were instituted on this note, I promise to pay such sumas the Court may fix as attorney’s fees. The due date of this note is October 1, 2004 or later.

 

After two years, from July 1, 2002, either party cangive 90 days written notice to pay off or ask for the funds back.

 

1)      General Corporate Obligation.

 

2)      Any brand(s) purchased with the loan proceeds will provide TheMonticello Companies, Inc. a security interest in the brand(s).

 

3)      Personal Guarantee of Ronald G. Lee.

 

 
| JULY 1, 2002 |   | RONALD G. LEE                            |
|--------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
| Date         |   | Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee      |
|         |   |
|         |   |
| JULY 1, 2002 |   | MICHAEL L. AGRESTI                       |
| Date         |   | Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti |

 

----
#### LINOWSKI et v KULIK et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10293.

Decided Dec. 23, 1929

V„ J. Pugher, Cleveland, for Linowski, et.

*127VICKERY, PJ.

We can find no fault with the court’s law in this respect and we think the court was right in refusing to admit the evidence that was sought to be introduced. Inasmuch as the judgment in the original case stands unmodified and unreversed we see no reason why the two who paid the judgment should not get a judgment against the other two co-defendants, for their share of the contribution. If the judgment in the original case was rendered erroneously and without the parties being in court that must be attacked directly. It cannot be attacked collaterally as was purposed in the instant case. What I mean is, that if the defendants in that case were not properly in court and were prevented from having a proper defense if they had one, the filing of a petition to vacate that judgment would be a direct attack, and then if that judgment was vacated and set aside, there would be some foundation for the defense in this case.

The court having committed no error, the judgment below will be affirmed.

Levine and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 36

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death 

for adolescents and young adults in the United States, 

and many of these deaths are preventable; 

Whereas almost 7,500 drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 

years were involved in fatal crashes in 2005 throughout 

the United States; 

Whereas the fatality rate in the United States for drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 years, based on miles driven, 

is 4 times the fatality rate for drivers between the ages 

of 25 and 69 years; 

Whereas the majority of teen driver crashes in the United 

States are due to driver error and speeding, and 15 percent of the crashes are due to drunk driving; 

Whereas roughly two-thirds of the teenagers killed in motor 

vehicle accidents in the United States each year do not 

use seatbelts; 

Whereas approximately 63 percent of teen passenger deaths 

in the United States occur while other teenagers are driving; 

Whereas it is necessary to explore effective ways to reduce 

the crash risk for young drivers by focusing research and 

outreach efforts on areas of teen driving that show the 

most promise for improving safety; 
2

•SCON 36 ES 

Whereas the National Teen Driver Survey, developed with 

input from teenagers and administered by The Children’s 

Hospital of Philadelphia, demonstrates a national need to 

increase overall awareness about the safe use of electronic 

handheld devices, the risk of nighttime and fatigued driving, the importance of consistent seatbelt use, and the 

practice of gradually increasing driver privileges over 

time as a young driver gains more experience under supervised conditions; 

Whereas in 2005, 1,553 crash fatalities involving a teen driver occurred in the fall, when teenagers are in the first 

months of the school year and faced with many decisions 

involving driving, including whether to drive with peer 

passengers and other distractions; and 

Whereas designating the third week of October as National 

Teen Driver Safety Week is expected to increase awareness of these important issues among teenagers and 

adults in communities throughout the United States, as 

additional research is conducted to develop and test effective interventions that will help teenagers become safe 

drivers: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

4 Teen Driver Safety Week; and 

5 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

6 to observe the week with appropriate activities that 
3

•SCON 36 ES 

1 promote the practice of safe driving among the Na2 tion’s licensed teenage drivers. 

Passed the Senate October 15, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 36

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Teen 

Driver Safety Week.
----

Action brought on 23 July 2004 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-294/04)

(2004/C 262/71)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 2004 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The claimant is a German non-governmental organisation, working in the humanitarian area.

The applicant maintains that in Case T-321/01 (1), concerning the rejection of two applications by the applicant for co-financing, the Court of First Instance recognised that the Commission's conduct was deficient and annulled the corresponding Commission decision. The applicant argues that, in the pre-judicial proceedings before the European Ombudsman, it incurred substantial costs, the recoverability of which the Court of First Instance did not acknowledge under its Rules of Procedure in the context of Case T-321/01. The applicant therefore sees no alternative to bringing an action against the Commission for non-contractual liablity in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.

