alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GENERAL CIGAR COMPANY, Inc., a New York corporation, Appellant, v. David A. DAVIS et al., Appellees.

No. 67-90.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 21, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1967,

*228Elliot L. Miller, Miami, for appellant.

Irving Cypen Law Offices and Arnold Nevins, Miami Beach, Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for ap-pellees.-

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of certain orders which resulted in summary judgments in favor of the appellees, Bingal Construction Company and Schenley Distillers, Inc. The cause is still pending in the trial court against the remaining appellees, and will not be affected by this opinion.

The initial action was to recover by a sub-tenant for alleged faulty repairs to the premises. The appellee, Bingal Construction Company, was the original lessor and the appellee, Schenley Distillers, Inc., was the original lessee. Subsequent to Bingal conveying its fee title to the appellees, David A. Davis, Ida Davis, and Harry Markow, the basic lessee [Schenley] sub-leased a portion of the premises to the appellant and thereafter the alleged faulty repairs were made and, because of such, certain of the appellant’s chattels were damaged. The principal thrust against the original lessor is that it could not divest itself of its obligation to repair by transferring the fee and reversionary interest.

We hold, in accordance with the general authorities, that upon a fee owner conveying its reversionary interest in land subject to an outstanding leasehold [with nothing in the lease to the contrary] he is relieved of any obligation to repair defects which occur subsequent to the transfer, as this is a covenant that runs with the land and becomes the obligation of the new fee owner. See: 32 Am.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, § 716; 51 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 368 (d) (2) (b), page 1090; Bennett, Law of Landlord and Tenant, § 246; Vol. 2, Powell on Real Property, § 246 [2], page 372.95; Vol. 3A, Thompson on Real Property, 1959 Replacement, § 1232, page 166.

The other points raised have been examined and found to be without merit. Therefore, the orders here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Cani I. Shuman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Cani I. Shuman     
|Cani I. Shuman         
|Chief Financial Officer
|December 15, 2006
* This order and judgment is not binding preced ent, except under the doctrines

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral es toppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nev ertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condition s of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 22 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-4132
v. (District of Utah) ROBERT ARCE RAMIREZ, also known as CALIMAN HERNANDEZ, also known as ROBERTO MENDEZ-GOMEZ

Defendant - Appellant. (D.C. No. 96-CR-277-01)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

Roberto Arce Ramirez pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment, and he now appeals , arguing that his sentence is too lengthy. After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notassist the determination of2

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and order the case submitted without oral argument
. The indictment to which Mr. Ramirez pleaded guilty charged him with distributing more than 100 grams of a mixture or su bstance containing detectable amounts of methamphetamine. The presentence invest igation determined that Mr. Ramirez had distributed at least 2.28 kilograms of methamphetamine. After assessing a two-level increase in the offense leve l for possession of a firearm and a three-level reduction for acceptance of respo nsibility, the district court arrived at an offense level of thirty-one. The cou rt reduced Mr. Ramirez’s criminal history category from V to IV after Mr. Ramirez’s attorney successfully argued that one of his prior convictions had been d ouble-counted. The resulting range of sentences under the United States Sentenci ng Guidelines was 151 to 188 months. In this appeal, Mr. Ramirez’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). She has also filed a motion to withdraw. According to his attorney, Mr. Ramirez contends that a term of 151 months’ imprisonment is too long for the kind of offense th at he has committed. However, his attorney states that there are no meri torious legal grounds for this argument.3

We agree with Mr. Ramirez’s attorney. Mr. Ramirez was sentenced at the low end of the Guideline range, and there is no ind ication that the district court erred in applying the Guidelines. A defendant may not appeal a sentence solely on the grounds that it is too harsh. See United States v. Garcia , 919 F.2d 1478, 1482 (10th Cir. 1990) (dismissing appeal of sentenc e within proper guideline range for lack of jurisdiction). We therefore gran t Mr. Ramirez’s attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal for lackof jurisdiction. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.3

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form
S-1 of our report dated July 25, 2000 relating to the financial statements of
the Ford Motor Company Customs Compliance Department, which appear in such
Registration Statement.  We also consent to the references to us under the
headings "Experts" in such Registration Statement.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Detroit, Michigan
September 21, 2000
EPA Registration Jacket 39578-2 














15

*Commercial/financial information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE 

OFFICIAL REPORTERS

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LARRY HODGE,

 Plaintiff, 

 v.

THE INVISIBLE EMPIRE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12-cv-1412 (RLW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiff’s pro se civil complaint. 

This Court issued an Order to Show Cause to plaintiff Larry Hodge because it appeared that his 

complaint failed to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 4). On December 3, 2012 Mr. Hodge filed an amended complaint 

that is even more vague and conclusory than his first. (Dkt. No. 7). Accordingly, this Court will 

dismiss the case.

