alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Court ofAppeals, State ofMichigan ORDER Kurt C Nielsen v Safeguard Properties LLC Docket No. 333244 LC No. 2015-149178-NZ ChristopherM. Murray PresidingJudge Karen M. Fort Hood Elizabeth L. Gleicher

Judges The Court orders that the November 9, 2017 opinion is hereby AMENDED to correct a clerical error in the caption information. The opinion caption is amended to correct the spelling of plaintiff-appellant's name to "Kurt C. Nielsen.". In all otherrespects, the November 9, 2017 opinionremains unchanged.

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., ChiefClerk, on 

## DEC 2 12017 Date
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 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, Kevin Bauer, 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 28, 2010 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.

Date: June 10, 2010



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/    KEVIN
BAUER                          
|Kevin Bauer                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### HARRIS-IN-HOLLYWOOD, INC., Petitioner, v. H. S. A., INC., a dissolved Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 44875.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 22, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed. 285 So.2d 690.
# C_2021462EN.01002402.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/24

---

Appeal brought on 31 March 2021 by 12seasons GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2021 in Case T-329/19, 12seasons v EUIPO — Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)

(Case C-211/21 P)

(2021/C 462/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: 12seasons GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny

By order of 1 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that 12seasons GmbH should bear its own costs.

---
# **Exhibit 99-K**

# ** **

# **NEWHALLMANAGEMENT CORPORATION**

 

AuditCommittee Charter

 

(asamended and restated May 17, 2000)

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

# **I.  Purpose**

 

The primary function of the Audit Committee is toassist the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities byreviewing the financial information which will be provided to the unitholdersand others, the systems of internal controls which management and the Board ofDirectors have established, and the Company’s audit and financial reportingprocess.

 

The independent accountants’ ultimateresponsibility is to the Board of Directors and the Audit Committee, asrepresentatives of the unitholders. These representatives have the ultimate authority to select, evaluate,and, where appropriate, replace the independent accountants.

 

The Audit Committee will primarily fulfill theseresponsibilities by carrying out the activities enumerated in Section IV ofthis Charter.

 

 

# **II.  Composition**

 

The Audit Committee shall be comprised of three ormore independent directors.

 

All members of the Committee shall have a workingfamiliarity with basic finance and accounting practices, and at least onemember of the Committee shall have accounting or related financial managementexpertise.

 

 

# **III.**         Meetings

 

TheCommittee shall meet on a regular basis and shall hold special meetings ascircumstances require.

 

----

 

**IV. Responsibilities And Duties**

 

To fulfill itsresponsibilities and duties the Audit Committee shall:

 

1)                        Review thisCharter at least annually and recommend any changes to the Board.

 

2)                        Review theorganization’s annual financial statements and any other relevant reports orother financial information.

 

3)                        Review the regularinternal financial reports prepared by management and internal audit.

 

4)                         Recommend to the Board of Directors the selectionof the independent accountants and approve the fees and other compensation tobe paid to the independent accountants. On an annual basis, the Committee shall obtain a formal writtenstatement from the independent accountants delineating all relationshipsbetween the accountants and the Company consistent with Independence StandardsBoard Standard 1, and shall review and discuss with the accountants allsignificant relationships the accountants have with the Company to determinethe accountants’ independence.

 

5)                         Review theperformance of the independent accountants and approve any proposed dischargeof the independent accountants when circumstances warrant.

 

6)                         Following completion of the annual audit, reviewseparately with the independent accountants, the internal audit department, ifany, and management any significant difficulties encountered during the courseof the audit.

 

7)                          Perform anyother activities consistent with this Charter and as the Committee or the Boarddeems necessary or appropriate.

 

2

----
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1032

To transfer vacant real property from the Federal Government to general

units of local government when the property has been vacant for at

least 7 years.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 26 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To transfer vacant real property from the Federal Government to general units of local government when the

property has been vacant for at least 7 years.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF VACANT REAL PROPERTY.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec5 retary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary

6 of Veterans Affairs, and the Secretary of Agriculture are

7 authorized to transfer without payment to a unit of gen8 eral local government or a State, or a qualified community
2

•S 1032 IS

1 organization or public agency designated by a unit of gen2 eral local government or a State, any real property—

3 (1) which is improved by a one- to four-family

4 residence or which is a condominium unit or cooper5 ative unit in a multifamily housing project;

6 (2) to which the Secretary holds title;

7 (3) which has not been legally occupied for at

8 least 7 years; and

9 (4) which is requested by such unit, State, or

10 agency.

Æ
#### Charles W. CRAIG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1199.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1974.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Bruce J. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Peach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s points on appeal and find that they fail to demonstrate reversible error. However, we do notice sua sponte that the sentence imposed by the trial court is unauthorized.

Appellant was charged with the offense of rape, alleged to have occurred on August 6, 1972. He was tried and convicted on November 16, 1972, and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one hundred and twenty-five years, and two dollars court costs.

On June 29, 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States held that several state statutes which imposed the death penalty were unconstitutional. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346. Thereafter the Supreme Court of Florida held that the Furman decision eliminated the death penalty from the Florida statutes. Donaldson v. Sack, Fla.1972, 265 So.2d 499. In anticipation of the foregoing events, the 1972 session of the Florida Legislature amended F.S. Section 775.-082(2), F.S.A. to provide that in the event the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Florida declared the death penalty unconstitutional, a person convicted of a capital felony should be punished by life imprisonment. Thus, the appropriate and only sentence authorized by law for the crime of rape at the time appellant was convicted was life imprisonment.

*503Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. The sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated and the appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment.

_ . , It is so ordered.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
#### Susan MARAMAN, Appellant, v. Grady HARDISTER et al., Appellees.

