alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT A

Case 9:22-cv-81961-AMC Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2023 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No.: Case No.: 9:22-cv-81961-AMC

JONATHAN LEE REIGROD, 

An Individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARBER DELRAY INC.,

d/b/a DELRAY BUICK GMC,

A Florida Corporation, 

Defendant.

______________________________/

AFFIDAVIT OF JONATHAN LEE REIGROD AS TO PLAINTIFF’S 

DAMAGES

STATE OF FLORIDA )

COUNTY OF BROWARD )

1. My name is JONATHAN LEE REIGROD. I am over the age of 

majority and sui juris. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this 

affidavit and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.

2. I am the named Plaintiff in the above-styled action. 

3. In December of 2018, I leased a new 2019 Buick Encore UT from the 

Defendant, DELRAY BUICK GMC (“Defendant”).

4. The Vehicle was leased under a Closed-End Vehicle Lease Agreement 

(“Lease”). 

Case 9:22-cv-81961-AMC Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2023 Page 2 of 4
5. A true and correct copy of the Lease is attached as Exhibit A to the 

Complaint in this action.

6. In the Lease, I was provided the option to buy the leased vehicle at the 

end of the lease term. 

7. Specifically, pursuant to paragraph 9 of my lease, my buyout option 

price was $16,550.30.

8. The Lease did not disclose a purchase option fee.

9. The Lease did not disclose that I had to pay any other fees to buyout 

my vehicle at the end of the lease term.

10. I reasonably relied upon the terms of the Lease in making the decision 

to enter in to the Lease. 

11. At the end of the lease term, I purchased the subject vehicle from 

Defendant.

12. To buy the Vehicle, Defendant charged me a $898.00 “Pre-delivery 

Service Charge”, along with a $295.00 “Electronic Registration Filing Fee”.

13. These fees were never disclosed in the Lease and I was not made aware

that I would be required to pay these fees to buyout my leased vehicle.

14. Had I known I would have been charged these fees, I would have 

negotiated better terms at the inception of the Lease. 

15. In total, I was charged $1,193.00 more than the purchase option price 

Case 9:22-cv-81961-AMC Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2023 Page 3 of 4
disclosed in the lease. 

16. I have hired the law firms of Joshua Feygin, PLLC and Newhart Legal, 

PA and I am obligated to pay my attorneys a reasonable fee for representation herein.

VERIFICATION

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit 

and that the facts stated in it are true.

______________________

JONATHAN LEE REIGROD 

Dated:_________________

2/9/2023

Case 9:22-cv-81961-AMC Document 9-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2023 Page 4 of 4
Searched for **http://www.ems.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.ems.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
§ 105-71.111 State plans. ( a ) *Scope.* The statutes for some programs require States to submit plans before receiving grants. Under regulations implementing Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” States are allowed to simplify, consolidate and substitute plans. This section contains additional provisions for plans that are subject to regulations implementing the Executive order.
( b ) *Requirements.* A State need meet only Federal administrative or programmatic requirements for a plan that are in statutes or codified regulations.
( c ) *Assurances.* In each plan the State will include an assurance that the State shall comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding. For this assurance and other assurances required in the plan, the State may: ( 1 ) Cite by number the statutory or regulatory provisions requiring the assurances and affirm that it gives the assurances required by those provisions,
( 2 ) Repeat the assurance language in the statutes or regulations, or
( 3 ) Develop its own language to the extent permitted by law.
( d ) *Amendments.* A State will amend a plan whenever necessary to reflect: ( 1 ) New or revised Federal statutes or regulations or
( 2 ) A material change in any State law, organization, policy, or State agency operation.
The State will obtain approval for the amendment and its effective date but need submit for approval only the amended portions of the plan.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Coleman and Overton Argued at Salem, Virginia

ANN MARIE GRANT MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1565-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON FEBRUARY 25, 1997 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE James F. Ingram, Judge Stacey W. Moreau (Williams, Stilwell, Morrison, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellant. Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Ann Marie Grant appeals her convictions of transporting marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. She contends that the search and seizure by the police violated her Fourth Amendment rights. We disagree and affirm. The Danville Police Department received information that a passenger listed as "J. Manning" would possibly be carrying drugs on the 11:30 p.m. train from New York to Danville. As each passenger detrained, a police officer asked if he could see that passenger's boarding pass. At this request, the appellant Ann Marie Grant volunteered her boarding pass. It read "J. Manning." The officer then asked if he could search Grant's bags. Grant replied, "Yes," and made no other comments or protests. The

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - search revealed a large quantity of marijuana.

The Fourth Amendment is not intended to "eliminate all contact between the police and the citizenry, but 'to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals.'" United

States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544, 553-54, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, 100 S. Ct. 1870 (1980) (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U.S. 543, 544 (1976)). Consensual encounters between police and individuals have no Fourth Amendment implications unless they are accompanied by such "coercion or show of force or authority by the officer . . . that would cause a person . . . reasonably to have believed that he or she was required to comply [and was] not

free to leave." Commonwealth v. Satchell , 15 Va. App. 127, 131, 422 S.E.2d 412, 414 (1992); see Greene v. Commonwealth , 17 Va. App. 606, 610, 440 S.E.2d 138, 140 (1994); Wechsler v.

Commonwealth , 20 Va. App. 162, 171, 455 S.E.2d 744, 748 (1995). The facts here disclose an entirely consensual encounter. The officer approached Grant by himself, in plainclothes, without displaying a firearm. He identified himself, explained his intentions, and requested to see Grant’s boarding pass. He then requested to search her luggage. We find nothing in the police operation that would suggest coercion or intimidation. Throughout this encounter Grant consented to each request, demonstrating no desire to leave and no objection to the officer’s questions or the search.- 3 - The appellant voluntarily cooperated with the officer and consented to the officer's questions and search. She at no time withdrew her consent nor did she limit the scope of the search. Her Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00055

- CR

David FINO

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- CR

- 11172

The Honorable Angus McGinty, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE HILBIG 1 , AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 17, 2013.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

1 Justice Hilbig not participating.
#### § 101-27.000 Scope of part.

This part provides policies, principles, and guidelines to be used in the management of Government-owned inventories of personal property.

