alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary information extracted from the Financial
Statements of Aquagenix, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements and related footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                        169,582
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,862,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                  209,928
<INVENTORY>                                   319,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,682,594
<PP&E>                                      3,904,253
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,396,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              7,287,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       5,907,023
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       53,261
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,194,377)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                7,287,747
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           16,346,480
<CGS>                                      13,697,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              26,179,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            900,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,079,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,733,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,346,192)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,079,811)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.48)


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY and PHILIP MORRIS US A INC.
, Appellant s ,

v.

MYRON KAPLAN , as Personal Representative of the

ESTATE OF SHEILA KAPLAN

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2880

[ March 16, 2022 ]

Appeal and cross appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case

No. 08

- 025823.

Scott A. Chesin and Michael Rayfield of Mayer Brown LLP, New York,

NY , and Geoffrey J. Michae l of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC , for appellant Philip Morris USA Inc

.

William L. Durham II and Val Leppert of King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta,

GA , for appellant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Bard D. Rockenbach of Burlington & Rockenbach, P .A., West Palm Beach, and Scott P. Schlesinger, Jonathan R. Gdanski and Brittany Chambers of Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

P ER C URIAM

.

In R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kaplan ( Kaplan I ) , 321 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) , we affirmed as to R.J. Reynold s’ argument that punitive damages were barred by section 768.73, Florida Statutes, based on our previous decision in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Konzelman , 248 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2018)

. 321 So. 3d at 269 n.1. In Konzelman

, we concluded that the pre

- 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes,2 applies in an Engle 1 progeny personal injury suit that is converted into a wrongful death action upon the smoker’s death. 248 So. 3d at 135.

In R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kaplan ( Kaplan II )

, SC21

- 1029, 2022 WL 500293 (Fla. Feb. 18, 2022) , our supreme court quashed Kaplan I and remanded with instructions for reconsideration upon application of its

decision in Sheff ield v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 329 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2021). In Sheffield

, our supreme court disapproved of our decision in

Konzelman and held that the 1999 amendments to section 768.73 apply

to Engle progeny wrongful death actions in which the decedent died after October 1, 1999. 329 So. 3d at 125

.

Based on Sheffield , we reverse and remand to the trial court for application of the amended version of section 768.73 in determining the punitive damage award as required by Sheffield

.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

C ONNER

, C.J., F ORST and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., con cur.

* * *

No further motions for rehearing shall be permitted

.

1 Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc. , 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).
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 Annual Report of Tradequest International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Luis Alvarez, CEO
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
SS. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


                                        /s/ Luis Alvarez
                                        ----------------
                                        Luis Alvarez, CEO, President,
                                        principal executive officer and
                                        principal financial and
                                        accounting officer

April 17, 2006

A signed original of this written statement 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
has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.4



                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                OBJECTSPACE, INC.

                     (Pursuant to Section 242 of the General
                    Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)


         ObjectSpace, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does
hereby certify as follows:

         FIRST: The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby
amended by replacing the first paragraph of Article FOURTH in its entirety with
the paragraph set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference. The remainder of Article FOURTH shall not be changed by this
Certificate of Amendment.

         SECOND: The Board of Directors of the Corporation at a duly held Board
meeting approved a resolution setting forth the above-referenced amendment,
declaring such amendment to be advisable, and calling for a vote of the
stockholders of the Corporation on such amendment.

         THIRD: The stockholders of the Corporation signed a written consent in
accordance with Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware approving the above-referenced amendment.

         FOURTH: The above-referenced amendment was duly adopted in accordance
with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.


                                      *****
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.4



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed and attested as of March 30, 2000.


                                         ObjectSpace, Inc.


                                         By:      /s/ DAVID NORRIS
                                            --------------------------------
                                                David Norris, President

ATTEST:


By:      /s/ PAUL A. LIPARI
   -------------------------------
      Paul A. Lipari,  Secretary




<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.4



                                    EXHIBIT A


         FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation shall
have authority to issue is 100,000,000 shares of capital stock, classified as
(i) 95,000,000 shares of common stock, $.01 par value ("Common Stock"), and (ii)
5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, $1.00 par value ("Preferred Stock").
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8227

KENNETH M. LEWIS, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

STAN BURTT, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(0:07-cv-00458-TLW) 

Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009 

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenneth M. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Kenneth M. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition for failing to exhaust state remedies. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
#### Alice DARLOW, Appellant, v. B. D. BOLEN and Lyle A. Johnson, Appellees.

