alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John A. RUGGLES, Appellee.

No. 70-1287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 16, 1971.

Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.

Richard W. Wasserman, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

*693CARROLL, Judge.

The state has appealed from an order of the criminal court of record of Dade County, in a narcotic possession case, suppressing certain evidence found upon search of the defendant’s automobile. We find error, and reverse.

The appellee was arrested by a police officer of Dade County for a traffic violation of a character which required the posting of bond. The defendant was placed in a police car for transportation to the police station. Before impounding his automobile, the police made an inventory search thereof. The search revealed two disposable syringes and a bottle containing pills and capsules which, upon subsequent analysis, were determined to be contraband in the form of narcotics, for illegal possession of which the defendant was then charged by information. The trial court was of the opinion that the evidence was obtained by illegal search and seizure. We hold that ruling was error, on authority of Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 337; Knight v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 900; and Godbee v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 224 So.2d 441. Whereupon the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Robert SACKS, Appellant, v. Constance Ann Hollis SACKS, Appellee.

No. 71-284.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1972.

Neil Flaxman, Miami, for appellant.

Weintraub & Weintraub, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on November 23, 1971 (254 So.2d 572) reversing the final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed *426September 20, 1972 (267 So.2d 73) and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause with instructions to affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Now, Therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on December 9, 1971 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed November 23, 1971 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the final decree of the circuit court appealed from herein is reinstated and affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 84 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans 

Week. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2013 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Salute to 

Hospitalized Veterans Week. 

Whereas National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week will 

serve as an opportunity for all Americans to pause with 

reverence to honor all the men and women who have 

worn the Nation’s uniform and sacrificed on behalf of the 

Nation; 

Whereas all the members of the Armed Forces of the United 

States represent the best that the United States has to 

offer and safeguard the highest ideals of liberty and freedom; 

Whereas it is imperative that the Nation honors its commitment to veterans by providing services that are vital to 

their livelihood, increasing community awareness about 

the challenges that veterans face every day, and encourVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:15 Feb 27, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR84.IH HR84

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 84 IH 

aging community members to share their time with veterans to learn about their extraordinary sacrifices to the 

Nation; 

Whereas National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week will 

not only honor the sacrifices of veterans but the sacrifices 

of their family members as well; 

Whereas National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week will 

shed light on the importance of providing adequate job 

training and education services, so veterans are able to 

transition into civilian life and acquire well-paying jobs 

upon their return from service; and 

Whereas National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week will 

provide community members with an opportunity to become engaged in support networks that provide vital assistance to veterans and their families: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week and its efforts 

4 to pay tribute to veterans, the sacrifices they have 

5 endured to keep the Nation safe from those who 

6 wish to do it harm, and their steadfast loyalty to up7 holding the Nation’s highest values of liberty and 

8 freedom; 

9 (2) encourages citizens who live near a Depart10 ment of Veterans Affairs hospital or similar support 

11 network to volunteer their time, visit, and thank the 

12 veterans of their community for their service; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 84 IH 

1 (3) pledges to continue to support veterans-re2 lated services that provide quality, affordable health 

3 care to veterans in need, and to take action to en4 sure that the Nation’s veterans are provided with 

5 the best care a grateful Nation can provide. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0342. JEAN JOCELYN MERILIEN v. WENDY L. SHOOB, JUDGE et

al.

On May 1, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying prisoner Jean Jocelyn

Merilien’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in a proposed mandamus petition

against Judge Wendy L. Shoob. Merilien filed a motion for reconsideration, which

the trial court denied. On February 20, 2018, Merilien filed this application seeking

discretionary review of the trial court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. 

To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582 (420

SE2d 393) (1992). This statutory deadline is jurisdictional, and we cannot accept an

application for appeal not made in compliance with OCGA § 5-6-34 (d). Boyle v.

State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Merilien filed his application

nine months after entry of the order denying filing of the mandamus petition. 

Although Merilien filed a motion for reconsideration, the denial of a motion for

reconsideration of an appealable order or judgment is not itself appealable and does

not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal or an application for appeal. See

Campbell v. State, 192 Ga. App. 316 (385 SE2d 14) (1989); Savage v. Newsome, 173

Ga. App. 271 (326 SE2d 5) (1985). Thus, this application is untimely as to the order 

March 16, 2018
denying filing and invalid as to the order denying reconsideration. Accordingly, the

application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

2

03/16/2018
EXHIBIT 10.4

                    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 30 day of October, 1995.

NETWORK EQUIPMENT                                       Raymond E. Peverell
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                                ------------------------------
                                                      (Print Name of Officer)

By: /s/ Joseph J. Francesconi                         /s/ R. E. Peverell
    -------------------------                     ------------------------------
                                                          (Signature)
Title: President & CEO


October 26, 1995                                             N.E.T. Confidential
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2516

VIRGINIA MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HAROLD MILHOLEN, a/k/a The Basic Group, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1122-1) Submitted: March 2, 1999 Decided: March 22, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Knox Kent Lively III, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, Charles E. Brookhart, Janet A. Bradley, Walter Clinton Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee United States; Benjamin Spence Albright, Ramseur, North Carolina, for Appellee Milholen. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Virginia Mortgage Company appeals from the district court’s opinion granting summary judgment in favor of Harold Milholen on Virginia Mortgage’s supplemental state claim to quiet title and dismissing its action against the United States seeking to quiet title, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2410(a) (West Supp. 1998), and requesting damages for wrongful levy, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7433 (West Supp. 1998). We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Milholen because Virginia Mortgage failed to sufficiently show an ownership interest in the subject property and that the action against the United States was properly dismissed as an unopposed motion. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. See Virginia Mortgage Co. v. United States , No. CA-97-1122-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of Registrant**

