alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harry SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 73-218.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 15, 1973.

*394Richard R. Mullholland and Gordon & Maney, Tampa, for appellant.

William T. Keen, Tampa, for appellee American Fire and Casualty Co.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Smith alleges that a lighting fixture fell and injured him while he was at the Causeway Inn in Tampa. Among other defendants are Floodlight Service Co., the installer, now dissolved, and American Fire and Casualty Co., which is alleged to have insured Floodlight against liability. The complaint states that a copy of the policy is unavailable.

There are two depositions on file. In one the insurance agent who handled Floodlight’s insurance stated that he had no records going back to the date in question. Asked where one might look for evidence of the policy’s existence, he replied that they should ask the company. The second deposition is that of the former owner of Floodlight. He testified that he had liability coverage and that American Fire and Casualty wrote it.

The insurer’s motion for summary judgment, which was granted, is accompanied by nothing to contradict the plaintiff’s claim that Floodlight was covered. If American Fire and Casualty Company is not liable as an insurer it would be a simple matter for a responsible officer so to assert under oath. Faced with an affidavit or deposition thus establishing non-liability, the plaintiff would either have to suffer summary judgment or seek, pursuant to R. C.P. 1.510(f), 31 F.S.A., authority to pursue the evidence he needs, if he asserts the prospect of finding it. A reviewing judge suspects, in cases like this, that the plaintiff regards these defendants as secondary and accordingly has not pursued the proof of their liability as diligently as he should. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the insurer’s access to proof of non-liability is clearly superior to the plaintiff’s access to proof of liability, it is necessary that more be shown than supports this summary judgment. This is an issue well suited to disposition before trial. If the insurer is to receive a summary judgment, it ought to be because its non-liability is affirmatively shown and not because some doubt remains whether it is not liable or whether its liability is undiscovered. See 6 Moore, Federal Practice § 56.15 [5].

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
# C_2021098EN.01001501.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 20 January 2021 — Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium

(Case C-34/21)

(2021/C 98/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium

Defendant: Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation — GDPR) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be a more specific rule for ensuring the protection of the rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of employees’ personal data in the employment context within the meaning of Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a provision must meet the requirements imposed on such rules by Article 88(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation — GDPR) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be a more specific rule for ensuring the protection of the rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of employees’ personal data in the employment context within the meaning of Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a provision must meet the requirements imposed on such rules by Article 88(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679?

| 2. | If a national rule clearly does not meet the requirements under Article 88(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, can it nevertheless remain applicable? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a national rule clearly does not meet the requirements under Article 88(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, can it nevertheless remain applicable?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
#### R. J. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-306.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 1972.

Don Dansby, Public Defender, and Ken Davis, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed pursuant to his plea of guilty to charges of rape.

Our consideration of the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein, including the supplemental brief filed by appellant pro se, convinces us that the trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion to vacate his conviction. Accordingly, the order appealed herein is

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
EX-10.35





 Exhibit 10.35 

 

					
	 




	 	 Bioventus LLC

4721 Emperor Blvd., Suite 100
 Durham, NC 27703

USA
	  	 1-919-474-6700

1-800-396-4325

www.BioventusGlobal.com


 April 13, 2020 
 John
Nosenzo 
 Dear John, 
 In recognition of your current and
future contributions to Bioventus, I would like to provide you with the retention plan (“Plan”) outlined below. I recognize the next twenty-four months will have challenges and your continued focus on building and retaining a successful
commercial organization is critical to Bioventus. 
 Retention Plan: 
  

	 	•	 	 Two payments equal, in the aggregate, to $520,000, less applicable taxes, such amount to be paid as follows:



  

	 	•	 	 $260,000, paid in a single, lump sum payment, less applicable taxes, on May 4, 2021 



 

	 	•	 	 You must be actively employed on the payment date in order to receive payment; otherwise, the amount is
forfeited. 


  

	 	•	 	 Notwithstanding the prior sentence, if your position with Bioventus is terminated prior to the May 4, 2021
payment date for a reason that would qualify you for Severance Benefits under your offer letter signed on November 22, 2016 (the “Offer Letter”), you will receive the $260,000, paid in a single, lump sum payment, less applicable
taxes, within sixty (60) days following your termination of employment with Bioventus. This payment shall be in addition to your Severance Benefits as defined in your Offer Letter. 



 

	 	•	 	 $260,000, paid in a single, lump sum payment, less applicable taxes, on May 4, 2022 



 

	 	•	 	 You must be actively employed on the payment date in order to receive payment; otherwise, the amount is
forfeited. 