----

(1)  Judgment of 18.9.2003 in Case T-321/01 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.

----
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3588

_____________________________

NATHANIEL RAHEEM CHAPMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Steven B. Whittington, Judge.

October 23, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 10.02


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


April 6, 2015


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Gas
Natural Inc., an Ohio corporation (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order of NIL Funding Corporation
LLC (the "Lender") the Five Million Dollar ($5,000,000.00) principal amount of the Loan of the Lender outstanding
from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Loan Agreement, of even date hereof, between the Borrower and the Lender
(as amended, restated, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to time, the "Loan Agreement").
Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Loan Agreement.


 


(a) The Borrower promises to pay interest
on the unpaid principal amount of the Loan from the date of the Loan until such principal amount is paid in full, at the interest
rates and at the times provided in the Loan Agreement.


 


(b) This Note is the Note referred to in
the Loan Agreement, is entitled to the benefits thereof and may be prepaid in whole or in part subject to the terms and conditions
provided therein. Upon the occurrence and continuation of any Event of Default under the Loan Agreement, all principal and all
accrued interest then remaining unpaid on this Note shall become, or may be declared to be, immediately due and payable, all as
provided in the Loan Agreement.


 


(c) The Loan made by the Lender may be evidenced
by one or more records or accounts maintained by the Lender in the ordinary course of business as well as by this Note. The Lender
may also attach schedules to this Note and endorse thereon the date, amount and maturity of the Loan and all payments made on the
Loan; provided that any failure of the Lender to make any such recordation or endorsement shall not affect the Obligations
of the Borrower under this Note.


 


(d) The Borrower hereby waives diligence,
presentment, demand, protest, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of acceleration, and any other notice of any kind. No failure
on the part of the holder hereof to exercise, and no delay in exercising, any right, power or privilege hereunder shall operate
as a waiver thereof or a consent thereto; nor shall a single or partial exercise of any such right, power or privilege preclude
any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege.


 


THIS NOTE AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE BORROWER
HEREUNDER SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


	 	Gas Natural, Inc.
	 	 	 	 
	 	By	 	 
	 	Name: James E. Sprague
	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
§ 37.68 How may a recipient show cause why enforcement proceedings should not be instituted? A recipient may show cause why enforcement proceedings should not be instituted by, among other means: ( a ) Correcting the violation(s) that brought about the Notice to Show Cause and entering into a written assurance and/or entering into a Conciliation Agreement, as appropriate, under §§ 37.95 through 37.97;
( b ) Demonstrating that CRC does not have jurisdiction; or
( c ) Demonstrating that the violation alleged by CRC did not occur.
§ 21.110 Expedited review procedures for certain kinds of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in approved research. ( a ) The Secretary of HHS has established, and published as a Notice in the Federal Register, a list of categories of research that may be reviewed by the IRB through an expedited review procedure. The Secretary will evaluate the list at least every 8 years and amend it, as appropriate, after consultation with other federal departments and agencies and after publication in the Federal Register for public comment. A copy of the list is available from the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office.
( b ) ( 1 ) An IRB may use the expedited review procedure to review the following: ( i ) Some or all of the research appearing on the list described in paragraph (a) of this section, unless the reviewer determines that the study involves more than minimal risk;
( ii ) Minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized; or
( iii ) Research for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption under § 21.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7) and (8).
( 2 ) Under an expedited review procedure, the review may be carried out by the IRB chairperson or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among members of the IRB. In reviewing the research, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the IRB except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. A research activity may be disapproved only after review in accordance with the nonexpedited procedure set forth in § 21.108(b).
( c ) Each IRB that uses an expedited review procedure shall adopt a method for keeping all members advised of research proposals that have been approved under the procedure.
( d ) The department or agency head may restrict, suspend, terminate, or choose not to authorize an institution's or IRB's use of the expedited review procedure.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.146 Contract obligations after award, generally.

