alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bernard DAVIS and Linda Davis, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Gary KAMINSKY and Kaminsky & Triandolo, P.A., Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and Beauclerc Village Associates Limited Partnership, The Sinclair Fund, Inc., and College Square Associates, LTD., Appellees.

Nos. 97-4271, 97-4318.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 12, 1999.

Richard L. Katz of Katz & Mestre, Coral Gables, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

John P. Joy, and Kenneth L. Valentini of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, Miami, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants Gary Kaminsky and Kaminsky & Triango-lo, P.A.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s finding of a violation of section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985), for the last half of the College Square investment. Based on the evidence, the trial court could have concluded that the oversheltering began in 1986, after the Davis’ income had dropped. We also affirm the trial court’s use of the date of the verdict to begin the running of prejudgment interest. *See, e.g., H & S Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co.,*667 So.2d 393, 398-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The jury’s determination of damages on the negligence counts matched the loss calculated by the Davis’ expert. The expert’s calculations took into account years of investing, tax write-offs the Davis’ utilized as a result of the investments, as well as distributions and earnings. The expert did not attempt the complex determination which would have gone into a prejudgment interest computation.

On the cross-appeal, we reverse the trial court’s determination that appellees were “not the prevailing party” on the Chapter 517 claims in the “Schreiber/Beauclere Village” suit. Appellees were the prevailing party in that suit within the meaning of section 517.211(6), Florida Statutes (1985). On remand, the trial court shall award attorney’s fees for the Chapter 517 portions of that lawsuit, unless the court finds that “the award of such fees would be unjust.” § 517.211(6), Fla. Stat. (1985). The trial court did not reach this latter issue because of its finding that appellees were not the prevailing party. Any award of fees should be offset against the award to which appellants are entitled as a result of being the prevailing party on the Chapter 517 issues in the “College Square” suit.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SELOMI M. VILLALTA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; et al.,
Defendants

- Appellees. No. 12

- 17579
D.C. No. 3:11

- cv - 03021

- WHA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2015 **
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ , Circuit Judges

. Selomi M. Villalta appeals pro se from the district court’s jud gment dismissing his action alleging that the government breach ed an immigration

- related class action settlement agreement (the “ABC agreement”). We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 12

- 17579

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th

Cir. 2010) . We affirm

. The district court properly dismissed Villalta’ s claims because the complaint

and attached exhibits failed to show that defendants breached the ABC agreement

or violated the United States Constitution

. See id. at 341

- 42 ( al though pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim ); Nat’ l Ass’ n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology , 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief , a court may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint); Am. Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh , 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (the ABC a greement)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villalta’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint because the proposed amendment was untimely

and would have been futile. See Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc. , 465 F.3d 946, 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) ( setting forth standard of review and grounds for denying leave to amend).

AFFIRMED.
No. 55567.

#### Amscan Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 158315-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada;  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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.    Date: May 9, 2007 /s/ Donald R. Mayer Donald R. Mayer, Principal Financial Officer
---

| | Suite 400 - 889 West
      Pender Street 
      Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 3B2 Tel 604 694-6070Fax 604 585-8377
      info@staleyokada.com 
      www.staleyokada.com
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Consent of Independent Accountants
|----------------------------------
|                                  

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. of our report dated June
6, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in the
Annual Report to Shareholders and to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Sec
no. 333.100832) initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2002.

|                | Staley, Okada & Partners
|--------------- | --------------------------
|                |                           
|                |                           
|                |                           
|Vancouver, B.C. | STALEY, OKADA & PARTNERS  
|July 25, 2008   | CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS     
|                |                           



---
No. 47671.

#### Protest 899001-G of Kloeckner Steel Corp. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Wilbur-Ellis Co.*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 403, C. A. D. 47), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1604 was sustained.
Exhibit 10.50**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO****AMERICANPHYSICIANS ASSURANCE CORPORATION**EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**     **THIS AMENDMENT**, dated October 24, 2007, amends the Employment Agreement between AmericanPhysicians Assurance Company (the “Company”) and [ ] (the “Executive”) datedas of [ ] (the “Employment Agreement”).     **WHEREAS,**certain of the compensation payable under the Employment Agreement is subject toSection 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); and     **WHEREAS,**the **Company**and the Executive desire to clarify the application of Code Section 409Ato the Employment Agreement, effective as of January 1, 2007; and     **WHEREAS**, prior to January 1, 2007, the Employment Agreement was administered in good faithcompliance with Code Section 409A based on IRS guidance in effect during such time-period.     **NOW THEREFORE**, the Employment Agreement is amended as set forth below. 1. Section 5(f) “BUSINESS EXPENSES” is amended with the addition of the followingsentence at the end of the paragraph:    Business expenses shall be submitted to the Company and paid no later than the endof the calendar year in which they are incurred.  2. The introductory paragraph in 7(d) “INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION/ CHANGES OFCONTROL” is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:    INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION/CHANGE OF CONTROL. In the event the Executive’s employmentis involuntarily terminated under Section 6(d) or 6(c), the Company shall pay orprovide to the Executive, subject to the Executive signing and delivering to theCompany a release and separation agreement reasonably acceptable to the Company,which shall become final and binding no later than 30 days following the Date ofTermination.  3. Section 7(d)(vii) relating to attorney fees is amended with the addition of thefollowing sentence at the end of the paragraph:    The reimbursement of attorney fees shall occur no later than the end of thecalendar year following the calendar year in which the attorney fees are incurred.  4. Section 7(d) (viii) “Specified Employee Delay in Payments” is added to theEmployment Agreement to read as follows:
 