No. 73-66.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1973.

David A. Graves, Coral Gables, for appellant.

John T. Woitesek, Miami, for appellees.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final judgment entered against her and for the ap-pellees in an action brought against her by appellees for an alleged breach of an exclusive agreement to pay appellees a real estate broker’s commission for finding a purchaser for appellant’s home.

*679The written listing agreement provided for a sale price of $14,500.00, terms all cash above the existing mortgage of $6,000.00.

Appellees tendered a sales contract executed by a customer agreeing to buy the property for $14,500.00, all cash above the existing mortgage. The contract acknowledged receipt of a $100.00 check to be held in escrow by the brokers. The agreement was dated and presented to the appellant on February 28, 1970 and provided that unless executed, by seller by midnight March 1st it would become void. It also provided that possession must be given up by the seller on March 31st, or 31 days after the contract was presented to the seller, regardless of the actual closing. The agreement called for the seller to furnish an abstract brought up to date, after which purchaser would have thirty days to close.

The seller, an elderly woman living only on her social security checks, directed the broker to send the contract to her brother in Atlanta for acceptance since she had executed a quit claim deed to him after listing the property for sale. Neither the brother nor the appellant ever signed the agreement for sale.

The brokers sued for a commission alleging that they had found a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy the property on the terms of the listing agreement. The appellant’s answer denied the material allegations of the complaint. The issues were tried non-jury and judgment was entered for the brokers for the commission in the amount claimed.

The point on appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in rendering judgment for the brokers.

We have carefully considered the record on appeal and briefs of counsel and have concluded that the brokers failed to prove that they performed all the things required of them under the listing agreement in that they failed to comply with paragraph two of the said agreement, providing that the usual and customary practice for closing the transaction shall apply. Therefore, the brokers were not entitled to a brokerage commission.

For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is reversed.

Reversed.
MEMORANDUM OF AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF
              REORGANIZATION BY AND BETWEEN ETHIKA CORPORATION AND
             TRADEQUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC. DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2000

     This Memorandum of Agreement is executed this 3rd Day of March, 2001 by
Ethika Corporation (Ethika) and Tradequest International, Inc. (Tradequest) with
reference to and by way of amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization
(the Reorganization Agreement) entered into by Ethika and Tradequest on or about
November 27, 2000.

     In consideration of the Reorganization Agreement and the performance
rendered pursuant thereto, Ethika and Tradequest agree as follows:

1.   Ethika and Tradequest agree that Section 3.2, Section 5.1(A) and Section
     5.2(B) of the Reorganization Agreement are hereby amended to require
     Closing on or before March 7, 2001.

2.   Ethika and Tradequest agree that the $300,000 to be paid to Ethika pursuant
     to Section Section 5.2(D) of which a $50,000 non refundable deposit has
     been paid will be paid as follows: $250,000 on or before March 7, 2001 and
     $50,000 on or before March 16, 2001.

3.   Closing will occur on the payment of the $250,000

4.   In consideration of extending the closing date and receiving a delayed
     payment, Fond Mondial will receive the approximate 866,000 shares of BNEZ
     as well as the shares of spin-off subsidiaries thereof held by Ethika.

5.   The exchanged share certificates required by Section 3.1(B) for the
     Tradequest shareholders will be held in escrow by Dennis Brovarone,
     Attorney at Law until such time that the remaining $50,000 is paid.

6.   All other terms and conditions of the Reorganization Agreement not
     specifically modified by this Memorandum of Agreement are reaffirmed as
     valid and in full force and effect.

ETHIKA CORPORATION                                TRADEQUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.


/s/ Dennis Brovarone                              /s/ Dean Casutt
---------------------------                       ----------------------
Dennis Brovarone, President                       Dean Casutt, President

FOND MONDIAL D'INVESTISSEMENT


By: /s/ Alfred Peeper, Authorized Representative
    --------------------------------------------
        Alfred Peeper, Authorized Representative

<PAGE>
February 9, 2012 ;;:r^J^^!ti:!Xp|:, 

I c D 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

Docl<et No. FAA-2012-0089 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

West Building Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Reference Sun Country slot exemption Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

This letter is to strongly urge you to allow continued flights to and from Lansing, 

Michigan to Washington DC originating in Minneapolis MN on Sun Country. 

