alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John GAINES, Appellant, v. TREASURE SALVORS, INC., Appellee.

No. 76-1953.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Robert A. Huth, Jr. and C. Lavon Ward, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Horan & Finley and David Paul Horan, Key West, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

HENDRY, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by appellant/plaintiff from a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee/defendant, on appellant’s complaint for breach of contract.

On February 20, 1968, appellant and ap-pellee entered a contract for the financing of an expedition to locate and salvage the treasure of a sunken Spanish ship, the Nuestra Señora de Atocha. By the terms of the contract, appellee agreed to conduct the expedition and pay appellant one percent of the treasure recovered in exchange for One Thousand Dollars. The contract was to expire one year from the commence*930ment of the expedition. At the end of that period of time, if no profit had been realized, certain collateral given to appellant by appellee, in the form of ancient coins, was to automatically vest in appellant.

The expedition commenced at sea on February 28, 1968. After the duration of one year, appellant was notified by letter, dated March 14, 1969, of the lack of the expedition’s success in locating the sunken treasure ship. The letter informed appellant that the contract had expired and, as no profits had been realized, appellant was entitled to keep the collateral.

On July 22, 1970, appellee sent a second letter to appellant, again stating that the contract had expired and formally transferring legal title to the coins to appellant. Appellant did not respond to either letter but instead kept the collateral. Years later, on August 28, 1975, upon learning of appel-lee’s eventual success in discovering the sunken ship, appellant filed a complaint for breach of contract.

The trial judge was of the opinion that the statute of limitations had run on an action for breach of contract and found no genuine issues of material fact prohibiting him from entering summary judgment in favor of appellee. From the entrance of said judgment, this appeal follows.

After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and arguments of counsel, it is our opinion that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that appellee was entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. Firstly, it is both clear and unequivocal that, by its terms, the contract was to last for only one year. Secondly, even assuming a breach of contract could have been maintained, any cause of action for same would have accrued on February 28, 1969, or, at the latest, July 22, 1970, when appellant was put on notice that ap-pellee deemed the contract to be at an end. Instead of objecting to the letters of the above dates, appellant took permanent possession of the collateral and silently acquiesced for over five years. When, at last, appellant decided to file his complaint, the cause of action had been effectively barred by the statute of limitations. Section 95.-ll(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975).

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
Skip NavigationEn Español

You are here:                Home » Disorders A - Z » Stroke »             

Skip secondary menu

Home

Disorders A - Z

Information Page

Publications

Organizations

News

Research literature

Other related groupsOrganizationsProfessional SocietiesGovernment Resources

NINDS Clinical Trials

En EspañolOrder Brochures

News From NINDS

Recovery Act

Funding Information

Training & Career Awards

Diversity Programs

Research Programs

Find People

About NINDS

 

Email this pagePrint-friendly versionContact NINDS

----

Adobe ReaderMicrosoft Word Viewer

# Stroke: Hope Through Research

**Clinical Trials**

                    - 
                    - 
                    - 
                    - 
                    - 
                    - 

**Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke (IRIS)**

More Information »See All Trials »

**Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation after Stroke**

More Information »See All Trials »

**Interventional Management of Stroke III Trial (IMS III)**

More Information »See All Trials »

**Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT)**

More Information »See All Trials »

**Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE)**

More Information »See All Trials »

See a list of all NINDS Disorders

Get Web page suited for printing                              			Email this to a friend or colleague                              			                              			Request free mailed brochure                              		Accidente Cerebrovascular: Esperanza en la Investigación

## Table of Contents (click to jump to sections)
UL THE 

## COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS RFflFlV/FR!M 

# OF TF.XAS j^\1t^C,VC:1-'*TM ©OURTOFCRIMINALAPPPAl 

## OCT272015 JOHN VINCENT CRUZ § 

# f 4teM60fltelGbrfc V. 

### § APPL Cause No.: 08-13-00297-CR 

## ^ Tr. CauseNo.: 20120D00741 STATE OF TEXAS §
ORDER 

### OnOctober 14, 2015, John Vincent Cruz, TDCJ 31892578's Motion For Extension of Time To File Petition For Discretionary Reviev/ came on to be and it is the OPINION of this Court that said Motion should be GRANTED / DENIED, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the due date to file Petition For Discretionary Review 

### of November 5, 2015 be extended 30 days. The new due date is December 5, 2015.

Justice Presiding 

### In The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 

## FILEDM 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS OCT 2 927, j 

### AbelAcosta, ClerkHonorable Abel Acosta Chief Deputy Clerk 

### Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711
la: Filing of ORDER John Vincent...Crua TDCJ #1892578 Boyd Unit 200 Spur 113 Teague, Texas 75860