  

	 	•	 	 Notwithstanding the prior sentence, if your position with Bioventus is terminated after the May 4, 2021
payment date, but before the May 4, 2022 payment date for a reason that would qualify you for Severance Benefits under the Offer Letter, you will receive the $260,000, paid in a single, lump sum payment, less applicable taxes, within sixty
(60) days following your termination of employment with Bioventus. This payment shall be in addition to your Severance Benefits under your Offer Letter. 



Your ongoing support of our business is critical and I hope this retention plan demonstrates your value to the Bioventus Board of Managers. We look forward to
working with you as you help to drive the success of Bioventus. If you have any questions about the plan, please let me know. 
  

	
	Best regards,
	
	 /s/ William Hawkins

	William Hawkins
	Chair of the Bioventus Board
	
	 /s/ John Nosenzo
                    4/18/2020


 John Nosenzo 
 Accepted and
Understood
Georgia-Pacific [Logo]

                                                  133 Peachtree Street Northeast
                                                          Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                                                                   (404) 6524000


News from Georgia-Pacific

                              Release No. C-1389

                              Contacts:
                              Sheila Weidman
                              Georgia-Pacific Corp.
                              (404) 652-4732

                              Ed Bond
                              Sierra Pacific Industries
                              (916) 378-8280

                              March 31, 1997

            GEORGIA-PACIFIC AND SIERRA PACIFIC COMPLETE TRANSACTION

                             FOR MARTELL OPERATIONS


ATLANTA -- Georgia-Pacific West Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Georgia-
Pacific Corp., and Sierra Pacific Industries today completed the previously
announced transaction in which Sierra Pacific purchased the assets of Georgia-
Pacific's Martell, Calif., operations for approximately $320 million.

Georgia-Pacific will realize an after-tax net gain of approximately $80 million
that will be reported in the company's first quarter 1997 financial results.
The proceeds will be used to repay outstanding debt.  Operations in the
transaction include 127,000 acres of timberlands, a particleboard plant and a
sawmill.

     `This transaction serves our shareholders well,'' A.D. "Pete" Correll,
Georgia-Pacific chairman and chief executive officer, said. "It is an example of
Georgia-Pacific's practice of continually reviewing assets to identify
appropriate restructuring or divestiture opportunities to further add value."

                                     -more-

                                      -2-

     `This acquisition will enable Sierra Pacific to grow strategically,
enhance our product capabilities for our customers and better meet their
needs,' said A.A. "Red" Emmerson, president of Sierra Pacific.  "Importantly,
it provides our company a secure and cost-effective source of timber to support
our operations."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,926
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,468
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,122
<INVENTORY>                                      1,675
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,554
<PP&E>                                          36,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,449
<BONDS>                                          6,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,238
<SALES>                                          8,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,142
<CGS>                                            5,949
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (469)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,631
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,090
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,083
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,007
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85
        

</TABLE>
No. 10480.

#### Gilson et al. *v.*Carrel et al.

Decided October 20, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Lake county.

*Messrs. Boszvorth & Hammer,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. A. G. Reynolds*and *Mr. George IV. Alvord,*for defendants in error.

Judgment modified and cause remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings on grounds stated in journal entry.

This court being of opinion that the circuit court, in an error case, has not power to make a finding of facts which calls for review bv this court, or conclusively binds the court of common pleas, nor to render final judgment except in case of a finding of controlling facts by the trial court, *434or they are conceded, but this court being further of opinion that the reversal of the judgment of the court of common pleas as shown by the judgment entry of the circuit court, should be treated by this court as a reversal upon the weight of the evidence.

It is considered and adjudged that the judgment of the circuit court be and the same is modified in this to-wit: As to the finding of facts and final judgment thereon, the same is reversed; as to the reversal of the judgment of the court of common pleas the same is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Lake county for further proceedings according to law.

Price, C. J., Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
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 SFG Financial Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2002 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
      Stephens, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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 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.








September 28,
                2007
            /s/
                Bruce
                StephensBruce
                StephensChief
                Executive Officer andPrincipal
                Accounting Officer
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 28

Expressing the sense of the House that members of the United States House

of Representatives should be prohibited from an increase in the rate

of pay following a budget deficit in the preceding Congress, and should

have their rate of pay reduced if the deficit is not effectively reduced

by the preceding Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. EVERETT submitted the following resolution; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on House Administration and Post Office and Civil Service

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House that members of the

United States House of Representatives should be prohibited from an increase in the rate of pay following

a budget deficit in the preceding Congress, and should

have their rate of pay reduced if the deficit is not effectively reduced by the preceding Congress.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States grants the legislative branch power to tax and spend;

Whereas all appropriations bills originate in the House of

Representatives;

Whereas the skyrocketing budget deficit jeopardizes the current and future standard of living for millions of Americans;
2

HRES 28 IH

Whereas American taxpayers are losing billions of dollars

paying interest on the debt alone;