Sun Country has been a welcome addition to Lansing. Lansing is the capitol of 

Michigan and East Lansing the home of Michigan State University. This flight is 

vital to the strength of our economy. Sun Country has committed to us and we 

appreciate it. 

This service is vital to our community. Please retain this flight to Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport. 

Sincerely, 

Carol Brownell 

1424 Fortune Drive 

East Lansing, Ml 48823
<PAGE>



                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1


                               September 14, 2000


                                                         Writer's Direct Contact
                                                             (415) 268-7000



NBC Internet, Inc.
225 Bush Street
San Francisco, California 94104

         Re:   Registration Statement on Form S-8

         At your request, we have examined the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 executed by you on September 14, 2000, and to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of an aggregate of
324,129 shares of your Class A common stock, $.0001 par value (the "Common
Stock") which will be issuable under the Connect Innovations, Inc. 1998 Stock
Plan, and the Globalbrain.net Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan (collectively the
"Plans").

         As your counsel in connection with the Registration Statement, we have
examined the proceedings taken by you in connection with the adoption of the
Plans and authorization of the issuance of 225,031 shares of Common
Stock under the Plans (the "Plans' Shares"), and such documents as we have
deemed necessary to render this opinion.

         Based upon the foregoing, it is our opinion that the Plans' Shares,
when issued and outstanding pursuant to the terms of the Plans, will be validly
issued, fully paid and non-assessable shares of Common Stock.

         We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement.

                                         Very truly yours,




                                         Morrison & Foerster LLP.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3571

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to limit expenditures

in House of Representatives elections.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Mr. POMEROY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

limit expenditures in House of Representatives elections.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES IN HOUSE OF

4 REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS.

5 Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act

6 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end

7 the following new subsection:

8 ‘‘(i) A candidate for the office of Representative in,

9 or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress
2

•HR 3571 IH

1 may not make expenditures with respect to an election for

2 such office, which, in the aggregate, exceed $300,000.’’.

3 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect

5 on the date on which mandatory limitations on campaign

6 expenditures are held to be constitutional by the Supreme

7 Court.

Æ
#### ADLER v. SCHEKTER.

No. 37201.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 207 So.2d 78.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 33-91238, File No. 33-94878, File No. 33-99730, File No. 333-105226, File No. 333-105227 and File No. 333-105232) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-120549) of U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries, U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of U.S.Xpress Enterprises, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

Our audit also included financial statement Schedule II of U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries listed in Item 15(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

 

 
|   | **/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP** |
|--------|-------------------------------|

 

Chattanooga, Tennessee

March 10, 2006
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3439

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit a State to provide

coverage of room and board furnished by a relative under home and

community-based waivers under the medicaid program if such coverage

may be provided on a budget-neutral basis.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 3, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit

a State to provide coverage of room and board furnished

by a relative under home and community-based waivers

under the medicaid program if such coverage may be

provided on a budget-neutral basis.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COVERAGE OF ROOM AND BOARD FURNISHED

4 BY RELATIVE UNDER HOME AND COMMU5 NITY-BASED MEDICAID WAIVERS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of section

7 1915(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
2

•HR 3439 IH

1 1396n(c)(1)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘caregiver’’

2 the following: ‘‘(or, at the option of the State, any related

3 personal caregiver, but only if the exercise by the State

4 of such option for a year will not result in greater expendi5 tures under the State plan during the year than would

6 have been made if the State did not exercise the option)’’.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

8 subsection (a) shall apply to services furnished under a

9 waiver under section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act

10 during quarters beginning on or after January 1, 1994.

Æ
#### Minnie G. BARRINGER, Appellant, v. Castle A. BARRINGER, Appellee.

No. P-427.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00296-CV

Derrick Harvey, #839342

v.

Darren Mayer

On Appeal from the

156th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-16-1500-CV-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant, Derrick Harvey although he is exempt from payment due to his 

inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 19, 2018