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

MATTHEW ADAMS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D 1 9

- 1811

[ November 21, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nine teenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Dan L. Vaughn

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 312014CF001053A and 312014CF001131A

.

Matthew Adams

, Raiford

, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1
   
                                                             Exhibit 23.1
    
[LOGO] AIRCRAFT
       INFORMATION
       SERVICES, INC.


                              CONSENT OF APPRAISER

We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the references to 
our firm in the Airplanes Limited and Airplanes U.S. Trust Report on Form 10-K 
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997.

Date: June 26, 1997                    Aircraft Information Services, Inc.
                                      


                                      By: /s/ Fred E. Bearden
                                          ----------------------
                                          Name:  Fred E. Bearden
                                          Title: President
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GOODSON HOLDINGS, LLC,

Appellant

v.

TITEFLEX CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________ 

2018-1134, 2018-1149

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2016-00730, IPR2016-00731.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MARK STRACHAN, Sayles Werbner, P.C., Dallas, TX, 

argued for appellant. 

 JAMES L. DAY, JR., Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

DEEPAK GUPTA. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 November 7, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
603 P.2d 1016

#### Harold D. McCLELLAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The STATE of Idaho, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 12724.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 7, 1979.

Klaus Wiebe, Public Defender, Boise, for petitioner-appellant.

Hon. David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendant-respondent.

Before DONALDSON, C. J., BAKES, McFADDEN and BISTLINE, JJ., and DUNLAP, J. Pro Tem.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing plaintiff-appellant McClellan’s petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, I.C. §§ 19 — 4901 et seq.

This case first came before us on direct appeal from appellant’s conviction of second degree murder, *State*v. *McClellan,*96 Idaho 569, 532 P.2d 574 (1975), *overruled in part, State v. Tucker,*97 Idaho 4, 539 P.2d 556 (1975), and the facts will not be restated here.

The issues now raised by appellant, with one exception, were presented and resolved in the original appeal and were not overruled in *State v. Tucker, supra.*Therefore we consider only that single issue which was not addressed before. *Kraft v. State,*100 Idaho 671, 603 P.2d 1005 (1979); *Larsen v. May,*93 Idaho 602, 468 P.2d 866 (1970). *See also,*I.C. § 19-4908.

Appellant contends I.C. § 19-3002 creates a privilege applicable to all *statements*made by the spouse of a criminal defendant, and that any statements so made in the absence of an admonition and express waiver of . the privilege are inadmissible in a subsequent criminal action. However, I.C. § 19-3002 states:

> “Husband and wife as witnesses. — Neither husband nor wife are competent *witnesses*for or against each other in a criminal *action or proceeding*to which one or both are parties, except:

> 1. With the consent of both . . .” (emphasis supplied)

The statute creates only a *testimonial*privilege and does not affect the admissibility of non-testimonial statements otherwise admissible which were made by the spouse of a criminal defendant.

The order dismissing appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VISA INC., VISA U.S.A. INC., APPLE INC.,

Appellants

v.

UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2020-1662

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

01350.

______________________ 

Decided: August 27, 2021 

______________________ 

MATTHEW A. ARGENTI, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & 

Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, argued for all appellants. Appellants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. also represented by 

MICHAEL T. ROSATO, Seattle, WA.

 MARK D. SELWYN, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and 

Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for appellant Apple Inc. Also represented by BRITTANY BLUEITT AMADI, Washington, DC;

MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, MONICA GREWAL, Boston, 

MA.

Case: 20-1662 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 08/27/2021
2 VISA INC. v. UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC

 CHRISTOPHER MATHEWS, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by TIGRAN GULEDJIAN. 

 ______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, PROST*, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

The patent at issue in this appeal is U.S. Patent No. 

8,856,539, owned by Universal Secure Registry LLC (USR). 

Visa filed a petition for an inter partes review, challenging 

several claims of the ’539 patent before the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board, which instituted the requested review 

and eventually issued a final written decision that Visa had 

not shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable. In 

another case, we have affirmed a district court’s judgment 

that all claims of the ’539 patent are patent ineligible. Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 20-2044 (Fed. 

Cir. Aug. 26, 2021). Therefore, as the parties agreed at oral 

argument, this appeal involving the ’539 patent is now 

moot. Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316, 1321 

(Fed. Cir. 2020); Oral Arg. at 12:10–12:50. We vacate the 

Board’s final written decision and remand for the Board to 

dismiss Visa’s petition. See Apple, 976 F.3d at 1321 (citing 

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39–41 

(1950)). 

No costs.

