alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ROBERT ENRIQUEZ,

HUSBAND

,

Appellant,

v.

KINDRA ENRIQUEZ, WIFE

,

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. 1D 14

- 1 916

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 18, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Frederick B. Tygart , Judge

.

Jason L. Harr of The Harr Law Firm, Daytona Beach , for Appellant.

Jeffrey A. Miller of Miller Law Associat es, Boca Raton , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., WOLF and ROBERTS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
No. 00-7158.

#### Torres *v.*Williams, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
H. R. 264 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Sunday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-one 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1101 Charlotte 

Street in Georgetown, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Joseph Hayne Rainey Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOSEPH HAYNE RAINEY MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 1101 Charlotte Street in Georgetown, South 

Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Joseph Hayne 

Rainey Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Joseph Hayne Rainey Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Marvin BOYKIN d/b/a Boykin Construction Company, etc., Appellant, v. WESTBROOK AIR CONDITIONING & PLUMBING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-910.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1972.

William H. Stone of Law Offices of Richard H. Langley; Clermont, for appellant.

Robert G. Murrell of Sam E. Murrell & Sons, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.

WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.

WALDEN, Judge

(dissenting):

Summary final judgment was entered for plaintiff in a breach of contract case. I would reverse. There are genuine issues of material fact which preclude judgment as a matter of law. Rule 1.510(c), Fla.R. Civ.P., 31 F.S.A.; Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1966). The record reveals a dispute at least as to the existence of a contract and whether same was based upon a cognizable mistake which would entitle appellant to relief. The judgment should be voided and the cause remanded to the end that the appellant might have his day in court.

I would reverse.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Weikang Bio-Technology Group Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yin Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 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 certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated: March 22, 2011
By:
/s/ Yin WangYin Wang

Chief Executive Officer
#### HOMER v. CLAUGHTON.

No. 38245.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 224 So.2d 414.
June 20,2012 

Mr. Luis F. Folgueira 

Professional Helicopter Services 

13704 Southwest 145th Court 

Miami, FL 33186 

Dear Mr. Folgueira: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 135 and part 91 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we 

can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 14, 2012, exemption request on behalf of Professional Helicopter 

Services into the public docket (No. FAA-2012-0663), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

 If you want to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the United States, please 

state the specific reasons why.
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send 

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                          3,596
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3,596
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  7,284,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           316,484
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     130,000
<COMMON>                        25,408
<OTHER-SE>                      6,812,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    7,284,352
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                248,457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              8,312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (256,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (256,769)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (256,769)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.01)



</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2574 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to designate a portion of United States Route 74 in North Carolina 

as a future interstate, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2021 

Ms. FOXX (for herself and Mr. CAWTHORN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to designate a portion of United States 

Route 74 in North Carolina as a future interstate, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FUTURE INTERSTATE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION AS HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR.— 

5 Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

6 Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–240) is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2574 IH

1 ‘‘(92) United States Route 74 from Columbus, 

2 North Carolina to Kings Mountain, North Caro3 lina.’’. 

4 (b) DESIGNATION AS FUTURE INTERSTATE.—Sec5 tion 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor6 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by striking ‘‘and 

7 subsection (c)(91)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(91), and 

8 subsection (c)(92)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Table of Contents


Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Compañía de Telecomunicaciones de Chile S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Julio Covarrubias Fernández, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date: May 15, 2006

/s/ Julio Covarrubias FernándezJulio Covarrubias FernándezChief Financial Officer


24
#### William A. FIELD, C. Leonard Wilcox, E. L. Matlack, R. L. Rockefeller and Harold E. Taylor, Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, Edmund R. Burry, Fred E. Walker, Harrison L. Friese, James L. Leavitt and Allen B. Forbes, as and constituting the City Commission of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Appellees.

No. 2358.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 31, 1969.

Patrick Kelley, and W. J. Kelley, of Kelley, Tompkins & Griffin, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellants.

Dean Andrews, Ronald B. Sladon, Paul S. Stuart and James J. Keough, Fort Lau-derdale, for appellees.

McCAIN, Judge.