Whereas those billions of dollars could go to those Americans

that truly deserve and need help;

Whereas the budget deficit is ignored by House Members

whose fiscal irresponsibility caused the shortfalls;

Whereas House members should receive compensation on a

‘‘pay-per-performance’’ basis: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That members of the United States House

2 of Representatives should be prohibited from an increase

3 in the rate of pay following a budget deficit in the preced4 ing Congress, and should have their rate of pay reduced

5 if the deficit is not effectively reduced by the preceding

6 Congress.

Æ
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). LR / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OS E R I VE R A C I D, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71927 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 576- 083 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jose R i veraC i d, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s pro se for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen re m ov alproceedi ng s. O ur j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e 

# FI LED JAN 08 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSL R/ Res ea r ch 07- 71927 2 r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , Si ng h v. G on zales , 49 1 F . 3d 10 90 , 10 95 (9th C i r. 20 07 ), and w e deny i n p artand d i sm i ss i n p artthe p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B IA act edw i th i n i t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g as u n t i m el y R i v era C i d ’ s m ot i on t o reopen b ec ause i tw as fi l ed m ore than 9 0 d ay s a ft erthe B IA ’ s f i nal r e m o v a l o r d e r , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) ( m ot i on t o r e ope n m us tbe f i l e d w i thi n 90 day s of

f i na l a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m ova l or de r ) , and R i ve r aC i d di d n o t s h o w th a t h e a c te dw ith th e du e d ilig e n c e r e qu ir e df o re qu itab le to llin g , se e Si ngh , 4 9 1 F .3 da t 1 0 9 6 - 9 7 . T o th e ex t en tR i v era C i dco n t en d s th atth e B IA v i o l at edh i s du e p ro cess ri g h t s b y d i sreg ard i n g h i s h ard sh i p ev i d en ce, th e co n t en t i o ni s n o tsup p o rt edb y th e r e c o r dan dd o e s n o t am o u n t to ac o lo r ab le c o n s titu tio n a l c la im . See M a rt i n ezR osas v. G on zales , 42 4 F . 3d 92 6, 93 0 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
# iEALT H AvMe d Healt h Plan s •Have n Hospic e •SantaF e Senio rLivin g Augus t 20 , 201 0 Aloh a Le y Associat e Directo r Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen tProgra m (SCASDP ) aloha.lev(S>dot.HO V Re : Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen tGran t Dea rMs . Ley , O n behal fo fSantaF e HealthCare , Inc . an d it' s affiliates , AvMe d Healt h Plans , Have n Hospic e an d SantaF e Senio rLiving , I full ysuppor tth e Gainesville-Alachu a Count yRegiona l Airpor t Authority' s reques t fo ra Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen tgran tt o hel p suppor tth e ne wAmerica n Eagl e Airline s servic e betwee n Gainesvill e an d Miam i an d th e existing , loca l ai r carriers , Delt a Ai rLine s an d U S Airways . A s frequen tflier s o fGainesvill e Regiona l Airport , convenienc e an d tim e i s a to p priority , bot h personall yan d professionally . Wit h corporat e office s an d senio rlivin g communitie s i n bot h Miam i an d Gainesville , Am'erican' s ne wservic e wil l sav e valuabl e tim e tha t ha s previousl ybee n los tb ybein g force d t o trave l to/fro m Orland o an d Jacksonvill e airports . Employee s o fSantaF e HealthCar e an d it s affiliate s currentl ymak e approximatel ytwent y roundtrip s pe rmont h betwee n th e tw o locations . Wit h thi s convenien tne wservice , w e expec tt o se e a n increas e i n th e numbe ro ftrips . Additionally , American' s extensiv e domesti can d internationa l rout e structur e fro m Miam i wil l provid e ne wtrave l option s an d a greate rleve l o f frequenc yfo rbot h busines s an d leisur e travelers . Du e t o th e critica l importanc e o fqualit yai rservic e fo rou rregio n an d ou rcompany , w e ar e committe d t o supportin g American' s ne wservic e an d partnerin g wit h th e airpor tt o continu e improvement s i n ai rservice . Therefore , w e ar e allocatin g $5,00 0 t o hel p America n Airline s establis h it s ne wrout e betwee n GN Van d MIA . Again , I urg e yo u t o procee d wit h approvin g th e Airpor tAuthority' s reques tfo ra gran tt o assis t wit h marketin g effort s fo rth e nex t tw o years . I fyo u hav e an yquestion s abou tou rtrave l needs , pleas e don' t hesitat e t o contac t m e a t 352-337-8710 . Sincerely , KayAyer s Sr . Vic e President , Huma n Resource s SantaF e HealthCare , Inc . /*(i,t,'( ' .i 5