The Company or the registrant has eight wholly-owned subsidiaries, seven of which are corporations organizedunder the laws of the State of New Hampshire: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Northern Utilities, Inc., Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., Unitil Power Corp., Unitil Realty Corp., Unitil Resources, Inc. and Unitil Service Corp. The eighth, FitchburgGas and Electric Light Company, is organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts. Usource, Inc., which is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unitil Resources, Inc. Usource, Inc.is the sole member of Usource L.L.C., which is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
#### William Gene NULL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42235.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 22, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 375

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1994

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

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the House is on notice pursuant to rule IX that it

may soon consider a proposal to direct the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the former

operations of the House Post Office;

Whereas matters relating to the former operations of the

House Post Office are the subject of an ongoing criminal

investigation by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia;
2

HRES 375 ATH

Whereas, pursuant to its rules, the Committee on Standards

of Official Conduct traditionally defers inquiry with respect to a matter that is the subject of an ongoing investigation by an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory

authority;

Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has

on several occasions agreed to defer inquiry with respect

to the former operations of the House Post Office, and

has deferred inquiry in other matters regarding current

Members where investigations by other authorities are

proceeding;

Whereas, by letters of November 25, 1992, September 9,

1993, and October 26, 1993, then Assistant Attorney

General Lee Rawls, then United States Attorney J.

Ramsey Johnson, and current United States Attorney

Eric Holder, respectively, requested that the Committee

on Standards of Official Conduct defer any inquiry into

the former operations of the House Post Office and related matters;

Whereas on February 23, 1994, the United States Attorney

for the District of Columbia delivered the following letter

to the Speaker and the Republican Leader:
3

HRES 375 ATH
4

HRES 375 ATH
5

HRES 375 ATH
6

HRES 375 ATH

Whereas the House should exercise particular caution so as

not to impede, delay, or otherwise interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation that may involve its own Members: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House supports the decision of the

2 Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to defer in3 quiry on matters relating to the former operation of the

4 House Post Office; and be it

5 Further resolved, That the Committee on Standards

6 of Official Conduct shall continue to consult with the Unit7 ed States Attorney and continue to review its decision to

8 defer inquiry in this matter. At such time as the Commit9 tee determines that a Committee inquiry would no longer

10 interfere with the criminal investigation, the Committee

11 shall proceed, pursuant to its rules, with such inquiry as

12 it deems appropriate.

Æ
#### SUCCESSION of Freddie Robertson KILLINGSWORTH and Mrs. Rome Schlater Johnston Tuttle et al. v. Edward Hill SCHLATER et al.

No. 53171.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Mrs. Leila May Obier Cutshaw and W. P. Obier, Jr. applying for certi-orari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Iberville, 270 So.2d 196.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 -0587 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSE MARTINEZ JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 23 2022

08/23/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0587
# EPA SLN No. TX-070008*Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information**Personal privacy information*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50671

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

CARLOS ENRIQUE SAMAYOA-PINEDA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:14-CR-522-1 

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Enrique Samayoa-Pineda 

again has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Samayoa-Pineda has filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well 

as Samayoa-Pineda’s response. Regardless of several nonfrivolous issues we 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk

 Case: 15-50671 Document: 00513886692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2017
No. 15-50671

2 

previously identified, it is dispositive that the Government has declined to 

waive the untimeliness of the appeal. See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 

825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Therefore, without prejudice to a future 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion that Samayoa-Pineda may file, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-50671 Document: 00513886692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2017
#### Linda D. DRIGGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. U-30.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 12, 1974.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein. Upon our consideration thereof, we are of the opinion that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the order-appealed herein, and the same is therefore affirmed.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and BOYER, JJ., concur.
#### BIELEY, WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Walter W. WAGNER, Respondent.

No. 40160.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct 27, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
# C_2021431EN.01000601.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/6

---

Appeal brought on 7 May 2021 by EM against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2021 in Case T-599/19 EM v Parliament

(Case C-299/21 P)

(2021/C 431/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: EM (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 3 March 2021, EM v Parliament (T-599/19); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 3 March 2021, EM v Parliament (T-599/19);

| — | order the Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs, including those incurred before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs, including those incurred before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the first plea in law raised before the General Court, the appellant relied on infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as Article 12 and Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to provide assistance, and abuse of power. The General Court ruled on the first plea, divided into three parts, in paragraphs 42 to 131 of the judgment under appeal.

By the second plea in law raised before the General Court, the appellant relied on infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, as well as a manifest error of assessment. The General Court ruled on this plea in paragraphs 142 to 159 of the judgment under appeal.

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts, and manifest errors of assessment resulting in a statement of reasons that is insufficient and legally imprecise. The General Court therefore ruled infra petita. In the context of the appeal, the appellant contests, in particular, paragraphs 51 to 57, 66 to 69, 100 to 103, 109, 126 to131, 145 to 146, 148 to 149 and 170 to 171 of the judgment under appeal.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 6 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 6

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 5, 1993.
    Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 1929, as amended, the 
six minority employees authorized therein shall be the following named persons, 
effective January 3, 1993, until otherwise ordered by the House, to-wit: William 
R. Pitts, Jr., Walter P. Kennedy, Ronald W. Lasch, Jay Pierson, William Gavin 
and B. Robert Okun, each to receive gross compensation pursuant to the 
provisions of House Resolution 119, Ninety-fifth Congress, as enacted into 
permanent law by section 115 of Public Law 95-94.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00047-CV

Ramon Ruiz

v.

Selene Peregrino Ruiz

§

§

§

§

From the 211th District Court

of Denton County (2012-30679-211)

September 4, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Ramon Ruiz shall pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston