alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dean KILGORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-245.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 31, 1973.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge (RET.).

Appellant Dean Kilgore was informed against in the Polk County Criminal Court of Record for the offense of assault to commit murder in the second degree. Upon a plea of guilty he was sentenced to serve a term in the State Prison. About fourteen months thereafter he filed post-conviction motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, which motion was denied by the trial Court. He has appealed the order of denial to this Court. The local Public Defender, appointed to represent Kilgore on this appeal, has filed brief in this Court in his behalf.

The Public Defender says in his brief that he “has carefully examined the Record on Appeal and can find nothing which would arguably support an appeal.” He requests to be relieved as attorney of record and cites as authority the case of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. The Public Defender has served a copy of his said brief upon appellant Kilgore, and on September 12, 1972, this Court entered order giving Kilgore thirty (30) days therefrom to file any additional brief he might desire “calling the court’s attention to any matters that he feels should be considered in connection with the appeal in this cause”. No additional brief has been filed.

We have thereupon carefully examined the entire record on file here on behalf of appellant Kilgore, and find nothing therein sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment appealed. Accordingly the judgment is thereupon—

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Exhibit 21

Video Display Corporation  Subsidiary Companies

|Lexel Imaging Systems, Inc.
1501 Newtown Pike
Lexington, Kentucky                                                   |  | Aydin Displays, Inc.
1 Riga Lane
Birdsboro, Pennsylvania           
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Fox International Ltd., Inc.
23600 Aurora Road
Bedford Heights, Ohio                                                |  | Mengel Industries, Inc.
3110 West Ridge Pike
Sanatoga, Pennsylvania
|Southwest Vacuum Devices, Inc
1868 Tucker Industrial Drive
Tucker, Georgia                                          |  | XKD Corporation
18450 Technology Drive
Morgan Hill, California     
|Video Display (Europe), Ltd.
Unit 5 Old Forge Trading Estate
Dudley Road, Stourbridge
West Midlands DY9 8EL
England |  |                                                                    
|Magna View, Inc.
1240 Profit Drive
Dallas, Texas                                                                    |  |                                                                    
|Z-Axis, Inc.
15 Eagle Street
Phelps, New York                                                                       |  |                                                                    
|Teltron Technologies, Inc.
2 Riga Lane
Birdsboro, PA                                                                |  |                                                                    

---



QuickLinks
#### John Moran, *et al.*Appellants, *vs.*John Plankinton, *et*al., Respondents.

1. Judgment, *final*— Appeal.—A judgment for defendant, which is merely one for costs, is not a final one, and will not authorize an appeal.

*Appeal from Jaclespn Circuit Cpurt.*

*Johnson fy Botsford, and Tichnor 8? Warner*for Appellants.

*Wallace; Pratt 8? Hoff,*for Eespondents.

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

' This case comes here by appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court, but there is no final judgment. It has,been repeatedly decided by this-court, that a final judgment in favor of a defendant should conclude in this way :

> *“*It is therefore considered by the court, that the plaintiff take nothing by his writ, that the defendant be discharged and go hence without delay, and have and recover of and from said plaintiff his costs in this behalf expended, and have hereof execution.” The only judgment in this record, is one for costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Judge Adams absent; the other Judges concur.
#### Margaret CORTEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-335.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 5, 1971.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Russell H. McIntosh, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the
Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 5, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                           
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 21, 2008 |  | /s/ Sean M. McCarthy                      
|                      |  | Sean M. McCarthy                          
|                      |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich
Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-14531, No. 33-54483, No. 33-64998, No. 33-65440, No.
33-68336, No. 333-04775, No. 333-04823, No. 333-62087, No. 333-62103, No.
333-95409, and No. 333-41328) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option and Stock
Purchase Plans of Novell, Inc. of our report dated November 17, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Novell, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October 31, 2000.

                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
January 25, 2001



                                       2
#### Alfred A. BARNARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arley SKAINS, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Daughter, Judy Skains, and State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10905.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 28, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1968.

Norman L. Sisson, Robert J. Jones and William T. Kivett, Baton Rouge, for appellants.

Barham, Wright, Barham & Dawkins, Ruston, for appellee.

Before GLADNEY, AYRES and BAR-HAM, JJ.

GLADNEY, Judge.