October 15, 2015

Dear Honorable Clerk: 

### Enclosed, please find Appellant's ORDER, file it with the recently filed Motion For Extension of Time To File Petition For Discretionary Review 

### and bring it topthe attention of the Court for disposition. Thank you, Sincerely,
TDOMH932573 C.z: File \:.ncI.
Code Green Apparel Corp. 10-Q


Exhibit 10.28


 






     


     


    

 


 






    2


     


    

 


 






    3


     


    

 


 






    4


     


    

 


 






    5


     


    

 


 



    6


     


    

 


 


 



    7


     


    

 


 


 



    8


     


    

 


 


 



    9


     


    

 


 


 



    10


     


    

 


 


 



    11


     


    

 


 



    12


     


    

 


 



    13


     


    

 


 



    14


     


    

 


 



    15


     


    

 


 



    16


     


    

 


 



    17


     


    

 


 



    18


     


    

 


 



    19


     


    

 


 



    20


     


    

 


 



    21
Order entered December 11 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 17 - 01368 - CR DERIC BERNARD MCLAUR INE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14 - 71400 - Y



### O RDER On December 10, 2015, the trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at twenty years in prison. Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal , signed December 17, 2015 and postmarked December 30, 2015, was filed in the trial court on January 15, 2016 and in this Court on November 30, 2017. Absent a motion for new trial, a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed in the trial court within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed in open court. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2( a)(1)

. A document received within ten days after the filing deadline is considered timely filed if (1) it was sent to the proper clerk b y United States Postal Service (2) in an envelope properly addressed and stamped and (3) it was deposited in the mail on or before the last day for filing. T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 9.2(b). Here, appellant’s notice of appeal was due January 9, 2016 butwas receiv ed January 15, 2016

. Because appellant mailed his notice of appeal to the trial court

in a properly addressed and stamped envelope that was postmarked December 30, 2015, we conclude his notice of appeal is timely filed. We ORDER the trial court to condu ct a hearing to determine whether appellant is entitled to court

- appointed counsel in this appeal. If the trial court finds that appellant is entitled
to court

- appointed counsel, we ORDER the trial court to appoint an attorney to represent appellant in th e appeal. If the trial court finds that appellant is not entitled to court

- appointed counsel, the trial court shall determine whether appellant will retain counsel to represent him in the appeal and, if so, the name, State Bar number, and contact informat ion for retained counsel. We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the hearing, including findings of fact, any orders, and any supporting documentation, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We further ORDER that the supplem ental clerk’s record contain the trial court’s completed certification of appellant’s right to appeal in this case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a), (d). We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with the order. The appeal will be reinstated thi rty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial Commercial Corp.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Salek,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 18 U.S.C.
      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;
                and




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






By:
            /s/
                William SalekName:
            William
                SalekChief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            August
                11, 2006
#### Cleo Raymond KOSTENBAUDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1009.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29983]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences; Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences (#1754).
    Date and Time: December 4th & 5th, 1997, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 
1295, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Fred Stollnitz, Program Director, Research 
Experiences for Undergraduates, Room 615, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, VA 22230 Telephone: (703) 306-
1413.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted in response 
to the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program announcement.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-29983 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Clifford T. SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. P-286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 5, 1971.

Clifford T. Smith, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner alleges in his petition for writ of habeas corpus that he had been submitted to double jeopardy in that he was convicted in municipal court of carrying a concealed weapon, and was also tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County of the offense of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Petitioner contended in his petition that this was double jeopardy. This Court was *154concerned that the facts of this case might have brought it within the case of Waller v. State of Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970), and we therefore issued a Rule Nisi.

The respondent’s return to the Rule Nisi has dispelled this concern of ours and we therefore find no merit to the petitioner’s petition and said petition for writ of ha-beas corpus is therefore denied.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
PENSKE TRUCK LEASING (LOCAL 1414) 

Page 37.1.732

Page 37.1.734


PENSKE TRUCK LEASING (LOCAL 1546) 

Page 37.1.737

Page 37.1.739
 

Page 37.1.740

PETALUMA ACQUISTIONS 

Page 37.1.742
Page 37.1.743
Page 37.1.744

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Page 37.1.745

PETER PAN MOTORS 

Page 37.1.747

Page 37.1.749

 
 

Page 37.1.750
Page 37.1.751

 

PETKARRIS INC 

Page 37.1.753
Page 37.1.754
Page 37.1.755
Page 37.1.756

PIERCY TOYOTA 

Page 37.1.758
Page 37.1.759
Page 37.1.760
Page 37.1.761
Page 37.1.762

PLEASANTON TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT 

Page 37.1.764

Page 37.1.766
 

Page 37.1.767

 

RALPH PANELLA LEASING 

Page 37.1.769
Page 37.1.770
EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-77648) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan of Cygne
Designs, Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-77650)
pertaining to the Stock Option Plan for Non-employee Directors of Cygne Designs,
Inc. of our report dated April 2, 2002 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Cygne Designs, Inc. and Subsidiaries,
included in The Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 2, 2002.