 
 viii. Specified Employee Delay in Payments – If the Executive is a“Specified Employee” as defined in Treasury Regulation 1.409A-1(i) at the timeof termination of employment, and the application of Code Section 409A wouldrequire compensation under the Employment Agreement that normally would bepayable to the Executive during the first six months after termination ofemployment to be delayed, any delayed payments shall be aggregated and paid tothe Executive in a lump sum on the first business day after the lapse of sixmonths following the Executive’s termination of employment.     **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, American Physicians Capital, Inc. has caused this **AMENDMENT**No. 1 to beexecuted on this the 25th day of October, 2007.       **EXECUTIVE** **AMERICAN PHYSICIANS**  **
#### D. Hauser *v.*United States

No. 6780.

Entry No. 700674.

-Invoice dated London, England, June 4, 1946.

Certified June 21, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 2, 1946.

(Decided January 21, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell ,& Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2013026EN.01003403.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2012 — CTP v Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli

(Case C-518/12)

2013/C 26/65

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA

Applicant:

Defendants: Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Does the right to compensation arise, for the purposes of Article 4 of Regulation No 1191/69, (1) only where, following the submission of an appropriate application, the competent authorities have not terminated the public service obligation which imposes an economic disadvantage on the transport undertaking, or is that provision applicable only in respect of service obligations which are to be terminated and cannot be maintained under the regulation?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1).

1

---
#### JOHNSON v. MAYO.

Civ. No. 1509-J.

United States District Court S. D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

Dec. 17, 1948.

John R. Johnson, pro se.

Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Florida, for respondent, Nathan Mayo.

DE VANE, District Judge.

Petitioner has filed in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleges that he is illegally imprisoned in the Florida State Prison at Raiford, Florida, by virtue of a five year sentence imposed upon him by the-Judge of the Circuit Court, in and for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida, at Madison. The petition discloses that petitioner heretofore sought his release from this sentence by a habeas corpus proceeding instituted in the . State courts. The Circuit Judge and the Supreme Court of Florida, 28 So.2d 585, decided against him, whereupon petitioner applied to the Supreme Court of the United States by way of certiorari within ninety days following the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida. A certiorari was denied. Johnson v. Mayo, 329 U.S. 804, 67 S.Ct. 492, 91 L.Ed. 687.

Since the decision of the Supreme Court in Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672, 68 S.Ct. 1270, petitioner is now in this court seeking his release by way of habeas corpus. He raises no new grounds, simply asserting his right to another trial. There is dictum in Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114, 64 S.Ct. 448, 88 L.Ed. 572, that indicates petitioner may have a right to a retrial and readjudication in -this court, of the questions heretofore determined as to the legality of his imprisonment. However, in Wade v. Mayo, supra [334 U.S. 672, 68 S. Ct. 1274], wheré the precise question was before the Supreme Court, that court said: “After state procedure has been exhausted, the concern is with the appropriate federal *456forum in which to pursue further the constitutional claim. The choice lies between applying directly to this Court for a review of the constitutional issue by certiorari or instituting an original habeas corpus proceeding in a federal district court.”

While the law as laid down in the Wade Case does not leave a petitioner absolutely free to choose between certiorari to the Supreme Court or a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a District Court, it does make it clear that where a petitioner does choose certiorari and resorts to it, that he is at the end of his road, on the issues presented, as he should be. Consideration of orderly procedure in Federal courts prohibits any other conclusion.

An appropriate order will be entered denying the prayer for a writ of habeas corpus and said petition will be dismissed.
33695.

#### SECRIST v. THE STATE.

Argued July 10, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978.

*Jack H. Affleck, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Ken Stula, Solicitor,*for appellee.

Per curiam.

After further consideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals in *Secrist v. State,*145 Ga. App. 391 (243 SE2d 599) (1978), this court has decided that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.

*Writ dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hill, J., who dissents.*
**CERTIFICATION**
  
   I, Lana
Pope, certify that:
  1.  I have
reviewed this annual report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB of Victor
Industries, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this 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;
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a.  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b.  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c.  Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a.  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b.  Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
 
 Date: October
21, 2005
 
 /s /
Lana Pope
 
 Lana
Pope
 Chief
Executive Officer, President, and Chairman
 (Principal
Executive Officer)
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                          |  |                              
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                      |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                          | 
|Avanex Cayman                             |  | Cayman Islands               
|                                          | 
|Avanex Communication Technologies Co. Ltd |  | China                        
|                                          | 
|Avanex France SA                          |  | France                       
|                                          | 
|Avanex International                      |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|Avanex U.S.A. Corporation                 |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|LambdaFlex, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                     
|                                          | 
|Pearl Acquisition Corp.                   |  | Delaware
# C_2012295EN.01002401.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 2 August 2012 — Adiamix v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-368/12)

2012/C 295/43

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Adiamix

Appellant:

Respondent: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003, (1) on which the payment order at issue is necessarily contingent, valid?

1

---

(1)  2004/343/EC: Commission Decision of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38).

1

---
#### Dwight DAMOND and Beatrice Pollack Damond v. AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.

No. 98-CC-2854.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Damond, Dwight; Damond, Beatrice Pollack; — Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 98CW-1275; *638Parish of Orleans Civil District Court Div. “N” No. 95-199.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.