alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dan BIELE, Appellant, v. Jay Allen SIEGEL et al., Appellees.

No. 72-925.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 31, 1973.

*705William E. Blyler, of Patterson, Maloney & Shankweiler, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Marshall J. Cooper, Margate, for ap-pellees — Jay Allen Siegel and Lois Siegel, Leonard R. Turner and Edna Turner.

Richard L. Lapidus of Lapidus & Hollander, Miami, for appellee — Howard R. Scharlin.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.

WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.

WALDEN, Judge

(concurring in part, dissenting in part):

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. He ap-' peals. I agree that this decision was correct as concerns the defendant-Escrow Agent, Howard R. Scharlin. I dissent as concerns the dismissal against the defendants-sellers.

Broadly, plaintiff was a real estate broker who produced a purchaser for the sellers’ property. He was to receive a commission of ninety odd thousand dollars, with a portion to be paid in cash at closing and the balance to be paid from future purchase money mortgage installments. Thirty thousand dollars was deposited by the purchaser, with the sales agreement, signed by the sellers and the purchasers only and not the broker, providing that upon the purchasers’ default the deposit would be forfeited as liquidated damages. The purchasers defaulted and the sellers claimed and secured the thirty thousand dollars in escrow. With this backdrop, the broker has sued the sellers for a commission or compensation. It was the position of the sellers, a position apparently adopted by the trial court, that the broker was not entitled to compensation unless there was a closing and the ensuing mortgage payments made —in other words, that the broker was limited to a special fund.

Without over-laboring the matter, the broker’s labors produced the ostensible purchaser and the thirty thousand dollar deposit and I feel that he is entitled to participate in it along with the sellers as a matter of real estate customs and according to the principles of unjust enrichment. The provision for payment of the commission in the fashion above mentioned presupposed that the sale, would be consummated and a dosing accomplished, it had no bearing whatever as concerns the circumstance of the purchasers’ default. Thus, all of the contracts and writings were silent as to the broker’s entitlement to the deposit or a part of it in case there was a default and no closing. In my judgment, I think the complaint was altogether adequate to withstand the motion to dismiss and I feel that the broker should have the opportunity to show the intentions of the parties and the customs in the field of real estate by parole.

For these reasons I would reverse the order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as to the sellers and remand for further proceedings.
# C_2014408EN.01002801.xml

| 15.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/28

---

EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

2014/C 408/28

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://easa.europa.eu/the-agency/governance/management-board/decisions/easa-mb-decision-08-2014-opinion-management-board

---
# C_2015176EN.01000101.xml

| 29.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/1

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 February 2015 to 28 February 2015

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))

1

(2015/C 176/01)

—   Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted

Issuing of a marketing authorisation

Accepted

| Date of the decision | Name of the medicinal product | INN (International Non-Proprietary Name) | Holder of the marketing authorisation | Number of the entry in the Community Register | Pharmaceutical form | ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code) | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.2.2015 | Suvaxyn CSF Marker | Live Recombinant E2 gene deleted Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus containing Classical Swine Fever E2 (CP7_E2alf) | Zoetis Belgium S.A.
  Rue Laid Burniat 1,
  1348 Louvain-la-Neuve,
  Belgique | EU/2/14/179 | Lyophilisate and solvent for suspension for injection | QI09AD04 | 12.2.2015 |

Date of the decision

Name of the medicinal product

INN (International Non-Proprietary Name)

Holder of the marketing authorisation

Number of the entry in the Community Register

Pharmaceutical form

ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code)

Date of notification

10.2.2015

Suvaxyn CSF Marker

Live Recombinant E2 gene deleted Bovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus containing Classical Swine Fever E2 (CP7_E2alf)

Zoetis Belgium S.A.

