alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30489 

Conference Calendar

 

DONALD BOURQUE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PHILLIP BLANCHARD, Etc., Et Al.;

Defendants,

PHILLIP BLANCHARD, d/b/a B & C BOAT RENTAL, INC; and 

M/V JOHN B,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1598

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Bourque, a seaman on the M/V JOHN B, operated by

Phillip Blanchard d/b/a B & C Boat Rental, Inc., was injured

while descending the stairs. 

Bourque argues that the jury’s verdict is unsupported by the

evidence. Bourque failed to move for a judgment as a matter of
No. 97-30489 

-2-

law at the close of all the evidence. Nor did he move for a

judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial following the

return of the verdict. Thus, our review is limited to whether

there was any evidence to support the jury’s verdict,

irrespective of its sufficiency, or whether plain error was

committed. Coughlin v. Capitol Cement Co., 571 F.2d 290, 297

(5th Cir. 1978).

Bourque’s testimony was inconsistent as to whether his fall

occurred at the top of the stairs where there was no handrail or

on the middle steps where a handrail was provided. The jury

could have concluded that Bourque fell in the middle of the

stairs and that any failure to provide a left side handrail at

the top of the stairs, even if unseaworthy or negligent, did not

cause his injury. See Guillory v. Domtar Indus. Inc., 95 F.3d

1320, 1333-34 (5th Cir. 1996)(this court accepts all credibility

choices that tend to support the verdict). 

This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Howard V. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### Dorothy L. VAN ARSDALE, formerly Dorothy L. Groover, Appellant, v. DiMIL LAND COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-975.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 1972.

*86Anthony A. Balasso, of the Law Offices of William G. Miller, Jr., Pompano Beach, for appellant.

J. Patrick Dyal, of Rogers, Morris & Ziegler, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Each side moved for summary judgment and, at least tacitly, agreed that the case was a ripe and proper one for adjudication and disposition under Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.1

Summary judgment was duly entered for plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a land trade agreement. We reverse and remand because there are material disputed issues and critical unplumbed areas. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40.

This suit deals with the interpretation to be given a real estate trade agreement and, more specifically, the provision “ * * * titles to be insurable in the usual form subject to easements and restrictions common to the subdivision * * * ”. Does the fact that there was a reservation of certain mineral and petroleum rights render the title not insurable as contemplated by the agreement? We feel that the conflicts in the testimony of the experts and the summary presentation does not afford an adequate basis for a definitive treatment and judgment.

It is generally understood that in certain parts of Florida, at least, there have been significant oil and mineral discoveries. Thus, a careful pronouncement in this case could do much to insure orderly development in future conveyancing.

For these reasons and sentiments the judgment is reversed and the case remanded with respectful instructions to conduct a full trial on the merits.

Reversed and remanded.

REED, C. J., WALDEN, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.

1

. Even if counsel should stipulate for the use of summary judgment procedure, same is not binding upon the court where the threshold requirements of Rule 1.510 (c), P.R.O.P., are not fully met. Shollenberger, v. Baskin, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 79; Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 292.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000939730
<NAME>                        EXPERT SOFTWARE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         1,595
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,352)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,830
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,755
<PP&E>                                         4,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,317)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,508
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       76
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,614
<SALES>                                        30,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,896
<CGS>                                          13,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  34,776
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,578
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,591)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,518)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,518)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.12)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
10.58




Third
Amendment
 To
 Change
of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
 
 This
Third Amendment (the
“Third Amendment”) to Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreementis made this 10h day
of December, 2009, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on the one hand, and Charles AuBuchon, Vice
President of Sales, on the other hand (the “Executive”).
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into a Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
dated as of October 31, 2005 which was then  subsequently amended on
September 27, 2008 and again on
April 6, 2009(the “Severance Agreement”); and
 
 WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and
 
 WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Severance Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Severance Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
 
 Section“2.Term of
Agreement”strike the
language “continue until December 31, 2009” and replace it with “continue until
December 31, 2010”.
 
 
 
 
 _________________________________                                            _________________________________
 
 ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                           Charles
AuBuchon
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         270,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  948,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,643
<INVENTORY>                                    229,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,485,975
<PP&E>                                       2,325,632
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,411,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,430,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,572,674
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,324
<OTHER-SE>                                     837,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,430,911
<SALES>                                      5,071,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,071,753
<CGS>                                        2,557,793
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,901,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (6,890)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,028
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,560
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,560
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
#### Donnie Wayne PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-48.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 19, 1973.

Donnie Wayne Parker, in pro. per., Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Parker, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs filed by counsel. Our consideration thereof leads us to the conclusion that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the proceedings below and the same are hereby Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      23.2**





**Apollo
      Gold Corporation**


**Annual
      Report on Form 10-K**


**for
      the**


**Year
      Ended December 31, 2007**








**CONSENT
      OF SRK CONSULTING (US), Inc.**







We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference of any reserves and other analyses
      performed by us in our capacity as an independent consultant to Apollo Gold
      Corporation (the “Company”), which are set forth in the Company’s Annual Report
      on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, in the Company’s Registration
      Statements on Form S-8 No. 333-113889, S-3 No. 333-119198, S-3 333-131876,
      S-3
      No. 333-121004, S-3 No. 333-122433, S-3 No. 333-109511, S-3 No. 333-122693,
      S-3
      No. 333-131877 and S-3 No. 333-147992; any registration statements or
      prospectuses to be filed in connection with the sale or resale from time to
      time
      of securities of the Company, or amendments or supplements thereto; and in
      any
      amendment to any of the foregoing. We also consent to the reference to us under
      the heading “Experts” in any of the aforementioned documents.


