alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Norman SEIGLER and Marijane Seigler, his wife, Appellants, v. The GENERAL LEISURE CORPORATION and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. T-376.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Walter L. Robinson and John C. Taylor, Jr., of Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, Mc-Natt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellants.

John I. Todd, Jr., and Charles C. Howell, III, Jacksonville, for appellees.

SPECTOR, Judge.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the lower court erred in taxing to the plaintiff-appellant costs in relation to certain expert witnesses. The record on appeal consists of the motion to tax costs, written objections to the motion, the order taxing costs, petition to this court for review of the cost judgment, notice of interlocutory appeal, assignments of error and directions to the clerk. Based solely on this record, it is clear that the court must have erred in calculating the costs to be taxed.

The motion requested the following costs to be taxed:

> Jim Hills — expert witness fee $726.82

> Richard Combs — expert witness fee 726.81

> Court Reporter 131.25

> Witness fee — Edward Pike, Jr. 7.50

> Witness fee — Gregory Braddock 7.50

> Sheriff’s service 10.00

> 1,609.88

The lower court in its order reduced the expert witness fees to $100.00, allowed $25.00 to each witness for overhead, clerical and administrative expenses, and came up with $1,186.30. There is no evidence in the record to support this finding. In fact, based on the face of the motion, if you reduce the expert witness fee of $726.82 to $100.00 for each witness, the amount to be taxed is more in the range of $400.00.

Appellees in their brief attempt to justify the $1,609.88 judgment based on a bill presented to them by Applied Technical Services, Inc., for service rendered. However, this bill is not a part of the record and appellants allege that they never saw the bill until after the notice of appeal had been filed. There are numerous cases holding that an appellate court cannot go outside the record in determining the correctness of a lower court’s order.

It is well settled that an appellate court in making its determination must rely on the record rather than statements contained in the brief.

It appears on the face of the record tha. there was an obvious mathematical mistake in the computation of the costs to be taxed.

*430Appellants also contend it was error to tax as costs the $25.00 incurred by each of the expert witnesses for overhead, clerical and administrative expenses. We agree. We are unaware of any authority for the taxation of such items as separate costs and appellees have pointed to none. Accordingly, the taxation of the additional $25.00 for each expert witness was error.

Reversed and remanded for the entry of a new cost judgment consistent herewith.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, JOHN T., Associate Judge, concur.
House Calendar No. 165

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 433

[Report No. 103–523]

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill

for other purposes.the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, andconstruction for the Department of Defense for(H.R. 4453) making appropriations for military

MAY 23, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 165

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 433

[Report No. 103–523]

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4453) making appropriations for military construction for the Department of Defense for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1994

Mr. HALL of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4453)

making appropriations for military construction for the

Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R.

2 4453) making appropriations for military construction for

3 the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending Sep4 tember 30, 1995, and for other purposes, all points of
2

HRES 433 RH

1 order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply

2 with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived.
Exhibit
32.2
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO
 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 Global Clean Energy, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on  (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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, as amended; and
  2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
   Date:
      April 14, 2010
              /s/
      Kenneth S. AdesskyKenneth
      S. AdesskyChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

FRANK C. HOFFMAN, III, and GAIL HOFFMAN,

Appellants,

v.

SUNTRUST BANK, and SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., 

n/k/a Truist Bank,

Appellee.

Nos. 2D21-2874

 2D21-3562

CONSOLIDATED

September 23, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Geoffrey H. 

Gentile, Judge.

Gregg Horowitz, of Law Offices of Gregg M. Horowitz, P.A., Sarasota, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Alan M. Pierce, of Liebler, Gonzalez, & Portuondo, Miami, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
2

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 325

Providing for a committee to notify the President of the assembly of the

Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1994

Mr. GEPHARDT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Providing for a committee to notify the President of the

assembly of the Congress.

1 Resolved, That a committee of two Members be ap2 pointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Rep3 resentatives to join with a committee on the part of the

4 Senate to notify the President of the United States that

5 a quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is

6 ready to receive any communication that he may be

7 pleased to make.

Æ
257 La. 447

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Phillip FALLS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51079.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1971.