Rue Laid Burniat 1,

1348 Louvain-la-Neuve,

Belgique

EU/2/14/179

Lyophilisate and solvent for suspension for injection

QI09AD04

12.2.2015

Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:

| The European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| 30, Churchill Place, Canary Wharf |
| UK — LONDON E14 5EU |

The European Medicines Agency

30, Churchill Place, Canary Wharf

UK — LONDON E14 5EU

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

99 KA 09-01381 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
ALAN TIDD, SR., ALSO KNOWN AS ALAN D. TIDD, SR., ALSO KNOWN AS ALAN D. TIDD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

MARY ANN BLIZNIK, CLARENCE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 9, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the second degree. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence is unanimously dismissed ( see People v Haywood , 203 AD2d 966, lv denied 83 NY2d 967) and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Entered: February 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
# C_2015143EN.01002701.xml

| 30.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/27

---

Corrigendum to Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 April 2015

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 88 of 14 March 2015
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 88 of 14 March 2015

(2015/C 143/15)

On page 6, the table is replaced by the following:

| ‘From | To | AT | BE | BG | CY | CZ | DE | DK | EE | EL | ES | FI | FR | HR | HU | IE | IT | LT | LU | LV | MT | NL | PL | PT | RO | SE | SI | SK | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.4.2015 | ... | 0,34 | 0,34 | 2,18 | 0,34 | 0,52 | 0,34 | 0,42 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 1,58 | 2,21 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 2,16 | 0,34 | 2,04 | 0,23 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 1,02 |
| 1.3.2015 | 31.3.2015 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 2,18 | 0,34 | 0,52 | 0,34 | 0,66 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 1,58 | 2,21 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 2,16 | 0,34 | 2,04 | 0,33 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 1,02 |
| 1.1.2015 | 28.2.2015 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 2,18 | 0,34 | 0,52 | 0,34 | 0,66 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 1,58 | 2,21 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 2,16 | 0,34 | 2,63 | 0,46 | 0,34 | 0,34 | 1,02’ |

‘From

To

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

1.4.2015

...

0,34

0,34

2,18

0,34

0,52

0,34

0,42

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

1,58

2,21

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

2,16

0,34

2,04

0,23

0,34

0,34

1,02

1.3.2015

31.3.2015

0,34

0,34

2,18

0,34

0,52

0,34

0,66

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

1,58

2,21

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

2,16

0,34

2,04

0,33

0,34

0,34

1,02

1.1.2015

28.2.2015

0,34

0,34

2,18

0,34

0,52

0,34

0,66

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

1,58

2,21

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

0,34

2,16

0,34

2,63

0,46

0,34

0,34

1,02’

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-55547, 33-55657, 333-42019 and 333-77505) of Coram Healthcare
Corporation of our report dated April 12, 2002 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Coram Healthcare Corporation included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 3 to the
Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 33-59661 and 33-60959) and Amendment No. 1
to the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-12955) and related prospectuses
of Coram Healthcare Corporation for the registration of 3,526,325, 2,686,656 and
184,444 shares, respectively, of its common stock, of our report dated April 12,
2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Coram Healthcare Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2001.


                                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                           ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Denver, Colorado
April 12, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.01

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Natural MicroSystems Corporation

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-XXXXX) of our report dated
January 24, 2000 relating to the financial statements of Natural MicroSystems
Corporation, which appears in Natural MicroSystems Corporation's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and in its Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (File no. 333-95431). We also consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Registration Statement of our report dated January 24, 2000
relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in Natural
MicroSystems Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999 and in its Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File no.
333-95431). We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts"
in such Registration Statement.

                                                     PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
August 17, 2000
#### Louis JOVANOVICH, Appellant, v. AERO-TECH, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-1066.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 22, 1973.

*556Frank F. Cosgrove, Miami, for appellant.