This case was consolidated for purposes of trial with that of Glen E. Mullin v. Arley *213Skains, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Daughter, Judy Skains, and the State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways, 205 So.2d 207, this day decided. The facts and legal issues therein determined control our decision in this case, except as to quantum.

Alfred A. Barnard sustained multiple bruises and abrasions to the arms, legs and body with lacerations to the left elbow, right forearm and left hand; fractures of the left hand with severance of the extensor tendons to the thumb and index finger; and fracture of the posterior lip of his left ace-tabulum, or rim of the left hip with dislocation.

Immediately after the accident Barnard underwent exploratory surgery of the abdomen without discovery of serious internal injury. Major corrective operations were performed on the hip, left hand, thumb, and index finger. Barnard was hospitalized until August 6, 1965, confined to his home some time thereafter and wore a leg brace from September 24 to November 16, 1965. He was still disabled and undergoing treatment a year after the accident. The tendon damage to the hand is of a permanent nature and motion of the left index finger limited to 30% of' normal. The gravity of the injuries sustained caused substantial pain and suffering.

It is our conclusion that the total award of $15,000 and special damages of $4,287.80 as determined by the trial court is neither excessive nor inadequate, and is approved.

As pointed out in Mullin v. Skains, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Daughter, Judy Skains, and State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways, supra, the judgment appealed is in error insofar as it reduced plaintiff’s recovery by one-half, and such reduction must be restored in our decree.

Therefore, the judgment appealed is amended and, as so amended, is affirmed and recast to read:

It is ordered that there be judgment herein in favor of Alfred A. Barnard and against the State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways, for the total sum of $19,287.80, with 5% per annum interest from judicial demand until paid, and, subject to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:4521, the State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways is cast for the costs of court in these proceedings.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16094]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9040-5]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 07/16/2018 Through 07/20/2018
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20180165, Draft, USFS, CA, Williamson Rock and Pacific Crest 
Trail, Comment Period Ends: 09/14/2018, Contact: Chinling Chen 626-574-
5255
EIS No. 20180166, Final Supplement, FHWA, AK, Juneau Access 
Improvements Project, Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FTA has issued a 
single document that consists of a final environmental impact statement 
and record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under 
NEPA does not apply to this action. Contact: Tim Haugh 907-586-7418
EIS No. 20180167, Draft, NMFS, DC, Draft Amendment 11 to the 2006 
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, 
Comment Period Ends: 10/01/2018, Contact: Guy DuBeck 301-427-8503
EIS No. 20180168, Draft, USACE, AL, Mobile Harbor, Mobile, Alabama 
Draft Integrated General Reevaluation Report with Supplemental, Comment 
Period Ends: 09/10/2018, Contact: Jennifer L. Jacobson 251-690-2724
EIS No. 20180169, Final, BLM, NV, Gold Rock Mine Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 08/29/2018, Contact: Maria Ryan 775-289-1888

    Dated: July 24, 2018.
Kelly Knight,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2018-16094 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
reetpenooawen PERE ER EERE RARRRR ER RERRR ARS

SSE EERE ane
ESSEC CHEERS EERE SER SSEEEE EEE EA es Bs Be Wi Et

‘ s
\)

; )
e| 66
| N
‘\ |

i

ay

/
.
f
thee |
_ o—sE~
’ f
'
.

ea...

aa

Vatvee or Estate Owwen
main A

www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

: ri ’ eh LT
i | ! Ag
ig . ps
a+ | | 4a , [
ht 15 4
fpil
fe I PaRBESUOFOREOUEEBLEPREREEES Fri
} "UN REEEREERREREECEEEEREER |
MECUR ESTES CRE RRC RRR ERRCCES 4
Ey id
itt i
vad td a
, “ts |e

| “worsen yO 19ps0
; OY Ul pelaquing
Fite beena|

= aqoesgsesss Pr ® a 8 &

“ £ '} 4, \ ¢ _ i
#### Cyrus Dufrene SOLOMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-224.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 4, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CEDARS OF LEBANON HOSPITAL CORPORATION, J. Loesch, Dewitt C. Daughtry, Hugh Forthman, Benjamin G. Oren, Martin S. Belle, Maurice Rich and The Oren & Belle Professional Association, and Idelfonso R. Mas, Petitioners, v. Barbara T. HORTON, individually and as personal representative and Executrix of the Estate of Harry H. Horton, Jr., deceased, Respondent.

No. 69-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER








I, Mary
G. Merritt, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Preferred Voice,
Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.





