alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3159

_____________________________
H ARVEY F. H OLMES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador , Judge

. October 4, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , C.J., and W OLF and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Harvey F. Holmes, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markha m, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending May 19, 2007

----

Bank Holding Companies1st Source Corporation, South Bend, Indiana  -- to acquire FINA Bancorp, Inc., Valparaiso, and its subsidiary, First National Bank.					-Approved, May 14, 2007 					

EnforcementOrrstown Bank, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania  -- issuance of a consent order of assessment of a civil money penalty.					-Announced, May 16, 2007 					

Regulations And PoliciesGovernment Accountability Office  -- response to the GAO report, "Financial Market Regulation:  Agencies Engaged in Consolidated Supervision Can Strengthen Performance Measurement and Collaboration."					-Approved, May 18, 2007 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: May 24, 2007
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending August 23, 2008

----

EnforcementBonifay Holding Company, Inc., Bonifay, Florida  -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.					-Announced, August 21, 2008 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: August 28, 2008
98-1966.

#### Klever v. Canton Sachsenheim, Inc.

Stark App. No. 1998CA0010. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed September 14, 1998:

“Upon proper motion by Canton Sachsenheim, Inc. and for the cases cited within its Motion to Certify Conflict, particularly the decision by the Eighth Appellate District in *Lee v. Peabody’s Inc.*
      *1410(June 9, 1994), Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals No. 65090, unreported, 1994 WL 258640, this court hereby finds that a conflict does exist between the appellate districts of Ohio and the following question is certified to the Ohio Supreme Court for its review:

“Does an adult, who is between 18 and 21 years of age, state a claim for relief against a liquor permit holder under Ohio Revised Code § 4399.18 and § 4301.22 when the adult has become voluntarily intoxicated and incurred self-inflicted injuries or death?”

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
G-17(B) Account-Opening Sample

Interest Rates and Interest Charges 

Annual Percentage Rate 

(APR) for Purchases 

8.99% 

This APR will vary with the market based on the Prime Rate. 

APR for Balance Transfers 15.99% 

This APR will vary with the market based on the Prime Rate. 

APR for Cash Advances 21.99% 

This APR will vary with the market based on the Prime Rate. 

Penalty APR and When it 

Applies 

28.99% 

This APR may be applied to your account if you: 

1) Make a late payment; 

2) Go over your credit limit twice in a six-month period; 

3) Make a payment that is returned; or 

4) Do any of the above on another account that you have with us. 

How Long Will the Penalty APR Apply?: If your APRs are increased for any of these 

reasons, the Penalty APR will apply until you make six consecutive minimum payments 

when due and do not exceed your credit limit during that time period. 

Paying Interest Your due date is at least 25 days after the close of each billing cycle. We will not charge 

you interest on purchases if you pay your entire balance by the due date each month. We 

will begin charging interest on cash advances and balance transfers on the transaction 

date. 

Minimum Interest Charge If you are charged interest, the charge will be no less than $1.50. 

For Credit Card Tips from 

the Federal Reserve Board 

To learn more about factors to consider when applying for or using a credit card, visit the 

website of the Federal Reserve Board at http://www.federalreserve.gov/creditcard. 

Fees 

Annual Fee None 

Transaction Fees 

 Balance Transfer Either $5 or 3% of the amount of each transfer, whichever is greater (maximum fee: $100). 

 Cash Advance Either $5 or 3% of the amount of each cash advance, whichever is greater. 

 Foreign Transaction 2% of each transaction in U.S. dollars. 

Penalty Fees 

 Late Payment $29 if balance is less than or equal to $1,000; 

$35 if balance is more than $1,000 

 Over-the-Credit Limit $29 

 Returned Payment $35 

Other Fees 

 Required Account 

Protector Plan 

$0.79 per $100 of balance at the end of each statement period. See back for details. 

How We Will Calculate Your Balance: We use a method called "average daily balance (including new purchases).” 

See your account agreement for more details. 

Billing Rights: Information on your rights to dispute transactions and how to exercise those rights is provided in your 

account agreement.
# C_2014329EN.01002403.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/24

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (SMART NOTEBOOK)

(Case T-648/11) (1)

1

2014/C 329/35

Language of the case: English

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending May 10, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### § 502.242 Submission to Commission for final decision.