No. 71-23.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 24, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
AUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,874,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,540,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 13,949,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,395,000
<PP&E>                                      17,729,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,731,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,352,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,907,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,450,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,352,000
<SALES>                                     30,233,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,233,000
<CGS>                                       26,168,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,650,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,184,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,601,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,601,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,601,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.95)


</TABLE>
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Day International Group, Inc
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Dennis R. Wolters, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to 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 position and results of operations of the
Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
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. /s/
Dennis R. WoltersDennis R. WoltersChief Executive OfficerNovember 1, 2004
#### EASTERN AIRLINES, INC. and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Petitioners, v. Anthony TURNER and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 39863.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 5, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Robert HOUGH, Relator, v. Honorable David POPPER, as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, General Jurisdiction Division, Respondent.

No. 73-866.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Mandamus dismissed.
[No. 268-3.

Division Three.

November 18, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jerry Michael Reno, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 19338, Ralph P. Edgerton, J., entered July 10, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
#### The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Mary J. Manley STANFORD, Appellee.

No. 2666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 16, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Willie WALKER, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-622.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 21, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of John Salem, Jr., Appellant, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 348]

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about October 23, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ denial of his application for an accident disability retirement pension, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner is not disabled was based on "some credible evidence”, including, *inter alia,*the Medical Board’s own examinations and reports as well as the report of one doctor not on the Medical Board *(Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*88 NY2d 756, 761; *Matter of Saburro v Board of Trustees,*225 AD2d 466). We find no support for petitioner’s contention that the Medical Board resolved the conflict in medical opinion concerning the existence of a disability by simply ignoring petitioner’s medical *121proof as well as the earlier findings of its own physicians *(see, supra).*Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# C_2022084EN.01002202.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/22

---

Appeal brought on 26 August 2021 by Republic of Cyprus against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-281/19, Cyprus v EUIPO

(Case C-538/21 P)

(2022/C 84/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, BL, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 21 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that the Republic of Cyprus should bear its own costs.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

FJW INVESTMENT, INC., D/B/A BATH FITTER OF PITTSBURGH,

Petitioner

v.

LUXURY BATH OF PITTSBURGH, INC., BARRY ERENRICH, KENNETH KAYSER, RICHARD GALLAGHER, BRYAN MYERS, MARK PINTEA, RB PRO, INC., D/B/A RE

BATH, JO ANN YOCHUM, AND CHRISTINE DUMM,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 157 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of October, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1566

LATASHA BOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00376-BHH)

Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Latasha Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Latasha Boyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 

civil complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) (2012).

*

 The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that 

the complaint be dismissed and advised Boyd that failure to file timely, specific

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order 

based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Boyd 

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * Because “the grounds of the dismissal make clear that no amendment could cure 

the defects in [Boyd’s] case,” the district court’s order in final and appealable. Goode v. 

Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).
#### Michael KING, Petitioner, v. THOMPSON & McKINNON, AUCHINCLOSS KOHLMEYER, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Respondent.

No. 77-930.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1978.

James J. Belcher, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

James F. Gilbride of Gilbride & Heller, Miami, for respondent.

LETTS, Judge.

Petitioner seeks review of an order granting respondent’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. It is his position that the trial court erred in requiring submission of his cross-claim to arbitration because the respondent waived its rights to compel arbitration by filing an answer to the cross-claim. We agree. Cer-tiorari is granted and the order quashed.

According to the record, petitioner filed a cross-claim against respondent on December 16, 1975. This cross-claim was answered by respondent and a reciprocal cross-claim filed against petitioner on January 12, 1976. Subsequently, petitioner filed a notice to produce documents in the possession of respondent and submitted extensive interrogatories, both of which were objected to by respondent. On October 5, 1976, respondent filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings which was granted by the trial court.

Repudiation of an arbitration clause by a defendant, in the form of an answer to the complaint without demand for arbitration constitutes an abandonment of the right to arbitration and consent to submission of the controversy to the courts. Gettles *v. Commercial Bank at Winter Park,*276 So.2d 837 (Fla. 4 DCA 1973); *Klosters Rederi A/S*v. *Arison Shipping Co.,*280 So.2d 678 (Fla.1973).

In *Ojus Industries, Inc. v. Mann,*221 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3 DCA 1969), the court stated:

> Waiver in this connection does not depend on timing of the motion to compel arbitration (where not unreasonably delayed), but rather on the prior taking of an inconsistent position by the party moving therefor. Thus, where a plaintiff, in disregard of his right to arbitration, files suit for determination of the controversy, he will be held to have waived his right to compel arbitration thereof. The same will apply to a defendant who by counterclaim submits the matter, which was to be arbitrated, to the court for determination. *Id.*at 782.

CERTIORARI GRANTED AND ORDER QUASHED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 08

- 00402

- CV

JOHN BENJAMIN CLOPTO N AND

BARBARA ANN CLOPTON

, Appellant s

v.

STEPHEN LYNN BRADFOR D AND

RAYMOND JAMES MASSEY

, Appellee s

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 76632

MEMORANDUM OPINION

John Benjamin Clopton and Barbara Ann Clopton filed a notice of appeal from

the trial court’s order denying the Cloptons’ motion to strike the Intervenor’s plea in

intervention. The Clerk of this Court notified the Cloptons by letter that the appeal was

subject to dismissal because it appeared there was no right of interlocutory appeal. The

Cloptons were also notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within 21 days

from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing g rounds for continuing the

appeal.Clopton v. Bradford Page 2

The Cloptons faxed a response but it does not show grounds for continuing the

appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3, 44.3.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray

, Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

(Justice Vance dissenting)

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 23, 2008

[CV06]