A contractor's obligation to observe the provisions of the Act arises on the date the contractor is informed that award of the contract has been made, and not necessarily on the date of formal execution. However, the contractor is required to comply with the provisions of the Act and regulations thereunder only while the employees are performing on the contract, provided the contractor's records make clear the period of such performance. (See also § 4.179.) If employees of the contractor are required by the contract to complete certain preliminary training or testing prior to the commencement of the contract services, or if there is a phase-in period which allows the new contractor's employees to familiarize themselves with the contract work so as to provide a smooth transition between contractors, the time spent by employees undertaking such training or phase-in work is considered to be hours worked on the contract and must be compensated for even though the principal contract services may not commence until a later date.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

130698 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

HIGHLAND-HOWELL DEVELOPMENT 

COMPANY, LLC, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130698 

 COA: 262437 

MTT: 00-307906 

TOWNSHIP OF MARION, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On November 15, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave 

to appeal the January 31, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, 

the application is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include 

among the issues to be briefed: (1) what was the specific benefit conferred on 

petitioner’s property by the special assessment confirmed in 1996, see Kadzban v 

Grandville, 442 Mich 495 (1993); (2) whether that benefit was reduced by the informal 

change in the improvement plan or respondent’s May 13, 2004 resolution; (3) whether 

respondent’s informal change or respondent’s May 13, 2004 resolution is reviewable by 

the Michigan Tax Tribunal under MCL 205.731(a); and (4) what remedy, if any, 

petitioner would have if the change in the improvement plan after confirmation of the 

special assessment roll reduced the value that accrued to petitioner’s property such that 

the benefit became unreasonably disproportionate to the amount assessed. 

d1220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 29, 2006 

Clerk
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 15 July 2004 in the case of REWE Zentralfinanz e.G., as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH against Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

(Case C-347/04)

(2004/C 273/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) (Germany) of 15 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of REWE Zentralfinanz e.G., as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH against Finanzamt Köln-Mitte on the following question:

----
Exhibit 32.1
                            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  Quarterly  Report of  Visualant,  Incorporated  on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Ralph Brier,  Chief
Executive Officer,  President and Director 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, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.

                      /s/ Ralph Brier
                      --------------------------
                      Ralph Brier
                      Chief  Executive  Officer
                      President  and  Director

Date:  May  11,  2006
#### LOCKHART v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 84-224 AC (County Court Case No. 84-59454)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

May 22, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Frederick C. Sake for appellant.

Robert Butterworth, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SHAPIRO, SOLOMON, ROBINSON, JJ.

*168OPINION OF THE COURT

STEVEN D. ROBINSON, Judge.

This appeal follows denial of appellant’s Motion to Set Aside his guilty pleas on the ground that it was not freely and voluntarily made and was prejudicial. The defendant claims prejudice occurred because an expungement and sealing of his record was denied because of a previous conviction.

The defendant was told that “he would not get a record”. This vague explanation was inadequate as it did not explain the difference between a record of conviction and a record in general. There existed an honest misunderstanding. Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1971). *Tobey v. State,*458 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The common meaning of the judge’s language implies no adverse consequences from a plea.

In addition the trial court made no determination that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea. He could not have on the basis of the record before us. Also, the trial judge admitted when he heard the motion to vacate his plea that there was no factual basis in the arrest affidavit for the plea. This, by itself, is prejudicial because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the defendant was guilty of no crime whatsoever. *Waugh v. State,*388 So.2d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

The court’s order denying the Motion to Set Aside Plea is reversed; the plea is vacated; and the cause is remanded for the defendant to be allowed to enter a not guilty plea and for trial proceedings to then ensue.
§ 511.11 Pertinent data. Among the types of data which may be considered pertinent to the subjects and issues delineated in § 511.10, are those revealing: ( a ) Employment and labor conditions and trends in American Samoa, and on the mainland, particularly since the promulgation of the presently applicable wage order, including such items as present and past employment, present wage rates and fringe benefits, changes in average hourly earnings or wage structure, provisions of collective bargaining agreements, hours of work, labor turnover, absenteeism, productivity, learning periods, rejection rates, and similar factors;
( b ) Market conditions and trends in American Samoa, and on the mainland, including changes in the volume and value of production, market outlets, price changes, style factors, consumer demand, competitive relationships, tariff rates, and similar marketing factors;
( c ) Comparative production costs in American Samoa, on the mainland, and in foreign countries, together with the factors responsible for differences;
( d ) Financial conditions and trends since promulgation of the present wage order as reflected in profit and loss statements and balance sheets; and
( e ) Data bearing on proper definitions of classifications within an industry.
[55 FR 12120, Mar. 30, 1990]