Peters, Maxey, Short & Morgan, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was plaintiff and appellee was defendant and counterclaimant in an action seeking declaratory decree as to his rights under a written contract entered into by the plaintiff and defendant for the purchase and sale of an airplane and certain airplane parts for a total price of $80,000.00. The contract provided for the payment of a deposit of $20,000.00 which was made by the plaintiff to the defendant. It was further provided that in the event of a default by the plaintiff the defendant would be entitled to retain the $20,000.00 deposit and that the plaintiff would be liable for attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the parties.

The issues raised by the complaint, answer and counterclaim were whether the plaintiff or defendant defaulted under the terms of the contract and who was entitled to the deposit of $20,000.00.

The trial court, after hearing the testimony of the parties and their witnesses, and considering all the evidence, found that the plaintiff has defaulted under the terms of the contract; that the defendant had sustained at least $34,900.00 in damages; that the defendant was entitled to the $20,000.00 deposit and was indebted to defendant in the sum of $1,000.00 for the services of its attorneys.

The plaintiff’s appeal is from the final judgment entered by the court in accord with those findings.

The sole point on appeal is whether there was sufficient competent evidence before the trial court to support the judgment for the defendant-counterclaimant.

Findings of fact made by a trial judge in a non-jury case not only arrive in this court with a presumption as to their correctness but they will be reversed only upon a holding of the appellate court that the findings are without substantial, competent evidence to support them. City of Miami Beach v. Fein, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 258; Benedict v. Dade County Realty, Inc., Fla.App. 1973, 274 So.2d 553.

We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the above principles and have concluded that the record shows substantial competent evidence to support the trial judge’s findings and judgment. No reversible error having been demonstrated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
258 La. 972

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Warren J. MOITY.

No. 51472.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1971.

In re: Warren J. Moity applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Application denied. There is no error of law in the judgment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         100,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,189
<PP&E>                                          10,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,901
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,652
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,940)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,791)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)


</TABLE>
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Plandel Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 29, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rizalina Raneses, Secretary and Treasurer 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 to the best of 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Rizalina RanesesRizalina RanesesSecretary and TreasurerOctober 3, 2012
#### Leroy Raymond REDDICK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42577.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 18, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 264 So.2d 129.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
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 KinerjaPay Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2018 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Edwin Witarsa Ng,
CEO 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, as amended;
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/
    Edwin Witarsa Ng   | 
|-------------------------- | 
|Edwin
    Witarsa Ng       | 
|CEO                        | 
|Dated:
    August 14, 2018 | 



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to KinerjaPay Corp. and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### MARY CARTER PAINT CO., a foreign corporation d/b/a Contractors and Painters Supplies, Appellant, v. E. W. HODGE, Appellee.

No. 829.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Jack B. CASEY v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 44515.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 16, 1967.

L. Percy Quinn, Laurel, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by R. Hugo Newcomb, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE LUIS MERAZ, a.k.a. Samuel Cruz

Rivas, a.k.a. Abel Salazar, Jr., a.k.a. Jose

Luis Zaldivar-Meraz,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10436

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00888-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Meraz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 12-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of

a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

JUN 24 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10436

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Meraz contends that the government breached the plea agreement when it

argued in favor of a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range to which the

parties had stipulated. Because the district court rejected the plea agreement, the

government was not bound by the agreement. See United States v. Kuchinski, 469

F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2006). In any event, there was no breach because the

government did not attempt to influence the district court “to impose a harsher

sentence than the one to which the government agreed in the plea agreement to

recommend.” United States v. Allen, 434 F.3d 1166, 1175 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Meraz also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

explain adequately the sentence in light of Meraz’s specific arguments based on the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United

States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. 

The district court sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty,

520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in imposing Meraz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 
3 12-10436

Finally, Meraz contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Meraz’s sentence. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances , including Meraz’s criminal history. See id.

AFFIRMED.
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 Eurasia Design Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, John Ferrone, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated this 13th day of January, 2011.



| | JOHN FERRONE                                       
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | John Ferrone,                                      
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer















A signed original of these written statements 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 written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Eurasia Design Inc. and will be retained by Eurasia Design Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---