Appellants-plaintiffs appeal from an amended final summary judgment in favor of appellees-defendants. We reverse.

Following approval by the zoning board of the City of Fort Lauderdale of a site plan for construction of apartment complexes, the plaintiffs, as property owners of adjoining lands, filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming illegality in the approval of the plan, usurpation of the zoning authority and assertion of the right to appeal to the city commission. After reaching issue, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that the builder was not joined in the suit and that the final building permit had been issued. In the amended final summary judgment granting the motion, the court reasoned:

> “ * * * [Ujnder the provisions of Chapter 86, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.], Section 86.091, it is provided that no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings and it is patent from the pleadings herein that Cedar Lane Developers, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a person whose rights would be prejudiced by any declaration. * * * ”

*531The court apparently assumed it could not make an adjudication herein since the builder was not a party. We do not agree.

We do agree, however, that Section 86.-091, F.S.1967, F.S.A., permits all persons to be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by any declaration, and that no declaration shall prejudice the rights' of persons not parties to the proceedings.

Cedar Lane Developers, Inc. has an interest in the subject matter of this litigation, and under the authority of F.R.C.P. 1.250(c), 30 F.S.A. could have been added as a party to this cause by the court on its own initiative or on motion of any party at any stage of the action.and on just terms.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause with instructions for entry of an appropriate order under F.R.C.P. 1.250(c) permitting the builder to be added as a party. This is not to be construed as determinative in any manner of the merits of this cause.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
#### Richard Kenneth BROOKS, Appellant, v. Barbara Jean WALKER, Appellee.

No. 73-964.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 14, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0378 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. CYLE RAMSEY MADGWICK,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until February 5 , 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 29 2023

12/29/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0378
BRIAN QUINN Chief Justice JUDY C. PARKER Justice LAWRENCE M. DOSS Justice
ALEX YARBROUGH Justice 

## Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas Potter County Courts Building 501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449 www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx BOBBY RAMIREZ Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Box 9540 79105-9540
(806) 342-2650 April 20, 2023 Steven W. Conder Assistant Criminal District Attorney Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center 401 West Belknap Street, 4th Floor Fort Worth, TX 76196 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Darwin Gerod Grant TDCJ-ID#02411436 Preston E. Smith Unit 1313 CR 19 Lamesa, TX 79331 Bryant Cabrera CABRERA LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. 2888 Medlin Drive Arlington, TX 76015 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 07-22-00291-CR, 07-22-00292-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 1610010D, 1700424D Style: Darwin Gerod Grant Jr. v. The State of Texas Dear Mr. Conder, Mr. Cabrera, and Mr. Grant: The Court this day issued an opinion and judgments in the referenced appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 48. Pursuant to Section 51.204(b)(2) of the Texas Government Code, exhibits on file with this Court, if any, will be destroyed three years after final disposition of the case or at an earlier date if ordered by the Court. Very truly yours, 

# Bobby Ramirez Bobby Ramirez, Clerk

cc: Honorable Elizabeth Beach (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Thomas A. Wilder (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
Exhibit 10.3.7

Eighth Amendment to Services Agreement

This Eighth Amendment to Services Agreement (the "Amendment") is made and entered into this 4 day of February, 2001, by and between The Wet
Seal, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Wet Seal"), Kathy Bronstein ("Bronstein"), with respect to the following facts:

The
parties entered into a Services Agreement as of December 30, 1988, as amended ("the Services Agreement"). The parties desire to amend certain terms of the Services Agreement.

The
parties therefore agrees as follows:

1.
Any terms defined by the Services Agreement as amended shall have the same meanings assigned thereby for purpose of this Agreement.

2.
From and after February 4, 2001, Bronstein's Basic Salary shall be Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per annum, payable semimonthly.

3.
Except as amended herein, the Services Agreement as amended is hereby confirmed and republished in full and acknowledged by the parties to be in full force and affect.

The
parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

|"Wet Seal"                                                        |  | "Bronstein"                       
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|THE WET SEAL, INC.,
A Delaware Corporation                        |  |                                   
|/s/ Irving TeitelbaumIrving Teitelbaum
Its: Chairman of the Board |  | /s/ Kathy BronsteinKathy Bronstein

---

QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel GARIBALDI-HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50602.

