alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9**
**- 19**  **58**

BRENDA BROWN ,
Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.

GREEN SPRING VILLAGE INCORPORATED ,
Defen d a nt

– Appell ee ,
and

ERICKSON RETIREMENT COMMUNITY GREEN SPRING VILLAGE,

Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , D istrict Judge. ( 1 :0 8

- c v
- 0 1 0 4 3

- LMB

- TRJ )

Submitted : July 30 , 2010 Decided: August 1 6 , 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Brenda Brown , Appellant Pro Se

. Tyler Brown, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, Reston, Virginia; Jennifer Anne Harper, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions ar e not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Brenda Brown appeals the district court ’ s final order
granting summary judgment to Green Spring Village, Inc. on

Brown’s remaining claim under the Family Medical Leave Act. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Brown v. Green Spring Village, Inc. , No. 1:08

- cv
- 01043

-

LMB

- TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 21, 2009; entered Aug. 25, 2009)

. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Tom ADAMS, Secretary of State, State of Florida, Appellant, v. Claude GORDON, Appellee.

No. 42415.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 2, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, David A. Husband, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vodavi Technology, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize, and report financial information ; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: April 27, 2005                                                       /s/ David A. Husband   David A. Husband   Chief Financial Officer
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 8,

2017
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00269- CV

ANTHONY SHAWN MATSON, Appellant

V. CYNTHIA MATTHEWS, SILVER EAGLE TOWING D/B/A SILVER EAGLE TOWLING AND HOUSTON AUTO STORAGE, Appellees

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1084876

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from a judgment signed January 10, 2017. On August 1, 2017, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.
##### 



Exhibit 10.13
 
 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
  
    8.
    
    Except for (1) your termination of employment in connection with a Change in Control as
defined in the Employment Security Agreement referenced above, or (2) your termination of
employment by APAC for cause (defined as (i) gross misconduct or gross negligence in the
performance of your employment duties; (ii) willful disobedience by you of the lawful
directions received from the Company or from the person to whom you directly report or of
established policies of the Company; or (iii) commission by you of a crime involving fraud or
moral turpitude that can reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on the business,
reputation or financial situation of the Company), or (3) your termination as a result of
your resignation from employment with the Company other than for Agreed Reason, and provided
you sign a then-current Waiver & Release Agreement, APAC will pay you severance equal to (x)
the monthly amount of your then-current Base Salary plus (y) the amount necessary to reimburse
you for payments you make in connection with your exercise of your rights under COBRA to
continue your and your dependants medical and dental benefits in accordance with the terms of
the Companys welfare plans as may be in effect from time to time during each of the following
twelve (12) months following such termination.




---



##### 



(1)
    
    without your written consent, (i) your duties and
responsibilities are materially reduced or diminished from those in effect on
your commencement of employment, or (ii) you no longer report to the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and instead are required to report to a
supervisor with materially diminished authority, duties or responsibilities
compared to that of the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, or(2)
    
    your base salary is reduced and not in accordance with a
compensation reduction applicable to all senior executives salaries generally,
or(3)
    
    any other material breach of the terms of the Letter or the
terms of your employment in general.




---



##### 



APAC CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC.
 ACCEPTED BY:/s/ GEORGE HEPBURNGeorge Hepburn Date:
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF HEALTH, and Charles Asia, Relators, v. The Honorable Alfonso C. SEPE, as Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida In and For Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-1151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
#### ALRAE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents. BEN LITTLE’S LIMOUSINE SERVICE, Petitioner, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents. THOMPSON’S LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents.

Nos. 42616, 42617 and 42618.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 8, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2865 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2865

To extend until January 1, 1998, the existing suspensions of duty on m-
  Xylenediamine (``MXDA'') and 1,3-Bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (``1,3-
                                BAC'').

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1993

 Mr. Greenwood (for himself and Mr. Santorum) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend until January 1, 1998, the existing suspensions of duty on m-
  Xylenediamine (``MXDA'') and 1,3-Bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (``1,3-
                                BAC'').