[29 FR 15997, Dec. 1, 1964]
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                          REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or
                    RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
          (AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

                    I, Richard W. Lucas, as Chief Financial Officer of KSW, Inc.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION] 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         (1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Dated: March 5, 2008

                                                         /s/ Richard W. Lucas
                                                         --------------------
                                                         Richard W. Lucas
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-247-001]

Take notice that on June 13, 2000, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the substitute tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, to be effective June 1, 2000.

CIG states that these tariff sheets are being filed in compliance with the order issued May 31, 2000 in Docket No. RP00-247.

CIG states these tariff sheets reflect the change to reinstate the imbalance payback period that is currently available during the first week of the month following the transportation activities causing the imbalance.

Any person desiring to protest the filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in 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. 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. 00-16128 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Comments on: 21-2270: PHARMACYCLICS LLC v. ALVOGEN, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE DECEMBER 31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                            0001003950
<NAME>                                           PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       US
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                           25,627
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4,799
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       4,425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 36,079
<PP&E>                                            3,719
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,785
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   37,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4,289
<BONDS>                                               6
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             75
<OTHER-SE>                                       33,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     37,835
<SALES>                                          30,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 30,202
<CGS>                                            12,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3,146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5,783
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5,783
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.76
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-9264.

#### Pignard *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### The State of Kansas v. Charles O. Beardsley.

New *Tbial*— Newly-Discovered *Evidence.*Where a defendant is found guilty of the offense of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law, upon evidence which tended to show that he made several sales of such liquors to various persons and at different times, newly-discovered evidence tending to show that one of such sales was made by a person other than the defendant, is not sufficient to authorize the granting of a new trial.

*Appeal from Butler District Court.*

The case is stated in the opinion. From a conviction at the October term, 1889, the defendant *Beardsley*appeals.

*Clogston, Hamilton, Fuller & Gubbison,*for appellant.

*L. B. Kellogg,*attorney general, for The State.

*642The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

This was a criminal prosecution upon indictment, in which the defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law. A trial was had before the court and a jury, and the jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the first count of the indictment, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $100, and to be imprisoned in the county jail for thirty days; and from this sentence he now appeals to the supreme court.

The only question presented to the supreme court is, whether the court below erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial, founded upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The newly-discovered evidence is the testimony of one Oliver Rand. Upon the trial it appeared that the defendant at one time had sold beer to William Holloway, and that on several occasions Holloway had purchased beer at the defendant’s house. The newly-discovered evidence tended to show that “Bill Holloway” came to the defendant’s house at one time, and that Rand, who was then there in the employment of the defendant as a teamster, sold beer to Holloway.

This is wholly immaterial, as the evidence tended to show that the defendant himself not only sold beer to Holloway, but also sold beer on several occasions to Arthur Reams, and that Frank Daniels had also on three different occasions purchased beer at the defendant’s house. As to which one of these sales the jury found the defendant guilty, we cannot tell. They may have found him guilty of making the sales to Reams. We do not think that the newly-discovered evidence is sufficient to require or even to authorize the granting of a new trial.

The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.
#### § 109-48.000-50 Applicability.

This part is applicable to contractor operations where the abandoned or forfeited personal property is found on premises owned or leased by the Government that are managed and operated by designated contractors.
#### § 109-28.5002 Objective.

The objective of the EHFFP program is to enable DOE offices and contractors to retain equipment not in use in current programs but which has a known or potential use in future DOE programs, while providing visibility on the types and amounts of equipment so retained through review and reporting procedures. It is intended that equipment be retained where economically justifiable for retention, considering cost of maintenance, replacement, obsolescence, storage, deterioration, or future availability; made available for use by others; and promptly excessed when no longer needed.
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 23.1


                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 No's 333-47777, 333-52791, 333-68197, and 333-87103 and Form S-8
No's 333-40393 and 333-59795 of Daou Systems, Inc. and in the related
Prospectus of our report dated February 12, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Daou Systems, Inc. included
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
February 18, 2000
EXHIBIT 13.1

RULE 13a-14(b) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code ) each of the undersigned officers of National Grid plc, a public limited company incorporated under the laws of
England and Wales (the Company), hereby certifies to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ending
31 March 2014 (the Report) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                  |  | 
|Date: 5 June 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Steve Holliday     
|                  |  |  |  | Steve Holliday         
|                  |  |  |  | Title: Chief Executive 
|                  |  |  |  | National Grid plc      
|                  |  | 
|Date: 5 June 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Andrew Bonfield    
|                  |  |  |  | Andrew Bonfield        
|                  |  |  |  | Title: Finance Director
|                  |  |  |  | National Grid plc
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                 |  |  |  |                                              
|---------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------
|                 |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | /s/    JEFFREY D. SERKES                     
|November 4, 2004 |  |  |  | Jeffrey D. Serkes Principal Financial Officer
# Comments on: 22-1507: LOPEZ v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for period ended October 25, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-25-1997
<CASH>                                           2,020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,957)
<INVENTORY>                                    152,541
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               234,953
<PP&E>                                         233,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                (110,656)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,463
<BONDS>                                         97,940
<COMMON>                                         9,472
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,374
<SALES>                                        173,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,367
<CGS>                                          122,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  298,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                95,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,194
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,957
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,236)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,542)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.93)
        

</TABLE>