alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MARCUS C. JIMENEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1210

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 10, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00500-CR

Chadwick BENJAMIN a/k/a Chad Anthony Benjamin,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 396th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1239333D

The Honorable George William Gallagher, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

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

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 25, 2013.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
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 American Surgical Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Zak W. Elgamal, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d));
      and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of American
      Surgical Holdings, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




AMERICAN
SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC.




By:
            /s/
      Zak W. ElgamalZAK
      ELGAMALPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)




Date:
August 14, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 19-0395

SCOTT FIELDS

v.

CITY OF SHERMAN, TEXAS,

DAVID PLYLER, ZACH FLORES,

AND ALEX SHIVERS

§

§

§

§

§

§

Grayson County,

5th District.

July 19, 2019

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 28th day of August, 2019.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
Page 1 of 2 1022 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, WY 82001

Septemb er 28 , 201 2 US Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M- 30 West Building ground floor, Room W12 - 140 1200 New Jersey

Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Regarding Docket Number FAA-2008 - 0 930: Great Lakes Aviation is petitioning for an extension of Exemption No. 9758 A . This exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations , allows Great Lakes to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing the initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. **PUBLIC INTEREST**  **AND SAFETY** Great Lakes feel that there have been no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting of the original exemption. **QUALIFICATION OF**  **OPERATING EXPERIENCE**  **OBSERVERS.** Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the process for qualifying operating observers under this exemption remain unchanged. **PRACTICES AND**  **PROCEDURES FOR**  **CONDUCT OF**  **OBSERVATIONS.** Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the practices and procedures for conduct of observations under this exemption remain unchanged .Page 2 of 2

**CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.** Great Lakes Aviation proposes that the conditions and limitations associated with this exemption remain unchanged. **SUMMARY, FOR PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER** : 1. The rule from which exemption is sought: § 121.434(c)( 1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . 2. A brief description of the nature of the exemption sought: This exemption would allow Great Lakes Aviation to continue substituting a qualified and authorized line check airman or aircrew program de signee for an FAA inspector, to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. **CLOSING NOTES** : Because this requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Great Lakes Aviation, we ask that consideration be given to not publishing a summary of this petition in the Federal Register. Great Lakes Aviation further propose s that the extension of this exemption be granted by October 31, 2010 , prior to expiration of the current exemption . If there are any questions or concerns , we may be contacted as follows . Thank-you for your assistance in this matter! David C. Hoffmeister Director of Training, Great Lakes Aviation office 307.432.7250 dhoffmeister@flygreatlakes.com fax 307.432.7251 Tory A. Meisel Director of Operations, Great Lakes Aviation office 307.43 2.7210 tmeisel@flygreatlakes.com
No. 57311.

protests 78296-K, 78297-K, and 78298-K (New York).

#### F. Kanematsu & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

When this case was called for trial, it was submitted on the same basis as the submission in Abstract 57282, namely, that the right to move to reopen or to set aside the submission was abandoned. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled. *(T. M. Duche & Sons*v. *United States,*39 C. C. P. A. 186, C. A. D. 485, certiorari denied, *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States,*344 U. S. 830, followed.)
No. 53620.

protests 139014-K, etc. (Norfolk).

#### Monsanto Chemical Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cocoa residue, defatted cocoa residue, or cocoa expeller cake similar in all material respects to the cocoa residue the subject of *Maywood Chemical Works et al.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 87, C. D. 1165), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATE RUBBER COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ALBINO NIGRO, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 73 *N. J. Super.*364.

*Messrs. Chandless, Weller & Kramer*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Kipp*and *Mr. Roger G. Ward*for the respondent.