In re: Phillip Falls applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction. See McGritt v. Wainwright, 431 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1970), and authorities cited therein.
# Official Journal C 77E/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2014.077.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 77E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5715 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CE2014.077.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 77E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5715 March 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2014/C 077E/01 | Position (EU) No 2/2014 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rightsAdopted by the Council on 17 February 2014 (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COUNCIL

2014/C 077E/01

Position (EU) No 2/2014 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rightsAdopted by the Council on 17 February 2014 (1)

1

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
EXHIBIT 10.5

                    OFFICER EMPLOYMENT CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

Network  Equipment  Technologies,  Inc.  ("the  Company")  and  the  undersigned
("Officer"),   in  partial   consideration  for  their  continuing  officer  and
employment  relationship and to encourage continued employment in the event of a
potential Change of Control, agree as follows:

1. In the  event of  Termination  of  Employment  of  Officer  resulting  from a
Corporate  Transaction,  Change of Control or Hostile  Take-Over (as those terms
are  defined in the 1993 Stock  Option  Plan,  collectively  referred to in this
Agreement as "Change of Control") or from  involuntary  termination  for reasons
other than cause, the Company will provide severance benefits as follows:

     a.   one year of Officer's base salary ("salary continuance"),

     b.   one  year of  Officer's  variable  compensation  (computed  using  the
          mid-point of the applicable range and the company "meets plan"),

     c.   Officer level medical,  dental,  life and disability  insurance during
          the period of salary continuance, and

     d.   vesting of  outstanding  stock  options and  restricted  stock  awards
          during the period of salary continuance.

2.  "Termination  of  Employment"  of Officer  occurs when one of the  following
occurs: he or she is terminated without cause, job location is changed more than
50 miles, his or her compensation is materially reduced or responsibilities  are
substantially  altered or reduced  (without  express consent of the employee) by
the Company,  or by any successor to the Company in  conjunction  with or within
one year after the close of a Change of Control.

3. In the event of a Termination Of Employment in  conjunction  with a Change of
Control,  then vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock held by
Officer shall  accelerate at the time of such  Termination.  All vested  options
shall be exercisable for the duration of the life of the option.

4. In order to receive the  foregoing,  Officer  agrees to execute the Company's
release and  non-competition  agreement at the time of any such  Termination  of
Employment.

Agreed this 3rd day of February, 1999.

NETWORK EQUIPMENT                                       Robert T. Warstler
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                               -------------------------------
                                                    (Print Name of Officer)

By:  /s/ Roger A. Barney                            /s/ Robert T. Warstler
     ----------------------------                -------------------------------
     Roger A. Barney                                      (Signature)

Title: Sr. VP, Corporate Services

October 26, 1995                                             N.E.T. Confidential
#### Thomas E. BALLARD, III, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-594.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 18, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
256 La. 859

#### Thomas P. PERKINS v. Ossie B. BROWN et al.

No. 50764.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Thomas P. Perkins applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 236 So.2d 579.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
EX-10.6





 Exhibit 10.6 

November 4th, 2019 

Mr. Douglas Richcreek 
 #### 

#### 
 Dear Doug: 

It is my pleasure to extend the following offer of employment to you on behalf of Weiman Products. The offer is pending a completed application and background
check. 
 Title: Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer reporting to Chris Bauder, Chief Executive Officer. 

Base Salary: This position will pay an annual salary of $300,000 which will be paid in biweekly installments. Eligibility for a merit increase is
January 2021. 
 Bonus: 50% of annual salary based on EBITDA (70%) target and a set of goals (30%) set by you and your Manager. 

Stock Options: Determined mutually by CEO and Carlyle/TA & Associates. 

Benefits: The current, standard company health, life, disability, dental insurances are provided per company policy. Eligibility for other benefits
including 401(k) and Profit Sharing (on average 3-4% each year) will take place per company policy. Current information regarding these benefits will be reviewed with Human Resources. 

Paid Time Off (PTO): This position initially offers 17 days (pro-rated) per year. 

Phone/Travel Allowance: A company laptop and phone reimbursement will be provided. Normal and reasonable expenses will be reimbursed per company
policy. 
 Non-Compete Agreement: Our standard non-compete agreement
will need to be signed prior to start. 
 If this offer is acceptable to you please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to me by
Wednesday, November 6th, 2019 to indicate your acceptance. 