A proceeding will be deemed submitted to the Commission for final decision as follows: (a) If oral argument is had, the date of completion thereof, or if memoranda on points of law are permitted to be filed after argument, the last date of such filing; (b) if oral argument is not had, the last date when exceptions or replies thereto are filed, or if exceptions are not filed, the expiration date for such exceptions; (c) in the case of an initial decision, the date of notice of the Commission's intention to review the decision, if such notice is given. [Rule 242.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 In August 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Joe Evans’ and Max Rogers’ 

claims as moot. (Dkt. 77.) In October 2015, this Court entered a stipulated order dismissing all of 

Evans’ claims (and therefore Evans) from this lawsuit. (Dkt. 110.) In November 2015, 

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub, recommended “granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

[77] with regard to Plaintiff Max Rogers’s claims in this matter. Additionally, pursuant to the 

Parties’ stipulation, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff Joe Evans’s claims against Defendants.” 

(Dkt. 117, R. & R. at 3.) Rogers has not objected to this recommendation and the time to do so 

has passed. As such, the Court will accept this recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 149 (1985) (“[T]he failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving review 

even at the district court level[.]”); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 

ROBERT JOHANNES, 

MICHAEL WORONIECKI, 

PHILLIP TURNER, 

ROGER STEPHENSON, 

JOE EVANS, and 

MAX ROGERS, 

individually, and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated prisoners, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

v. 

 

HEIDI WASHINGTON, Director of the 

Michigan Department of Corrections, and 

DALTON SANDERS, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 14-11691 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [117] AND GRANTING 

EVANS AND ROGERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [77] 

2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM Doc # 156 Filed 03/17/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 4682
2 

1981). Accordingly, Max Rogers’ claims in this lawsuit are DISMISSED and Rogers is no 

longer a plaintiff in this case. As of this order, the remaining Plaintiffs are Robert Johannes, 

Michael Woroneicki, Phillip Turner, and Roger Stephenson. 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Dated: March 17, 2016 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys 

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 17, 2016. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM Doc # 156 Filed 03/17/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 4683
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION






<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 annual  report of Vyta Corp.  (the  "Company")  on Form
10-KSB for the period  ending  June 30,  2008 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report")  I, Paul H.  Metzinger,
Principal Executive Officer,  President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC 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.


Dated: October 13, 2008


/s/Paul H. Metzinger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul H. Metzinger, Principal Executive Officer, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 46.10-55 Logbook entries. ( a ) For required logbook entries to be made on passenger vessels, see subpart 78.17 of subchapter H (Passenger Vessels) of this chapter.
# /7wr ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 03-13-00746-CR OFFENSE: 19.02 Thomas Atkinson v. The State of 

## STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Travis COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 403rd District Court 

### DATE: 01/22/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: D-l-DC-12-301480



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Thomas Atkinson v. The State of STYLE: Texas 

# PUD SB CCA#: 

# 1*7/-/S FORDISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: DbUWT 

# ^2 JUDGE: 

### JaAM^— Petition 

## CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:
REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
##### 



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 Annual Report of Zila, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas D. Burkett,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ Douglas D. Burkett Ph.D.

Douglas D. Burkett Ph.D.Chief Executive OfficerOctober 14, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Zila, Inc. and will be
retained by Zila, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

The numerators and denominators of basic and diluted earnings per share are as
follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  1999          2000
<S>                                                           <C>            <C>
Numerator - Net income (loss) as reported                      $  (672,800)  $(5,235,835)


Denominator - Weighted average number of shares outstanding     10,084,200    11,842,483

Effect of dilutive securities                                           --            --
Diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding           10,084,200    11,842,483
Basic earnings (loss) per share                                $     (0.07)  $     (0.44)
Diluted earnings (loss) per share                              $     (0.07)  $     (0.44)
</TABLE>

As described in Note -- of the Financial Statements, during 2000 the Company
granted stock options and warrants to purchase up to 1,550,000 shares. These
shares were not included in computing diluted earnings per share because their
effects were antidilutive.

                                       30
#### George Williams and another, *Respondents, v.*Lynott B. Root and Henry J. Wood, *as Executors, etc., Appellants.*

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
§ 56.97-5 Pressure testing of nonstandard piping system components. ( a ) All nonstandard piping system components such as welded valves and fittings, nonstandard fittings, manifolds, seacocks, and other appurtenances must be hydrostatically tested to twice the rated pressure stamped thereon, except that no component should be tested at a pressure causing stresses in excess of 90 percent of its yield strength.
( b ) Items for which an accepted standard appears in table 2 to § 56.60-1 need not be tested as described in paragraph (a) of this section, but need only meet the test required in the applicable standard.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18843, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-140, 54 FR 40615, Oct. 2, 1989]
Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the

basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on

the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that

Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30346

Summary Calendar

ANITA GUILLORY, on behalf of Chastity Guillory

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1419)

(October 16, 1995)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Appellant Guillory’s

claim on behalf of her minor daughter for supplemental security

income benefits. Upon review, the district court granted summary

judgment in favor of the Commissioner. Guillory appeals. We

affirm.