June 11, 1962.
#### Joseph Pierce, Respondent, v Francis Moreau et al., Doing Business as Frenchie’s, Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[633 NYS2d 631]

—Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Keniry, J.), entered November 21, 1994 in Schenectady County, which partially denied a motion by defendants Francis Moreau and Mary Ann Moreau for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

Defendants Francis Moreau and Mary Ann Moreau (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) are the owners and bartenders for a bar and grill known as "Frenchie’s Tavern” located in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. On August 15, 1992, plaintiff, while a patron at this establishment, was allegedly assaulted by another patron, defendant Joseph Ricci, just outside the tavern’s exit. Plaintiff sustained a broken jaw and other injuries as a result of this altercation and commenced this action alleging, *inter alia,*theories of common-law negligence and violation of the Dram Shop Act *(see,*Genera] Obligations Law § 11-101). Following a motion by defendants for summary judgment, Supreme Court dismissed the Dram Shop claim but ruled that questions of fact precluded such relief with respect to the common-law negligence claim. This appeal by defendants ensued.

We affirm. It is well settled that a tavern owner owes "a duty to adequately supervise and control the patrons consuming alcoholic beverages within the area where supervision and control might reasonably be exercised” *(Lippman v Hines,*138 AD2d 845, 846). Here, we conclude that arguable questions of fact raised by the parties’ opposing motion papers are sufficient to avoid the drastic remedy of summary judgment *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]). While plaintiff’s proof raises an inference that Ricci’s conduct in the tavern that evening may have been suf*764ficiently disruptive to have given defendants "reasonable cause to anticipate [Ricci’s] assaultive acts and the probability of injury resulting therefrom.” *(Heavlin v Gush,*197 AD2d 773, 774), it is notable that plaintiffs proof does not clearly assert any awareness of Ricci’s behavior by defendants and plaintiff denies that defendants ever intervened in any way. In contrast, however, defendants themselves aver that they intervened when Ricci reportedly harassed another patron and allegedly expelled Ricci from the bar. Since we find that these contrasting versions of the evening’s events and defendants’ knowledge of same raise triable issues, we conclude that Supreme Court appropriately denied that part of defendants’ motion.

Finally, in light of the relatively close issues presented in this case, we do not find plaintiffs request for the imposition of sanctions against defendants for pursuing this appeal to be appropriate *(cf., Gregware v Key Bank,*218 AD2d 859).

White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,
certifies that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (this 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and its results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009.



|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|                   |  | /s/ R. Byron Carlock, Jr.            
|Date: May 17, 2010 |  | R. BYRON CARLOCK, JR.                
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Charles R. Purdy and others, *Respondents, v.*Orlando L. Stewart, *Appellant.*

Motion to modify order granted by providing that costs be set off against recovery (if any).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jean Brigandi, Respondent, v Town & Country Linoleum & Carpet et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 659]

—Cardona, P. J.

Appeals (1) from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 29, 1993 and June 6, 1994, which ruled that there was no evidence of a preexisiting permanent physical impairment and discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed July 29, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied the employer’s application for reconsideration.

On February 26, 1990, decedent died after suffering cardiac arrest during the performance of his duties as a carpet layer. An autopsy revealed the existence of underlying coronary atherosclerotic disease. Claimant, decedent’s widow, filed a claim for death benefits which were ultimately awarded following a hearing. Prior to this award, however, the employer’s compensation carrier filed a notice of claim for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately found that the record did not support a finding that decedent’s underlying heart condition was or was likely to be a hindrance to his employment prior to his death and, therefore, Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) did not apply. The Board then held the compensation carrier liable and discharged the Fund. The employer’s application for full Board review and/or reconsideration was denied and these appeals by the employer and its carrier followed.

We affirm. In order to obtain reimbursement pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d), "an employer must show that the claimant had a preexisting permanent impairment that hindered job potential, a subsequent injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and a permanent disability caused by both conditions materially and substantially greater than what would have been caused by the work-related injury alone” *(Matter of Sturtevant v Broome County,*188 AD2d 893, 893-894). Here, we disagree with the allegation that the Board must have ignored medical evidence in the record indicating a preexisting physical impairment simply because it determined that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) was inap*729plicable *(see, Matter of Bishop v Remlap Constr.,*181 AD2d 938). Instead, the Board could rationally conclude that, similar to the situation in *Matter of Sturtevant v Broome County (supra,*at 894), "nothing in the record established that [decedent’s heart disease] hindered his job potential in any way”.

