alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DIANE SEIWERT,

Appellant,

v.

SHEA'S SHAMROCK INC. d/b/a CARBONEAU'S HOME REPAIR, ET 

AL.,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-1980

[October 28, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE17-

016324.

Charles D. Straub of Charles D. Straub, P.A., Lake Worth, for appellant.

No brief filed on behalf of appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
     10-K) of VideoServer, Inc. of our report dated January 13, 1998, included
     in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of VideoServer, Inc.

     Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of VideoServer,
     Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
     Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
     our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to
     above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
     as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set
     forth therein.

     We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
     Statements (Forms S-3 No. 333-29209 and S-8 No. 33-96192) of VideoServer,
     Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 13, 1998,
     with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein
     by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with
     respect to the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report
     (Form 10-K) of VideoServer, Inc.

                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP

     Boston, Massachusetts
     March 25, 1998
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAeropropulsive characteristics of isolated combined turbojet/ramjet nozzles at Mach numbers from 0 to 1.20An investigation was conducted in the Langley 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel to determine the aeropropulsive performance characteristics (the aerodynamic quantities affected by propulsion) of 13 isolated combined turbojet/ramjet nozzle configurations. These configurations simulated the variable-geometry features of two nozzle designs designated as the multiple-expansion ramp nozzle (MERN) and the composite contour nozzle (CCN). Test data were obtained at static conditions and at Mach numbers of 0.60, 0.90, and 1.20 with jet exhaust simulated by high-pressure air. The results showed that the CCN had the higher performance over the Mach number range than the MERN, as indicated by the difference of thrust minus drag divided by ideal thrust. Increasing the ramjet throat area for the MERN resulted in an increase in performance that increased with Mach number. For the CCN at Mach numbers less than 1.20, increasing the ramjet throat area resulted in a loss in performance.Document ID19880014373Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsCarson, George T., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Lamb, Milton*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1988Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:2814L-16390NASA-TP-2814Accession Number88N23757Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-91-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19880014373.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Hillie Duke EVANS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2472.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 23, 1969.

Hillie Duke Evans, Jr., in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Among other contentions, defendant questions the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule One (now Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A.) on the ground that his extrajudicial confession was admitted into evidence without a sufficient determination of its voluntariness.

We have carefully reviewed the record and considered all of defendant’s arguments which we find to be without merit.

*174Affirmed on the authority of Wade v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 235; Brown v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1968, 394 F.2d 153; Johnson v. New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882; State v. Outten, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 392; and Tolar v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 1.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN and REED, JJ-, concur.
# L_2023228EN.01019601.xml

| 15.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 228/196 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 228/196

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2023/1774

of 14 September 2023

correcting certain language versions of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Dutch and Italian language versions of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 contain a mistranslation of a term in Part E, in the entries concerning food category 17.1, that narrows down the scope of products in which certain food additives can be used. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Dutch and Italian language versions of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 contain a mistranslation of a term in Part E, in the entries concerning food category 17.1, that narrows down the scope of products in which certain food additives can be used.

| (2) | The Dutch and Italian language versions of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Dutch and Italian language versions of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinions of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, delivered on 17 April 2018 and on 10 March 2021, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinions of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, delivered on 17 April 2018 and on 10 March 2021,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(Does not concern the English language)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 September 2023.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 16.

1

---
#### Edith HAMILTON and Sam Hamilton, Appellants, v. LUBY LEADING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-356.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 25, 1969.

Arthur D. Deckelman and Melvin Schaf-fer, Miami, for appellants.

Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

*292PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 740; Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; and Lykes Brothers, Inc. v. Singletary, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 589.
2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-31-2007 

# R ahm an v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-3487

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" R ahm a n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 678. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/678H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge fort he East er n D i s t r i ctof * Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 3487 AZ AM RA HM AN,

Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent
O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

( N o. A 70- 651- 119)
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y10, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es,

SH A PI R O , D i s t r i ctJ udge

* ( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y16, 2007 )2 

### ORDER AMENDI NG OPI NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJudge



### It is no w o rder ed that

the not prec edenti alOp inion in the abov e c as e fil ed Ju ly 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , b e am en d edas f o llo w s: O np a g e 5 o f

th e o p i n i o n , d e l e t e f

o o tn o t e 3 i ni t s e n t i r e ty. B y th e C o urt,
/ s / Thom a s L. Am

br o, Ci r c ui t

Judge Dat e d: Jul y

31, 2007 CMH/ c c : J DJ G, AEB, W CP
#### Thomas Eugene NICHOLSON, Petitioner, v. BOND’S TILE SHOP, INC., United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38663.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 2, 1969.

Thomas Sale, Jr., and Alan Thompson, Panama City, for petitioner.

C. Douglas Brown, of Isler, Welch, Bryant, Smith & Higby, Panama City, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date April 25, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is, therefore, dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

*310The petition is, therefore, denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees is denied also.

ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50612 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARIO CESAR ARENAS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-1562
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mario Cesar Arenas appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Arenas argues that one of his attorneys, Joseph Sib Abraham, Jr., rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel was absent during Arenas’s sentencing. Another of Arenas’s attorneys, Luis E. Eslas, was present during Arenas’s sentencing.No. 06-50612

2 This court generally will not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal except in those “rare cases where the record allowed [this court] to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” U nited States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). This is not one of those cases. Without prejudice to Arenas’s right to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
II 

Calendar No. 332 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1820 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Dewey F. Bartlett 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2005 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 16, 2005 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

as the ‘‘Dewey F. Bartlett Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEWEY F. BARTLETT POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, 
2 

•S 1820 RS 

1 Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dewey 

2 F. Bartlett Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dewey F. Bartlett 

7 Post Office’’. 

Calendar No. 332 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1820 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Dewey F. Bartlett al Service located at 6110 East 51st Place in 

DECEMBER 16, 2005 

Reported without amendment
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                          92,817
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  92,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        10,500
<OTHER-SE>                      82,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    92,817
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   6,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (6,768)
<EPS-BASIC>                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0




</TABLE>
#### Virgil HAYWARD, a/k/a Virgil Haywood, a/k/a Willie Thomas, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 16, 1970.

Brown & Blume, Clearwater, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

*161PER CURIAM.

Because the issue raised by appellant has already been disposed of in an appeal to this court from the denial of a previous motion for post-conviction relief, Haywood v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So.2d 242, the order of the trial court denying appellant’s present motion is

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and PIERCE, TL, concur.
#### J. Arthur ROY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren J. MOITY and the Jearco Corporation of Louisiana, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2823.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

June 25, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 7, 1969.

*316J. Minos Simon and Robert A. Leckey, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.

Koury & Judice by Joseph A. Koury, Lafayette, for defendants-appellants.

On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

TATE, Judge.

The defendants appeal from judgment assessing them with $250.00 attorney’s fees in connection with their failure to make discovery as required by law. Upon the failure of the defendants-appellants to answer certain written interrogatories, LSA-CCP Art. 1491, plaintiff-appellee filed a rule to compel answer to them and to have awarded to him reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to obtain said order, LSA-CCP Art. 1511. Prior to the hearing, the defendants-appellants answered the interrogatories.

At the hearing, the trial court awarded the plaintiff-appellee $250 attorney’s fees under the provisions of Article 1511, finding that “The plaintiff was forced to rule the defendants into Court in order to get the defendants to answer the interrogatories propounded to them.” The defendants-appellants appeal from this order.

The plaintiff-appellee moves to dismiss this appeal as from a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. LSA-CCP Art. 2083.

The motion has merit. Discovery orders, including those which assess attorney’s fees for failure to make discovery as required by statute, are interlocutory orders which are held to be nonappealable interlocutory judgments which do not do irreparable injury. The Advertiser v. Tubbs, La.App.3d Cir., 199 So.2d 426; Anderson v. Southern Consumers Education Foundation, La.App.3d Cir., 196 So.2d 686.

As stated in The Advertiser v. Tubbs, cited above, at 199 So.2d 427: “To impede the progress of litigation by granting an appeal whenever statutory enforcement provisions of the discovery devices are invoked seems to us a policy most unwise, for the every purpose of discovery devices is to reduce the delays inherent in the enforcement and defense of legal rights. Appellant’s remedy, an application to this court for supervisory writs, affords him speedy and ample protection against oppressive or unreasonable sanctions which may be imposed by the lower cort during pretrial production of evidence.”

The motion is therefore granted, with the defendants-appellants to pay all costs.

Appeal dismissed.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.

MILLER, J., votes for rehearing.
256 La. 262

#### Eliza ZERINGUE, Wife of Maurice OUBRE, for and on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Maurice Oubre v. MAXON PREMIX BURNER COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 50560.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1970.

In re: Maxon Premix Burner Company and Camden Fire Insurance Association applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. John the Baptist. 232 So.2d 861.

The application is denied. According to the facts of this case the result reached by the Court is correct.
Exhibit 32

                           MOTORSPORTS EMPORIUM, INC.
                              A Nevada corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of MotorSports Emporium,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
Keaveney,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  SS 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to SS 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; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
other  document  authentication,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed from  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required by Section  906, has been  provided to  MotorSports
Emporium,  Inc., and will be retained by MotorSports Emporium Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Date: August 14, 2006                     /s/ David Keaveney
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          David Keaveney
                                          Chief Executive Officer, President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit  32.1
                                                                   -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, PENNY
PERFECT, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 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: May 11, 2004                         /s/ Penny Perfect
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Its: Chief Executive Officer


         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 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. The foregoing certifications are
         accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906
         of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
         1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.















                                     32.1-1