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON M-XYLENEDIAMINE 
              AND 1,3-BIS(AMINOMETHYL)CYCLOHEXANE.

    Headings 9902.29.92 and 9902.29.93 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States are each amended by striking ``12/31/92'' 
and inserting ``12/31/97''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which any 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been a lower duty if the 
amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or withdrawal, 
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal 
had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



I, Ronald L. Roswell, Chief Financial Officer of i2 Telecom International, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: August 16, 2004



/s/    Ronald L. RoswellRonald L. Roswell,Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



I, David C. Burns, Chief Financial Officer of i2 Telecom International, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: August 15, 2005



/s/ David C. BurnsDavid C. Burns,Chief Financial Officer
#### CITY OF CLEARWATER, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF the CITY OF CLEARWATER, Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-20.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

July 3, 1968.

N. S. Gould of Phillips, McFarland & Gould, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert R. Tench of Tench & Whitehurst, Clearwater, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See City of Clearwater v. Garretson, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 46.

LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
# C_2012174EN.01000101.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/1

---

2012/C 174/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 165, 9.6.2012

OJ C 165, 9.6.2012

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 157, 2.6.2012

OJ C 151, 26.5.2012

OJ C 138, 12.5.2012

OJ C 133, 5.5.2012

OJ C 126, 28.4.2012

OJ C 118, 21.4.2012

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
262 La. 970

#### Eddie ELLIS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 52751.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 17, 1972.

In re: Eddie Ellis applying for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus.

Writ refused: Since we have received written confirmation from the District Attorney that a nolle prosequi has been entered, the application is moot.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 0589 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

- NM

- 189

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( U se this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA

-IR

-M

- 8040.1C . DOUBLE C

LICK to follow the link 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation:

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include spe cific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO 

### * Explanation 

### :
# C_2013132EN.01000901.xml

| 9.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6815 — ERDF/CDC/UEM/Efluid)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 132/03

On 9 April 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6815. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6815. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
NO. 07-10-00416-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL 1, 2011

ROBERT DEWAYNE BENNETT, APPELLANT

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY;

NO. CR11349; HONORABLE RALPH H. WALTON JR., JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Dewayne Bennett appealed his convic tion for possession of less than one
gram of a controlled subs tance and the resulting s entence of fifteen years’

imprisonment.

Bennett’s counsel has notified this Cour t that Bennett has passed away and, in
light of his passing, has moved this Cour t to permanently abate Bennett’s appeal. The
death of an appellant during the pendency of hi s or her appeal deprives this Court of

jurisdiction. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 7.1(a)(2); Whitmire v. State , 943 S.W.2d 894, 895
(Tex.Crim.App. 1997).2 Accordingly, we grant the mo tion and permanently abate this appeal.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not publish.
Filed 3/6/13 P. v. McCullough CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication 

or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered 

published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ROBERT EDWARD MCCULLOUGH, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 D062006 

(Super. Ct. No. SCD230586) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Louis R. 

Hanoian, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Robert Edward McCullough threw a full can of beer at a cashier after the cashier 

refused to sell him the beer due to McCullough's intoxication. The beer can crushed the 

cashier's ear, causing a partial amputation. After receiving treatment, McCullough was found 

competent to stand trial. A jury found McCullough guilty of mayhem and assault with a 

deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to three years formal probation and time served. 

The trial court imposed various fines and fees. McCullough timely appealed. 
2

DISCUSSION 

 Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. 

He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as 

mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Under Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel listed as possible, but not arguable, issues, whether: (1) 

the evidence supported the conviction; and (2) the trial court (a) abused its discretion in 

denying McCullough's motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, (b) erred in 

failing to acquit McCullough due to insufficient evidence under Penal Code section 1118.1, (c) 

erred in finding McCullough incompetent to stand trial, (d) erred by failing to grant 

McCullough's motion for new trial, and (e) properly instructed the jury on the elements of 

mayhem. 

 We granted McCullough permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not 

responded. Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by 

counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent 

counsel has represented McCullough on this appeal. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 

MCINTYRE, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

 

MCDONALD, Acting P. J. 

 

IRION, J.