VACATED AND REMANDED

* Circuit Judge Sharon Prost vacated the position of 

Chief Judge on May 21, 2021.

Case: 20-1662 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 08/27/2021
# Comments on: 22-2231: SUTTON v. OPM [ORDER], Nonprecedential
EXHIBIT 99 (a)




Contact: Amy Flak
                  Kable News Company
                  (212) 705-4639

                              FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


          KABLE ESTABLISHES NEW DISTRIBUTION COMPANY WITH JOINT VENTURE
                Agreement Designates Kable Distribution Services
           as Exclusive Distribution Partner with SuperStand Magazines

NEW YORK, N.Y., February 8, 2001 - Kable News Company today announced a joint
venture with Houston, Texas-based SuperStand Entertainment Company to create
Magazinet, a state-of-the-art distribution company.

The agreement establishes Magazinet to function as the exclusive direct
distributor to all SuperStand Magazines retail outlets.  Handling product from
all major national and direct distributors, Magazinet will provide complete
inventory for the 3,500 different titles spanning 125 reading categories.
Operations will be headquartered in Rockford, Illinois, and Magazinet will
commence service on April 15, 2001.

"Our stores stock several times the magazine titles found at other stores,
making inventory management no small task," said Gary Schwing, Chief Executive
Officer of SuperStand Entertainment Company. "We are confident that Kable's
expertise as one of the country's oldest national distributors combined with
Magazinet's "state-of-the-art" technological capabilities will provide
SuperStand Magazines with an unparalleled ability to account for and manage
inventory."

"Working with SuperStand Magazines is an exciting opportunity for Kable - and
for the hundreds of magazine publishers seeking a promising alternative to
traditional retail distribution," said Mike Duloc, President and Chief Operating
Officer of Kable News Company, Inc. "We are thrilled to undertake this challenge
and look forward to growing with the SuperStand Magazines chain."

                     About SuperStand Entertainment Company

A privately owned company, SuperStand Entertainment Company currently operates
five stores in Houston, four stores in Dallas, and four stores in the Chicago
area. For more information regarding SuperStand Magazines and upcoming
additional locations, call 713-860-6817 or visit www.superstand.com.

                            About Kable News Company

Kable News Company is one of the largest magazine and periodical circulators in
the world.  The company employs more than 1,000 people nationwide with offices
in Mount Morris, Illinois; New York, New York; Marion, Ohio; and Cerritos,
California. Additional information on the company and its services can be found
online at www.kable.com.
<PAGE>
[Civ. No. 12286.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

November 2, 1939.]

#### LORRAINE ST. LAURENT, Respondent, v. JOSEPH A. ST. LAURENT, Appellant.

B. F. Tyler for Appellant.

A. F. Molina for Respondent.

McCOMB, J.

From (1) an order of the trial court directing defendant to pay alimony *pendente lite,*attorney’s fees, and costs, and (2) a subsequent order refusing to vacate the prior order so far at it directed the payment of attorney’s fees and costs, defendant appeals.

*346The essential facts are:

May 16, 1938, plaintiff filed an action for divorce against defendant alleging that they were married at Yuma, Arizona, November 1, 1931. May 31, 1938, the trial court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff as attorney’s fees the sum of $75, as costs the sum of $11, and $25 per month alimony *pendente lite.*August 2, 1938, defendant made a motion to vacate the prior order, alleging that on November 1, 1931, the date of the alleged marriage between the parties, plaintiff was married to Edward Cartwright, who was alive and from whom she was not divorced. The trial court found these allegations to be true and entered an order relieving defendant from future payments of alimony *pendente lite,*but denied the" motion to relieve the defendant from the payment of attorney’s fees, costs, and accrued alimony.

This is the sole question presented for determination: *Was it error for the trial court to refuse to vacate the order of May 31, 1938, so far as the order related to costs, attorney’s fees and accrued alimony?*

This question must be answered in the negative. The order of May 31, 1938, awarding costs, attorney’s fees, and alimony *pendente lite*was an appealable order (see eases cited in 1 Cal. Jur. [1921] 966, see. 20, note 20). Therefore, this order became final sixty days after its entry. (Sec. 939, Code Civ. Proc.) Since the motion, upon which the order now under consideration was based, was not made until more than sixty days had elapsed, the order of May 31, 1938, was final and the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify its prior order in respect to costs, attorney’s fees, and accrued alimony, except upon proper showing pursuant to the requirements of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case no attempt was made to meet any of the requirements of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the trial court’s order was correct.