White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions and amended decision are affirmed, without costs.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DONALD F. HOWARD, Staff Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

17 USCMA 162, 37 CMR 426

No. 20,196

July 28, 1967

*Colonel Joseph Buchta*and *Lieutenant Colonel Bertram Jacobson*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel James R. Thorn*and *Lieutenant Colonel David B. Stevens*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Among other offenses, the accused was convicted of absence without leave, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, 10 USC § 886. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, total foi-feitures, and confinement at hard labor for two years. The convening authority reduced the period of confinement and forfeitures, and the board of review affirmed. We granted accused’s petition for review upon the issue whether the law officer erred in receiving a transcript of certain testimony taken during the pretrial investigation.

Accused allegedly absented himself without authority at the end of a period of authorized leave, while en route to a new station. In both his pretrial statement and his trial testimony, he declared he had telephonically obtained an extension of his leave prior to its expiration by contacting his new unit. The Government, however, introduced, over objection, testimony of a Sergeant Usery taken at the pretrial investigation, which tended to establish no such call was received, nor was any such extension granted. Sergeant Usery was shown to be absent in Vietnam, a place more than one hundred miles from the trial site, but no demonstration was made of his actual unavailability as a witness or his unwillingness to appear.

The receipt of the pretrial testimony was erroneous. United States v Obligacion, 17 USCMA 36, 37 CMR 300. In that ease, we pointed out that verbatim pretrial testimony “may be used at his [the accused’s] subsequent trial only if a showing is made of the witness’ actual unavailability to appear and testify in person.” *Id.,*at page 38. As in that case, the Government here made no effort to establish unavailability or unwillingness to appear. The prejudice flowing from the erroneous ruling admitting the transcript, however, goes only to the charge of unauthorized absence to which it related.

The findings of guilty of Charge I *163and its specification are set aside. The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. The board may reassess the sentence on the remaining findings of guilty or order a rehearing on the absence charge and the penalty.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-day concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME OF THE COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                       <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                   0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,358                   0
<PP&E>                                               0                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 170,358                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          226,944               1,550
<BONDS>                                              0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                   0
<COMMON>                                         3,860               1,860
<OTHER-SE>                                    (210,446)             (3,410)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   170,358                   0
<SALES>                                              0                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                   0
<CGS>                                                0                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,036               1,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (207,036)             (1,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (207,036)             (1,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                   0
<CHANGES>                                            0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (207,036)             (1,100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.06)              (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)              (0.00)



</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The document is entitled “Complying by plaintiff 5/3/05 demand for pain and

suffering,” and is construed as amended complaint in compliance with this court’s order of May

3, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLEN CALDWELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2693 MCE GGH PS

vs.

CHAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(21), pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Presently before the court is an amended complaint, filed May 12, 2005.1 The

determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required

inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time

if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

Case 2:04-cv-02693-RRB -GGH Document 13 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

defendant. The court cannot make this determination on the present record. Therefore, the court

reserves decision on these issues until the record is sufficiently developed. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is

directed to serve within ninety days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4, including a copy of this court’s status order, without prepayment of costs. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons,

a copy of the amended complaint, an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge,

and this court’s status order. 

5. Plaintiff is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date

this order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process. The court

anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will require at least:

a. One completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant; 

c. A copy of the endorsed filed amended complaint for each defendant,

with an extra copy for the U.S. Marshal; and

d. A copy of this court’s status order for each defendant. 

6. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to

effectuate service on any defendant within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is

directed to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S.

Marshal, 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030. 

DATED: 7/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Caldwell2693.srv.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02693-RRB -GGH Document 13 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2