SRK
                CONSULTING (US), Inc./s/ *Dr.
              Neal Rigby*Name:Dr.
              Neal RigbyTitle:Group
                Chairman
              Date:March
                24, 2008
___________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133371 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133372 

Marilyn Kelly 133373 Maura D. Corrigan 133374 Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

JAMES RICHARD ARNOLD, and 

CAROL ARNOLD,

Plaintiffs-CounterDefendants-Appellees, 

v SC: 133371-133372 

 COA: 262349, 263157 

 St. Joseph CC: 96-001144-CH 

DENNIS R. KEMP, and MICHAEL D. 

KEMP, 

 Defendants-CounterPlaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

DALE ARNOLD, WILLIAM C.

DUNN, and IOLA C. DUNN,

 Third-Party

 Defendants-Appellees. 

JAMES RICHARD ARNOLD, and 

CAROL ARNOLD,

Plaintiffs-Counter-

 Defendants Third-Party 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

V SC: 133373 

 COA: 264126

 St. Joseph CC: 96-001144-CH 

DENNIS R. KEMP, and MICHAEL D. 

KEMP, 

 Defendants-CounterPlaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 
 _________________________________________ 

 

___________________________________ 

 

 

2 

V 

WILLIAM D. DUNN, and IOLA C. DUNN,

 Third-Party

 Defendants-Appellees. 

JAMES RICHARD ARNOLD, and 

CAROL ARNOLD,

Plaintiffs-Counter-

 Defendants Third-Party 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

 SC: 133374 

 COA: 264578

 St. Joseph CC: 96-001144-CH 

DENNIS R. KEMP, and MICHAEL D. 

KEMP, 

 Defendants-CounterPlaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

DALE ARNOLD,

 Third-Party

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

WILLIAM C. DUNN, and IOLA C. DUNN,

 Third-Party Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
---

Exhibit
13.1



CERTIFICATION



The certification set forth below
is being submitted in connection with the annual report of Israel Chemicals Ltd. on Form 20-F (the “Report”) for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.  Stefan Borgas, the Chief Executive Officer and
President of Israel Chemicals Ltd., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
    Act; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of Israel Chemicals Ltd.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: | March 16, 2016
|----- | --------------



|/s/ Stefan Borgas                                                            
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Stefan Borgas
        
        Chief Executive Officer
        and 
President
255 La. 345

#### Mrs. Marie Baucum SCOTT v. CLAIBORNE PARISH DISTRICT COURT, Judge Frank M. Dougherty, Judge of Division B., and J. J. Smith, Clerk.

No. 50368.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 1970.

In re: Mrs. Marie Baucum Scott applying for writs of mandamus and prohibition.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      35,018,000
<SECURITIES>                                11,607,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,256,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,030,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,829,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             74,466,00
<PP&E>                                       9,774,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,031,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,838,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,321,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  72,508,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,838,000
<SALES>                                     54,964,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,964,000
<CGS>                                       29,900,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               71,168,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,143,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (7,123,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (19,224,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   157,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (19,381,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (19,381,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.11)
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 61/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.061.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 61 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5529 February 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.061.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 61

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5529 February 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 061/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast)(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1) | 1 |
| 2012/C 061/02 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1) | 56 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 061/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast)(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

1

2012/C 061/02

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

56

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12 - 1 40 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 

## Application **to Amend**

**Section 333 Exemption No. 14044**  **Regulatory Docket No. FAA -**  **2015 -**  **4570** March 19th 12 , 2016 **Petitioner:** Florida Drone Pros, LLC P.O. Box 22205 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33335 Cell: 954- 646 - 4435 Email: 

### floridadronepros@gmail.com Website: 

### legaldronepics.com

Greetings, By letter from the FAA dated Dec 22, 2015 an Exemption 333 was granted to Florida Drone Pros, LLC for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 14044 Regulatory Docket No. FAA- 2015 - 4570 . Florida Drone Pros, LLC hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJI Phanto m 4 models . Re levant facts and reasoning are:  DJI has anno u nced they will discontinue the Phantom 2 model which was approved in Florida Drone Pros, LLC Exemption No. 14044 .  Size, weight and performance specification of the DJI Phantom 4 (“P4 ”) are substantially similar to those of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ (“P2”) and Phantom 3 (P3) in all relevant respects: 

### PHANTOM	4	Specs: Weight	(Including	Battery) Max	Ascent	Speed 6	m/s	(Sport	mode) Max	Descent	Speed 4	m/s	(Sport	mode) Max	Speed 20	m/s (Sport	mode) Max	Service	Ceiling	Above	Sea	Level 19685	feet	(6000	m) Max	Flight	Time Approx.	28	minutes Operating	Temperature	Range 32°	to	104°	F	(0°	to	40°	C) Satellite	Systems GPS	/	GLONASS Hovering	Accuracy Vertical: +/
- 0.1	m	(when	Vision Positioning	is	active)	or	+/
- 0.5	m Horizontal: +/
- 0.3	m	(when	Vision	Positioning	is	active)	or	+/
- 1.5	m o  The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 14044 apply without modification to this application to include the DJI Phantom 4 model in Exemption No. 14044 .Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any a dditional

information that is required. Sincerely,

Lee Borkowski Florida Drone Pros, LLC. P.O. Box 22205 Ft Lauderdale, FL 3 3335 Cell 954 - 646 -4435
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.56 N 76.20 W Meters AGL
#### CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a municipal corporation of Florida; William G. Zinkil, as Tax Assessor for Broward County, Florida; Broward County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS OF HOLLYWOOD, Inc., a non-profit Florida corporation et al., Appellees.

No. 69-26.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 13, 1970.

Rehearings Denied March 31, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 10, 2016

d0607 

# Order

Clerk June 10, 2016

152905(93)

In re STURGIS, Minors. SC: 152905

COA: 324127

Wayne CC Family Division:

13

- 514853

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 19,

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.