Since notice of appeal from the order of May 31, 1938, was not filed until more than sixty days after the entry of the order, the appeal from this order is abortive and is dismissed.

The order of August 2, 1938, is affirmed.

Wood, Acting P. J., concurred.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KENNETH L. SANFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FRANKLIN, VA, SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY 

ADMINISTRATOR, SELECTIVE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2023-1028

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 3:21-cv-00046-MHL, 

Judge M. Hannah Lauck.

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Kenneth L. Sanford sued Franklin, VA, the Southampton County Administrator, and Selective Insurance Company of America in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia for a variety of alleged civil 

rights violations. The case was dismissed with prejudice 

and Mr. Sanford filed a Notice of Appeal, which named the 

“U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” The notice 

was initially transmitted to the United States Court of 

Case: 23-1028 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 12/13/2022
2 SANFORD v. FRANKLIN, VA

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, but, based on Mr. Sanford’s 

notice and his request that his notice be transmitted to us, 

the Fourth Circuit administratively closed that appeal. 

Appeal No. 22-2030, ECF No. 5 at 1 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2022). 

We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Sanford’s appeal. This 

court possesses jurisdiction over only certain appeals from 

federal district courts, including cases arising under the 

patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1295(a)(4)(C), and 

certain cases against the United States for claims “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). None of these apply to Mr. Sanford’s 

case.

When this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, it 

shall, “if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such . . . appeal” to a court “in which the . . . appeal could have been 

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Although Mr. Sanford requests transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit, there is no basis to conclude this appeal could have been brought there; rather, 

the appropriate appellate court to review a final decision in 

Mr. Sanford’s case, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia,

is the Fourth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291. Under 

the circumstances, where there is no charge of another jurisdictional defect, we deem it the better course to transfer 

Mr. Sanford’s appeal to that court. 

Accordingly,

Case: 23-1028 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 12/13/2022
SANFORD v. FRANKLIN, VA 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal and all filings are transferred to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1631.

December 13, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Cout

Case: 23-1028 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 12/13/2022
Order entered January 29, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00020-CV

BRENDA KAPPOS, Appellant

V.

DOUGLAS F. BAXTER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-11757

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 25, 2019 request for additional time to file the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records. Also before the Court is the letter from the Dallas County District 

Clerk explaining that the clerk’s record has been prepared but appellant refuses to pay for it. 

Rather, appellant requests that the clerk’s record contain only the docket sheet, the original 

petition, order appealed, notice of appeal, and request for the clerk’s record. 

Barring an agreement between the parties, the clerk’s record must include, as pertinent 

here, (1) all pleadings on which the trial was held, (2) the court’s judgment or other order that is 

being appealed, (3) any request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, any post-judgment 

motion, and the court’s order on the motion, (4) the notice of appeal, (5) any requests for the 

clerk’s record and reporter’s record, (6) a certified bill of costs including the cost of preparing 
the clerk’s record, showing credits for payments made, and (7) any filing that a party designates 

to have included in the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(a)(1), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10), (11), (13). 

Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion as follows. We ORDER Dallas County District 

Clerk Felicia Pitre to file a clerk’s record that complies with rule 34.5 by February 12, 2019. 

We further ORDER appellant to file, by February 26, 2019, written verification that she 

has requested preparation of the reporter’s record. We caution appellant that if she fails to 

comply, the Court may order the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(c).

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all

parties.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
No. 10-11181.

#### Hubbard *v.*Steele, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
| 1. | I      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Andrea Electronics      Corporation; and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to      make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such      statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by      this report. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March      28, 2009 | /s/      DOUGLAS J. ANDREA                                                                 |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 | Douglas      J. Andrea                                                                     |   |
|                                 | Chairman      of the Board, President, ChiefExecutive      Officer and Corporate Secretary |   |
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Haim Shani, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 20-F of NICE Systems Ltd.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Date: June 29, 2005

 
|   | By:                                              |   /s/ Haim Shani |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|   |   Haim Shani, Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 13.1

               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Andrew Williams, the Principal Executive Officer of SVG
Capital, plc (the "Company"), has executed this certification in connection with
the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report").

The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

Date: July 14, 2006

                                 /s/ Andrew Williams
                                 ----------------------------------------------

                                 Principal Executive Officer
#### § 302-4.403 Does this exception require authorization by my approving official?

Yes, authorization by your approving official is required for any exception to the daily minimum driving distance.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

d0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139178 

EDWARD JOHN PENNINGTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139178 

 COA: 288342 

Branch CC: 08-007415-AH 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.