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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 96-11190

Summary Calendar

_____________________

REUBEN E. DELOACH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:93-CV-73-Y

_________________________________________________________________

December 4, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reuben E. DeLoach appeals the district court’s order granting

General Dynamics’s motion for protective order, denying DeLoach

leave to file a supplemental pleading, denying DeLoach’s motion to

stay summary judgment proceedings, and granting summary judgment in

favor of General Dynamics.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons
-2-

stated by the district court. See DeLoach v. General Dynamics, No.

4:93-CV-073-Y (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 1996).

A F F I R M E D.
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



I, Thomas M. ODonnell, a Director of Sand Technology Inc. (the
Company) performing functions similar to those of a principal executive
officer of the Company, hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for
the Fiscal Year ended July 31, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended and
that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Date: December 11, 2012



|By: | /s/ THOMAS M. ODONNELL | 
|--- | ----------------------- | 
|    | Thomas M. ODonnell     | 
|    | Director                | 



This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for
any other purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a
separate disclosure document.

---
#### MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASS’N v. John BUFFO.

No. 5992.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 8, 1937.

L. F. Binkley, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Karl C. Williams, of Rockford, 111., for appellee.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BRIGGLE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the appellant by its counsel, and the appellee by his counsel, and consent that the judgment in this cause be reversed and that the cause be remanded to the District Court, with directions to enter a judgment in accordance with the agreement of the parties in settlement of this cause. On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed without costs; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said District Court, with directions to enter a judgment in accordance with the agreement of the parties in settlement of this cause. It is further ordered that the mandate of this court in this cause issue forthwith.
Exhibit 21.1

SCHEDULE OF TRANSMONTAIGNE INC. SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES AT JUNE 30, 2004

|Ownership of
Subsidiary |   | Name of Subsidiary                   |  | Trade
Name |  | State/Country of
Organization
|----------------------- | - | ------------------------------------ |  | ---------- |  | -----------------------------
|
|100                     | % | Coastal Fuels Marketing, Inc.        |  | None       |  | Florida                      
|100                     | % | Coastal Tug and Barge, Inc.          |  | None       |  | Florida                      
|100                     | % | TransMontaigne Product Services Inc. |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|100                     | % | TransMontaigne Transport Inc.        |  | None       |  | Delaware                     

---



QuickLinks
#### Joe Allan DENSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-101.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Pollack, Yocom & Haggard, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendant from conviction of assault with intent to commit murder the appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and that the sentence should be set aside for failure of the court to comply with his request for a pre-sentence investigation.

On consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we hold no reversible error has been shown. Although contradicted in certain respects by the defendant, the evidence presented by the state was ample to support .the finding of guilt. Determination of the weight of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and resolution of conflicts in the evidence were the duty and province of the trier of fact. We reject as without merit the appellant’s contention that the sentence should be set aside and the cause remanded for resentencing because of absence of a pre-sentencing investigation. See Cole v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 902, 904.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

y0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

141957 

DIANNE TREMBLAY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 141957 

 COA: 298038 

Chippewa CC: 09-010696-AA 

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 29, 2010 

order 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.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0088

 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM233AD

A320-32-1310, R01 --- 6/23/11

A320-32-1336 --- 9/19/07

A320-32-1369 --- 3/26/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### RICHARD’S TRAVEL BUREAU, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Mart Parking, Appellant, v. MIAMI INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISE MART, INC., a Florida corporation and Centennial Equities Corporation, a New York corporation, Appellees.

No. 72-86.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 24, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7432
RICHARD E. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR OHAR, Head of Medical Services, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-524-CMH-BRP) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Richard E. Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v. Ohar , No. CA-05-524-CMH-BRP (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2005). Davis’ motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Michael Henry BRUSHINGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1051.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EX-10.14






 Apria, Inc. has requested confidential treatment of this registration statement and
associated correspondence 
 pursuant to Rule 83 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

 Exhibit 10.14 

EXECUTION VERSION 
 December
28, 2020 
 Ms. Debra Morris 
 Re: Your
Apria Healthcare Group Inc. (“AHG”) Restricted Stock Unit (“RSU”) grant pursuant to letter dated July 24, 2018, as amended by the letter dated December 20, 2019 (as amended, the “Grant
Letter”) 
 Dear Debby: 
 The purpose
of this letter is to evidence our agreement to adjust the terms of your Grant Letter to compensate for the effect of the ~$200.3 Million dividend distribution declared by the Apria Healthcare Group Inc. (the “Company”) Board of
Directors on December 4, 2020 and subsequently paid. Accordingly, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Grant Letter is hereby amended and restated in full as follows: 

You will be granted a number of restricted stock units (the “RSUs”) equal to 0.4% of the amount by which the equity value of
the Company exceeds negative $36.181 million, as measured on the earlier to occur of (i) pricing of an initial public offering of common stock of the Company (or an affiliate) (an “IPO”) or (ii) immediately prior to
the closing of a Change of Control (as defined in the Company’s 2015 Stock Plan) (as applicable, the “Transaction”). 

Kindly return a signed copy of this letter agreement to the undersigned by December 31, 2020, at which time this amendment to the Grant
Letter shall become a binding agreement between you and the Company, enforceable in accordance with its terms. This letter agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication! 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	/s/ Daniel J. Starck
	Daniel J. Starck
	Chief Executive Officer


  














 Apria, Inc. has requested confidential treatment of this registration statement and
associated correspondence 
 pursuant to Rule 83 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

 Agreed to and Accepted: 
  

	
	/s/ Debra Morris
	Debra Morris


  
 [Signature Page to
Letter Agreement Amendment]
#### WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH and WIFE *vs.*WILLIAM JOHNSON, administrator of JAMES JOHNSON, deceased.