Appellant argues that the ALJ and the district court applied2

the incorrect legal standard and that their decision is not

s upported by substantial evidence. Our careful review of the

record convinces that Appellant errs in both respects.

The legal standard for determining whether a child is disabled

requires a determination whether the child: 1) was engage d in

substantial gainful activity, 2) had a severe impairment, 3) had an

impairment that met or equaled an impairment listed in appendix 1

of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, and 4) had an impairment of comparable

severity to an impairment that would disable an adult. Sec.

416.924(b). At the fourth step, an Individualized Functional

Assessment is performed to determine whether the child’s impairment

limits her ability to physically or mentally function in an ageappropriate manner. Sec. 416.924(f). The ALJ carried out these

steps with precision. He found the child was never employed, had

a severe impairment, did not meet the conditions of Secs. 112.05 or

112.11 or equivalent, mad e an individualized assessment of her

ability to function in the f ive specified domains and concluded

that she experienced a more than moderate impairment only in the

cognitive function area and thus was not disabled. The proper

legal standard was applied.

Evidence is sufficient to support this finding i f it is

substantial, that is more than a scintilla. Anderson v. Sullivan

,

887 F.2d 630, 633 (5th Cir. 1989). Our review of the record

demonstrates more than ample evidence.

AFFIRMED.
§ 56.20-9 Valve construction. ( a ) Each valve must close with a right-hand (clockwise) motion of the handwheel or operating lever as seen by one facing the end of the valve stem. Each nonrising-stem valve, lever-operated valve, or other valve where, because of design, the position of the disc or closure mechanism is not obvious must be fitted with an indicator to show whether the valve is opened or closed. No such indicator is required for any valve located in a tank or similar inaccessible space when indicators are available at accessible sites. The operating levers of quarter-turn valves must be parallel to the fluid flow when open and perpendicular to the fluid flow when closed.
( b ) Valves of Class I piping systems having diameters exceeding 2 inches must have bolted, pressure seal, or breech lock bonnets and flanged or welding ends. Socket type welding ends must meet § 56.30-5(c) and § 56.30-10(b)(4). For diameters not exceeding 2 inches, screwed union bonnet or bolted bonnet, or bonnetless valves, which prevent the stem from screwing out of the body, may be employed. Outside screw and yoke design must be used for valves 3 inches and larger for pressures above 600 psig. Cast iron valves with screwed-in or screwed-over bonnets are prohibited. Union bonnet type cast iron valves must have the bonnet ring made of steel, bronze, or malleable iron.
( c ) Valves must be designed for the maximum pressure to which they may be subjected, but in no case must the design pressure be less than 50 psig. The use of wafer type resilient seated valves is subject to the requirements of § 56.20-15.
( d ) Disks or disk faces, seats, stems, and other wearing parts of valves must be made of material possessing corrosion and heat-resisting qualities suitable for the service conditions to which they may be subjected.
( e ) Plug cocks must be constructed with satisfactory and positive means of preventing the plug from becoming loosened or removed from the body when the plug is operated.
( f ) Cocks must be marked in a straight line with the body to indicate whether they are open or closed.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18843, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-140, 54 FR 40604, Oct. 2, 1989; CGD 95-012, 60 FR 48050, Sept. 18, 1995; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58346, Sept. 30, 2004; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65176, Oct. 31, 2008]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Ann Christo, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-11589 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

[23], DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [18] AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S [21] MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 This is a Social Security appeal. Before the Court is Magistrate 

Judge Patti’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 23) recommending the 

Court deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 18) and 

grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 21.) The 

parties were required to file specific written objections within fourteen 

days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). No 

objections were filed. Accordingly, and on review of the Report and 

Recommendation, 

5:15-cv-11589-JEL-APP Doc # 24 Filed 01/26/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 849
 The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 23) is adopted. Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 18) is DENIED. Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED. The 

Commissioner of Social Security’s decision is affirmed, and the case is 

dismissed.1 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 26, 2017 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 26, 2017. 

s/Felicia M. Moses 

FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

                                                            

1 The parties, by failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, have waived 

any further right of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 

1981). 

5:15-cv-11589-JEL-APP Doc # 24 Filed 01/26/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 850