The Court acknowledges that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent 

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal 

 1 This unpublished memorandum opinion is intended solely to inform the parties and any 

reviewing court of the basis for the instant ruling, or alternatively, to assist in any potential future 

analysis of the res judicata, law of the case, or preclusive effect of the ruling. The Court has 

designated this opinion as “not intended for publication,” but this Court cannot prevent or 

prohibit the publication of this opinion in the various and sundry electronic and legal databases 

(as it is a public document), and this Court cannot prevent or prohibit the citation of this opinion 

by counsel. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. Nonetheless, as stated in the operational handbook 

adopted by our Court of Appeals, “counsel are reminded that the Court’s decision to issue an 

unpublished disposition means that the Court sees no precedential value in that disposition.” 

D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 43 (2011). 
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE 

OFFICIAL REPORTERS

2

Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the 

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

While certain statutes are cited on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, it is void of any factual detail

and borders on the incoherent. Because the complaint does not establish the nature or basis of 

Plaintiff’s claims, it fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “The dismissal of 

a complaint on the ground that it is unintelligible is unexceptionable.” See, e.g., RobinsonReeder v. Kearns, 818 F. Supp. 2d 61, 64 (D.D.C. 2011) (citations omitted). Mr. Hodge’s 

pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 9) are DENIED.

A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

SO ORDERED.

Date: December 12, 2012 

 ROBERT L. WILKINS

United States District Judge
# C_2013326EN.01000101.xml

| 12.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 November 2013

2013/C 326/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3394 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,86 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4586 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83810 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7967 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2328 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2065 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,996 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 297,29 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7028 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2045 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4535 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7286 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4314 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4026 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3843 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6262 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6720 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 436,57 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,8735 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1587 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6218 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 483,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2858 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,420 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,8100 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,359 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1002 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6466 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,7040 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3394

JPY

Japanese yen

132,86

DKK

Danish krone

7,4586

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83810

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7967

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2328

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2065

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,996

HUF

Hungarian forint

297,29

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7028

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2045

RON

Romanian leu

4,4535

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7286

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4314

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4026

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3843

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6262

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6720

KRW

South Korean won

1 436,57

ZAR

South African rand

13,8735

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1587

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6218

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 483,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2858

PHP

Philippine peso

58,420

RUB

Russian rouble

43,8100

THB

Thai baht

42,359

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1002

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6466

INR

Indian rupee

84,7040

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1



                  See Reverse Side for Restrictions on Transfer


                                    DELAWARE




001                                                                      1,000


                              DEAN HOLDING COMPANY

                                  Common Stock
                            $.01 Par Value Per Share


                             Dean Foods Corporation

                              One Thousand (1,000)







                                                          December          01



Michelle P. Goolsby, President              Lisa N. Tyson, Assistant Secretary


<PAGE>


         THE SHARES OF STOCK OF THIS CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE
         HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED,
         OR ANY STATE SECURITIES LAWS AND THE HOLDER HEREOF CANNOT MAKE ANY
         SALE, ASSIGNMENT, OR OTHER TRANSFER OF SUCH STOCK WITHOUT REGISTRATION
         UNDER OR EXEMPTION FROM SUCH ACTS OR LAWS. THE CORPORATION MAY REQUIRE
         EVIDENCE OF SUCH REGISTRATION OR EXEMPTION PRIOR TO ANY SUCH TRANSFER.




<PAGE>



                                            001

       (1,000)             One Thousand

                      Dean Foods Corporation







                      December                                            2001
# C_2013320EN.01000101.xml

| 6.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 November 2013

2013/C 320/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3494 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,59 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4583 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84030 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7940 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2297 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0520 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,833 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 297,00 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7025 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1802 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4418 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7332 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4157 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4073 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4600 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6192 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6745 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 431,71 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,8124 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2281 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6223 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 321,19 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2819 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,374 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,6960 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,155 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0614 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6326 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,4110 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3494

JPY

Japanese yen

132,59

DKK

Danish krone

7,4583

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84030

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7940

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2297

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0520

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,833

HUF

Hungarian forint

297,00

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7025

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1802

RON

Romanian leu

4,4418

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7332

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4157

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4073

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4600

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6192

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6745

KRW

South Korean won

1 431,71

ZAR

South African rand

13,8124

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2281

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6223

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 321,19

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2819

PHP

Philippine peso

58,374

RUB

Russian rouble

43,6960

THB

Thai baht

42,155

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0614

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6326

INR

Indian rupee

83,4110

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Oscar FLOWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1-501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 17, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2014009EN.01000101.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/1

---

2014/C 9/01

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 377, 21.12.2013

OJ C 377, 21.12.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013

OJ C 359, 7.12.2013

OJ C 352, 30.11.2013

OJ C 344, 23.11.2013

OJ C 336, 16.11.2013

OJ C 325, 9.11.2013

These texts are available on:

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

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 23

- 2101

_____________________________
D ENIS A NDRE P ARENT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Leandra G. Johnson , Judge

. April 22, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and B ILBREY and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Denis Andre Parent, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Miranda L. Butson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ron Schutte, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Creative  Bakeries,
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-14  and  15d-14)  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 me 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 of this  quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)  Presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed,  based on our 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: November 15, 2004

/s/ Ron Schutte
------------------------------------
Ron Schutte
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                                        F-21