 We are confident you will be able to make a significant contribution to the success of Weiman Products and
look forward to working with you to expand upon the success of the Weiman Family of brands. 
 Additional information regarding company policies will be
provided to you by our Human Resources team, during your new hire orientation. 
 Sincerely, 

Weiman Products, LLC 
  

	
	 /s/ Chris Bauder    

	Chris Bauder
	Chief Executive Officer

 I accept the offer as outlined above. 
  

	
	 /s/ Doug Richcreek

	Doug Richcreek
#### JACKMAN-NICHOLSON REALTY & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants, v. FINFROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 12 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIOS



                           COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     Years Ended December 31,
                                                                               2001           2000            1999
                                                                              -------        -------        -------
                                                                                     (Dollars in thousands)
<S>                                                                           <C>            <C>            <C>
Pretax income ........................................................        $(1,100)       $ 2,161        $ 5,106
Add fixed charges:
   Interest on deposits ..............................................         27,244         23,594         21,963
   Interest on borrowings ............................................          3,941          1,023            730
   Portion of rental expense representing interest expense ...........            601            227            180
                                                                              -------        -------        -------
     Total fixed charges .............................................         31,786         24,844         22,873
                                                                              -------        -------        -------
Income before fixed charges ..........................................        $30,686        $27,005        $27,979
                                                                              =======        =======        =======
Pretax income ........................................................        $(1,100)       $ 2,161        $ 5,106
Add fixed charges:
   Interest on borrowings ............................................          3,941          1,023            730
   Portion of rental expense representing interest expense ...........            601            227            180
                                                                              -------        -------        -------
     Total fixed charges (excluding interest on deposits) ............          4,542          1,250            910
                                                                              -------        -------        -------
Income before fixed charges (excluding interest on deposits) .........        $ 3,442        $ 3,411        $ 6,016
                                                                              =======        =======        =======
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES:
   Including interest on deposits ....................................          0.97x           .88x          1.09x
   Excluding interest on deposits ....................................          0.76x           .10x          2.73x
</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 22

- 2133

_____________________________ S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Petitioner
,

v.

T ORRANCE C. P ARAMORE , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 21, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. R AY , M AKAR , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Adam B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Petitioner

. No appearance for Respondent

.
[No. 198-3.

Division Three.

June 11, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ronald Wesley Graham, *Appellant.*

*134
      *Fred E. Porter*(of *Porter &*Hopkins), for appellant (appointed counsel for appeal).

*Lincoln E. Shropshire, Prosecuting Attorney,*and *Gary G. McGlothlen, Deputy,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged with the crime of knowingly riding in a stolen car. He appeals from a conviction, assigning as error the refusal to give the following proposed instruction:

> *You are instructed that one who assists another in the commission of a crime is an accomplice.*The law permits an accomplice to give testimony on behalf of the State and the defendant may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, where the honest judgment is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of an accomplice comes from a polluted source and that while a defendant may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, still a jury should act upon such testimony with great care and caution and subject it to careful examination in the light of other evidence in the case. The jury should not convict upon such testimony alone unless, after a careful examination of it, they are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of its truth. [Italics ours.]

The trial judge refused to give the instruction because of the language pertaining to “polluted source.” On appeal the parties differ over the propriety of this language and as to whether an accomplice instruction would have been justified under the circumstances of this case. We do not find it necessary to determine these issues because the instruction was improper for another reason.

In *State v. Wooten,*44 Wn.2d 177, 266 P.2d 342 (1954), an instruction containing language identical to that italicized above was held to be an incorrect statement of the law. The court said at page 179:

> However, one who, without knowledge that a crime is being committed, unconsciously assists in forwarding the criminal scheme is not an accomplice, but merely an inno*135cent agent. [Citing cases.] The word “knowingly” should therefore be added to the instruction.

Judgment affirmed.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00333

- CV
NEXUS SERIES B, LLC

v. DURHAM TRADING PARTNERS XII, LLC

On Appeal from the 201st District Court of Travis County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 20

- 005702

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certif ied below for observance. December 1, 2022
Exhibit 32


                            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 GFSB Bancorp,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form  10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Richard C. Kauzlaric,
President, and Jerry R. Spurlin, Chief Financial Officer,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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




/s/ Richard C. Kauzlaric                      /s/ Jerry R. Spurlin
----------------------------------            -------------------------------
Richard C. Kauzlaric                          Jerry R. Spurlin
President                                     Chief Financial Officer




September 26, 2003



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.