4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and I have:





a.
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b.
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c.
presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):





a. all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b. any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6. I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.











Date:
      February 15, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Mary G.
      MerrittMary
      G. MerrittChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officerand
      Principal Financial Officer)
#### Doris Loretta MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-209.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING MOTION TO DISMISS

MANN, Chief Judge.

The State’s original motion to dismiss was directed to a notice purporting to appeal from “denial of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence” but indicating that a final disposition of the case had thereafter been made. We would have inclined to treat the notice of appeal as directed to the final judgment and thus to allow the alleged impropriety of any action of the trial judge to be assigned as error.1 Now the State has filed a petition for rehearing, supplemented by a certificate of the clerk of the trial court to the effect that there has never been a final judgment entered. In view of this fact, the order appealed from is not an appealable order.2 and we treat the petition for rehearing as a second motion to dismiss, properly supported and well taken. Therefore the State’s motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to the right of appellant to timely file a notice of appeal directed to final judgment.

McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ, concur.

1

. Huie v. State, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 264.

2

. *Id.*
..~~. 

re~~ ....,:\i 

C~ Chippewa County 1~AIRPORT Economic Development Corporation www.airciu.com www.airciu.com 

(906) 495-5631 • Fax: (906) 495-5714· e-mail: ccedc@sault.com 

March 22, 2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORA TION 


1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 


Washington, DC 20590. 


Dear Secretary LaHood: 

The Economic Development Corporation ofChippewa County and Chippewa County International 

Airport, the only commercial airport located in Michigan's Eastern Upper Peninsula, wish to express 

. strong support for the application of Delta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit Metro and 

Haneda Tokyo airports .. 

Approval of Delta's new service would be a major benefit for our region. With daily service between 

Chippewa County International Airport and Detroit Metro, area businesses would benefit from convenient 

connections to Tokyo's Haneda airport - service would position businesses in our region to strengthen 

relationships with Japanese markets. Business travelers look to the convenience provided byflying into 

Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. 

Given the disproportionate economic challenges that Michigan has faced and continues to struggle with, 

and Delta's estimates that 300 jobs are created to support each new long-haul transpacific flight -by 

approving Delta's application, the Department would provide some measure of relief to the State's 

beleaguered economy. 

Detroit Metro is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can support trans-pacific 

routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment·· 

Delta made to DTW to make it the airlines gateway to Asia. The addition of Haneda as a destination is a 

natural fit that would clearly benefit our business travelers. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Cordially, 

athy 


President 


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 


of CHIPPEWA COUNTY 

5019 W. AIRPORT DRIVE • KINCHELOE, MICHIGAN 49788
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SECARD POOLS INC, a California

Corporation; JOE SECARD; EDMOND

SECARD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, an

Arkansas Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-55534

D.C. No. 

5:16-cv-02404-JFW-SP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2018

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, FISHER,

**

 and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiffs appeal an order entering summary judgment in favor of defendant

Kinsale Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 

FILED

JUL 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
we affirm.

1. Kinsale did not breach its insurance contract with Plaintiffs because the

insurance policy’s IP Exclusion unambiguously excludes all the claims in the SSR

action from any potential for coverage. 

With respect to SSR’s allegations of misleading advertising, those

allegations did not trigger Kinsale’s duty to defend under the circumstances. Prong

three of the IP Exclusion expressly excludes from coverage any claim “arising out

of any . . . products or goods manufactured, sold, handled or distributed or work

completed by the Insured . . . in violation of any law . . . including violations of the

Lanham Act or other unfair competition statutes.” SSR did not allege any

misleading advertising by Plaintiffs separate and apart from representations that

appeared on the Secard Pools products themselves, and at oral argument in this

case Plaintiffs could not identify any such allegations in the underlying action. On

these facts, the IP Exclusion removed any potential for coverage. 

2. Because Kinsale did not breach the insurance agreement, plaintiffs’ claim

for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing also fails as a

matter of law. See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 900 P.2d 619, 639 (Cal. 1995)

(concluding that in the absence of an “obligation to defend or indemnify . . . [the

insurer] did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing”). 

2
AFFIRMED.

3
**Exhibit
      32-1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of MangoSoft, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Dale Vincent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By:
            /s/ Dale
              VincentChief Executive Officer (principal executive and financial officer)November
                9, 2007






This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.





24