Books of assessment are not evidence to prove property or value, except as between the county and the assessed.

Issue from the Orphans’ Court.

The issue was to enquire and ascertain whether the sum of $438 64 Mrs. Griffith’s share of the balance due from Joseph Sudler the executor of Nathan Willey to the said James Johnson as guardian of the said Elizabeth Griffith “was lost by the wilful default or negligence of James Johnson the late guardian of the said Elizabeth” or whether any part, &c., was so lost.

In order to prove Sudler’s ability to pay at a certain period, *Lay-ton,*for plff, offered in evidence the record of the assessment of Sudler’s real and personal estate. This was objected to on the ground that the assessment was *res inter alios acta*and not binding on Johnson; and also because it proved nothing. The public assessment is only valid as between the county and the person assessed. It can’t prove property, nor value. A life estate is assessed as high as a fee simple; lands held in trust are assessed to the trustee; and frequently lands owned and held by one person will stand for years assessed in the name of another, a former owner. 2 *Stark.*1330.

The record was not admitted.

The plff. also offered a *list*of judgments for and against Joseph Sudler, made out and certified by the prothonotary. Objected to. Not the copy of a record; does not profess to be any such thing. Mere minutes or extracts from the records containing the names of the parties; amounts, &e.

*Layton,*for plff.

*Clayton, Bayard*and *Frame,*for deft.

*The Court*

rejected the evidence, but remarked if these abstracts were objected to it would be productive of much unnecessary expense in furnishing copies. This was admitted but it was said that it must be left as heretofore to the agreement of the parties. Cases might occur where great injustice would be done by the production of these short memorandums if as a general rule they were regarded as competent evidence.

The case went on to the jury who finally found a verdict in the negative of the issue.
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementsof Material Sciences Corporation No.’s 33-57648, 33-81064, 333-15679, 333-33885, 333-47536, 333-47538 and 333-88387 on Form S-8 of our reports dated May 11, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of Material Sciences Corporation and subsidiaries and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Material Sciences Corporation for the yearended February 28, 2007. 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

May 11, 2007 

 

1
#### Norwood Earl EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-42.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 25, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Roubik Gregorian certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of Exar Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31,
2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
of operations of Exar Corporation.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/    ROUBIK GREGORIAN                        
|Roubik Gregorian                               
|Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|(Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs April 3, 2017

IN RE DAMIEN G. M.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Bradley County

No. J-12-219 Kurt Andrew Benson, Substitute Judge

___________________________________

No. E2016-02063-COA-R3-PT

___________________________________

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., dissenting.

The first referral in this matter occurred on October 31, 2014. It involved “drug 

exposure of [Damien and his older sibling].” On December 15, 2014, there was a second 

referral to DCS, again for “drug exposure.” Methadone and methamphetamine were 

involved in the children’s care, or, more aptly, their non-care.

On April 17, 2015, Damien’s hair follicle drug screen was “positive for 

methamphetamine and amphetamine.” Damien’s “drug life” continued. When DCS was 

considering the placement of Damien with his father, the father tested “positive for 

methamphetamine.”

After attending the required five chemical dependency support group meetings, 

father “continued to fail random drug tests.” Mr. Peters testified that he last requested a 

drug screen around March 2016. 

The saga goes on. As recited by the majority,

[o]n June 17, 2015, Mr. Peters met with Father to discuss his 

lack of progress and positive drug screens. Father stated that 

his positive screens were due to Mother breaking into his 

residence and contaminating his tea with methamphetamine. 

He also opined that his positive screens could be the result of 

his consumption of energy drinks. On or about June 25, 

2015, the trial court allegedly adjudicated Damien to be 

dependent and neglected due to Father’s illegal drug use. 

Also on June 25, 2015, the trial court ratified the April 20, 

2015 permanency plan, finding the goals and responsibilities 

to be appropriate and reasonably related to the reasons the 

child came into DCS custody.

05/03/2017
- 2 -

(Footnote omitted.) The excuses given by father with respect to his failed drug tests 

strain credulity. His explanations are preposterous. The fact that he would use them tells 

me that we are dealing with a practicing drug addict. 

I would hold that DCS proved by clear and convincing evidence that father failed 

to substantially comply with his permanency plan. I also find that there is clear and 

convincing evidence that termination of father’s parental rights is in Damien’s best 

interest.

I respectfully dissent. 

 _______________________________

 CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
# C_2022002EN.01005301.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/53

---

Order of the General Court of 29 October 2021 — LF v Commission

(Case T-178/21) (1)

(2022/C 2/73)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---
#### Mark W. Bryan et al., Respondents, v Henry Newman, Doing Business as Waterfront Management, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 930]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered January 10, 1996, which granted petitioners’ application to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

By instrument entitled "Mutual Release From Management Contract”, dated February 9, 1995, the parties agreed "to terminate th[eir] management contract” and to "release each other from any and all responsibilities and liabilities under the * * * contract dated November 1, 1991.” This release and termination cancelled the underlying management contract that had contained an arbitration provision. By mutual assent, the designation of the arbitration forum for the resolution of disputes is no longer binding upon the parties *(Matter of Schlaifer v Sedlow,*51 NY2d 181, 183; *Matter of Minkin [Halperin],*304 NY 617). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# C_2022432EN.01002302.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-416/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a singing duck in a circle - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Similarity - Reputation - Link - Undue advantage - Lack of due cause - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 432/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. De Vietro, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 May 2021 (Case R 997/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and by Save the Duck SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and by Save the Duck SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
#### Jimmy Dwight GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### James G. O’NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-482, 70-483.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 6, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Quarterly  Report of Golden  Enterprises,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended November 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Patty Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

Dated: January 11, 2008


/s/ Patty Townsend
------------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon
request.


                                       23