                                                           /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New York, New York
April 30, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28787]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33476]


C & NC, L.L.C.--Acquisition Exemption--Indiana Hi Rail 
Corporation

    C & NC, L.L.C. (CLLC), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of 
exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire a line of railroad owned and 
operated by R. Franklin Unger, Trustee of the Indiana Hi Rail 
Corporation (Hi Rail) from Connersville, IN (milepost 0.0), to Beesons, 
IN (milepost 5.2), a distance of approximately 5.2 route miles.
    The line will be operated by C&NC Railroad Corporation under a 
lease and operating agreement with CLLC, which is the subject of a 
separate lease and operation exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 33475, 
C&NC Railroad Corporation--Lease and Operation Exemption--Lines of the 
Norfolk and Western Railway Company and Indiana Hi Rail Corporation.
    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after the 
October 15, 1997 effective date of the exemption. The transaction is 
related to the Hi Rail Trustee's filing of an Amended Plan of 
Reorganization with the Board in STB Finance Docket No. 33491 on 
October 3, 1997.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33476, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Richard R. Wilson, Esq., 1126 Eighth Avenue, Suite 403, 
Altoona, PA 16002.

    Decided: October 21, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28787 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF ANTERO RESOURCES LLC**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Antero Resources LLC for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Paul M. Rady, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Antero Resources LLC, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                      This Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Antero Resources LLC for the periods presented therein.

 
| Date: April 11, 2012                                  |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                  |   |   |
|                                                  |   |   |
| /s/ Paul M. Rady                                      |   |   |
| Paul M. Rady                                          |   |   |
| *Chairman   of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
DAVID HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS ESTRADA, U.S. Postal Inspector, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FEB 2

# a2009 NANCYMAYER WHITTINGTON CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT' 

# 09 U339

This matter is before the Court on consideration ofplaintiffs application to proceed in formapauperis andpro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and will dismiss the complaint for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. Plaintiffalleges that defendant Estrada conspired with others to interfere with, delay or destroyplaintiffs mail. See Compl. at 1-2. This interference with the mail "is part ofa massive conspiracy [a]rising from plaintiffs work as an intelligence officer with the U.S. State Department
... and service in a militaryreserve unit." Id. at 2. He demands $100 million plus punitive damages. Id. The elements ofcivil conspiracy are "(1) an agreement between two ormore persons; (2) to participate in an unlawful act, or a lawful act in an unlawful manner; (3) an injury caused by
an unlawful overt act performed by one ofthe parties to the agreement; (4) which overt act was done pursuant to and in furtherance ofthe common scheme." Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472,477 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Conclusory allegations ofan agreement will not suffice. Brady v. Livingood, 360 F. Supp. 2d 94, 104 (D.D.C. 2004) (mere allegation that defendants "agreedamong themselves" to subjectplaintiffto discriminatory acts, without alleging facts suggesting that the defendants were acting in concert in furtherance ofa shared goal ofdiscriminating against him not sufficient) (footnote and citations omitted). Because plaintiffhas not alleged facts to support his conspiracy claim, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcanbe granted. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately onthis same date. 

# ['./[u,- cJ 

# }jude United States District Judge
NO. 12-14-00054-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

N.H. AND M.H.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 420TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed because Appellant has failed to comply with the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellant’s 

docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., 

February 13, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. Because Appellant did not file her docketing 

statement at that time, this court requested by letter dated February 19, 2014, that she file her 

docketing statement within ten days if she had not already done so. Appellant did not file the 

docketing statement as requested.

On March 7, 2014, the court notified Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed on or 

before March 17, 2014, unless she filed the required docketing statement. See TEX. R. APP. P.

32.1. The March 17 deadline has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the court’s 

request. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 32.1, the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered March 19, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 19, 2014

NO. 12-14-00054-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.H. AND M.H., CHILDREN

Appeal from the 420th District Court 

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. C1228572)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.