D.C. No. CR-00-03699-MJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2000.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Manuel Garibaldi-Hernandez appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Garibaldi-Hernandez contends that, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year statutory maximum sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Garibaldi-Hernandez acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by *United*
      *849
      *States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *cert, denied,*532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is1 not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of ETFS White Metals Basket Trust (the
Trust) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Graham
Tuckwell, principal executive officer of ETF Securities USA LLC, the Sponsor of
the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Trust.

|                                       |  
|-------------------------------------- | -
|/s/ Graham Tuckwell                    | *
|                                       |  
|Graham Tuckwell**                      |  
|Chief Executive Officer
 and President |  
|(principal executive
 officer)         |  

Date: March 28, 2011

|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|*  | The originally executed
 copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Sponsors offices and
 will be made available for inspection upon request.
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|** | The
 Registrant is a trust and Mr. Tuckwell is signing in his capacity as an
 officer of ETF Securities USA LLC, the sponsor of the Trust.              

---
#### Latrice McFARLAND, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-16576.

D.C. No. CV-00-2878-MMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2002.

Decided Aug. 5, 2002.

Before CANBY and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and BERTELSMAN,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Latrice McFarland appeals the district court’s grant of partial judgment on the pleadings to the appellees under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. McFarland filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal court based on allegations of constitutional violations under color of law for excessive force used during a body cavity search. The district court held that McFarland’s federal claims were barred under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and her state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse.

In *Heck*the United States Supreme Court held that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that would call into question the lawfulness of a plaintiffs conviction or confinement is not cognizable, and does not accrue unless the plaintiff can prove that her conviction has been reversed or otherwise overturned in appropriate proceedings directed toward that end. This Court followed *Heck*in *Harvey v. Waldron,*210 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir.2000), and the district court relied heavily on *Harvey*to dismiss McFarland’s claims.

We conclude that neither *Heck*nor *Harvey*are implicated in McFarland’s case because her conviction was based on a guilty plea. Instead, we find that *Ove v. Gwinn,*264 F.3d 817 (9th Cir.2001) controls our decision in this matter. In *Ove*this Court held that a conviction based on a guilty plea was not barred by *Heck. Ove,*264 F.3d at 823.

Further, in *Ove,*264 F.3d at 823, which involved blood evidence, this Court noted the issue in that case revolved around the *manner*in which the blood was drawn. Thereafter, this Court compared the facts in *Ove*to our decision in *Smithart v. Towery,*70 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir.1996), wherein we allowed claims for excessive force used during an arrest to survive a *Heck*analysis. Relying on *Smithart,*we held that the district court erred in ruling that *Heck*barred the claims in *Ove.*

Likewise in the present case, McFarland’s claims are based on the *manner*in which the evidence was seized during the search. Her § 1983 claims are based on excessive force being used diming the body *156cavity search, not on the underlying validity of the search. Based on *Ove,*we hold that the present action does not have the possibility of undermining McFarland’s conviction. Therefore, the district court erred in granting partial judgment on the pleadings to appellees.

REVERSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 21.1
 
 SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC.
 
 WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
STATE OF INCORPORATIONGrand Palais Riverboat, Inc
LouisianaIOC-Boonville, Inc.
NevadaIOC-Davenport, Inc.
IowaIOC Holdings, L.L.C.
LouisianaIOC-Kansas City, Inc.
MissouriIOC-Lula, Inc.
MississippiIsle of Capri Bettendorf, L.C.
IowaIsle of Capri Marquette, Inc.
DelawareLouisiana Riverboat Gaming Partnership
LouisianaRiverboat Corporation of Mississippi
MississippiRiverboat Corporation of Mississippi-Vicksburg
MississippiSt. Charles Gaming Company, Inc.
LouisianaPARTIALLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIESCCSC/Blackhawk, Inc.
ColoradoIsle of Capri Black Hawk, L.L.C.
Colorado