alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-41233

Summary Calendar

ELIZABETH DUGAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

Jefferson County, Texas, et al.,

Defendants,

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-437)

September 2, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elizabeth Dugas (“Dugas”) appeals from the district court jury

verdict in her suit against Jefferson County, Texas, for
2

compensatory damages for an unconstitutional strip search she

suffered in Jefferson County jail. Dugas claims the district court

erred in denying her motion for a new trial and for denying

attorney’s fees and adequate costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record.

Finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM for essentially the same

reasons enunciated by the district court.
#### William Long Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*J. S. Wilcox, *et al.,*Defendant in Error.

1. Judgment affirmed for want of exceptions.

*Error to Washington Circuit Court.*

*G. Van Alen*and *Emerson &*Dillingham, for Plaintiff in Error.

*Reynolds & Relfe,*for Defendant in Error.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are asked to review the action of the Circuit Court on the evidence and instructions given and refused, without any exception being saved to the action of the court in overruling the motion for anew trial.

The object of a motion for a new trial, is to allow the Circuit Court to correct the errors made during the progress of the trial. If the motion be overruled, and no exceptions saved, the presumption is that the party acquiesced in the ruling of the court and "he is not entitled to any relief here.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Judge Wagner concurs. Judge Bliss absent.
# Intro

# Core Q1-14, 16-89

# Core Perf Q15

# Core Trend Items

# Pandemic Phy. Present Q90

# Telework Remote Work Q91-Q95

# Pandemic Ldrs Q96-Q99

# Demographics
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00100-CV

JOSHUA AREY AND ROGINA KIMMONS,

Appellants

v.

THE SHIPMAN AGENCY, INC.,

Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-002869-CV-85

ORDER

Appellants’ Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Interlocutory 

Appeal is granted. Accordingly, appellants’ notice of appeal was timely filed with the 

trial court on March 20, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Order issued and filed March 28, 2018
# Uradni list C 33A/8. f

| | ISSN 1725-5244 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 33A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 488. februar 2005 |

ISSN 1725-5244

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 33A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 488. februar 2005

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Objave |
| | Evropska obrambna agencija |
| 2005/C 033A/1 | Obvestilo o prostih delovnih mestih | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

III   Objave

Evropska obrambna agencija

2005/C 033A/1

Obvestilo o prostih delovnih mestih

1

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

III Objave

Evropska obrambna agencija

| 8.2.2005 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 33/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2005

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 33/1

---

OBVESTILO O PROSTIH DELOVNIH MESTIH

(2005/C 33 A/01)

Evropska obrambna agencija namerava zaposliti:

| — | v Enoti za načrtovanje in usmeritve

  1 višjega asistenta (sklic EDA/A/2005/006) |
| --- | --- |

—

v Enoti za načrtovanje in usmeritve

1 višjega asistenta (sklic EDA/A/2005/006)

| — | v Direktoratu za zmogljivosti

  1 tajnika/pisarniškega delavca (sklic EDA/A/2005/028) |
| --- | --- |

—

v Direktoratu za zmogljivosti

1 tajnika/pisarniškega delavca (sklic EDA/A/2005/028)

| — | v Direktoratu za oborožitev

  1 višjega odgovornega referenta za oborožitveno politiko (sklic EDA/A/2005/045)
  2 višja odgovorna referenta za oborožitveno sodelovanje (sklic EDA/A/2005/048 in 049) |
| --- | --- |

—

v Direktoratu za oborožitev

1 višjega odgovornega referenta za oborožitveno politiko (sklic EDA/A/2005/045)

2 višja odgovorna referenta za oborožitveno sodelovanje (sklic EDA/A/2005/048 in 049)

| — | v Direktoratu za industrijo in trg

  1 višjega odgovornega referenta za obrambno industrijo (sklic EDA/A/2004/054)
  1 višjega odgovornega referenta za obrambni trg (sklic EDA/A/2004/057)
  1 višjega referenta (sklic EDA/A/2004/58) |
| --- | --- |

—

v Direktoratu za industrijo in trg

1 višjega odgovornega referenta za obrambno industrijo (sklic EDA/A/2004/054)

1 višjega odgovornega referenta za obrambni trg (sklic EDA/A/2004/057)

1 višjega referenta (sklic EDA/A/2004/58)

| — | v Direktoratu za raziskave in tehnologijo

  4 tehnične projektne referente (sklic EDA/A/2005/037, 038, 039 in 040) |
| --- | --- |

—

v Direktoratu za raziskave in tehnologijo

4 tehnične projektne referente (sklic EDA/A/2005/037, 038, 039 in 040)

| — | v Direktoratu za upravne zadeve

  2 referenta za pogodbe (sklic EDA/A/2005/064 in 065)
  1 višjega pisarniškega delavca — Oddelek za infrastrukturo (sklic EDA/A/2005/074) |
| --- | --- |

—

v Direktoratu za upravne zadeve

2 referenta za pogodbe (sklic EDA/A/2005/064 in 065)

1 višjega pisarniškega delavca — Oddelek za infrastrukturo (sklic EDA/A/2005/074)

Rok: 25. februar 2005, upoštevan bo datum poštnega žiga.

Dodatne informacije (v angleškem jeziku) in prijavni obrazci so na voljo na spletni strani Sveta: http://ue.eu.int (stiki/prosta delovna mesta)

---
#### Davis *v.*State Workmen’s Insurance Fund et al., Appellants.

*183Argued April 25,1941.

Before Keller, P. J., Baldrige, Stadteeld, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.

October 2, 1941:

*8. H. Torchia,*with him *Ralph 3. Behney*and *Glande T. Reno,*Attorney General, for appellants.

*Scott Fink,*with him *G. B. 3oiling%oorth,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Kenworthey, J.,

In this compensation case, the referee made an award, which was sustained by the board and by the court of common pleas.

The petition was filed during the lifetime of the employee, who died before the hearing. The referee found the employee had an accident on January 15, 1934, causing a hernia and an injury to his hip; that the accident caused or aggravated a sarcoma of the buttocks, which totally disabled him on November 21, 1934, and from which he died on May 15, 1935. Based upon these findings, the referee made an award for total disability for a period from November 28, 1934 to May 15, 1935, and for death from the latter date. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that the accident caused the disability and death.

*184There was evidence that on the date of the alleged accident the employee, while pushing a coal car in the defendant’s mine, slipped and fell, striking his hip against the rail and sustaining a hernia. Thereafter, although he continued to work until August 18, 1934, when he was admitted to the hospital for an operation for the hernia, there was some evidence that he was partially disabled because of the hernia. He was discharged from the hospital on September 21, 1934, and it does not clearly appear whether he worked thereafter. At any rate, the sarcoma was subsequently discovered when he was readmitted to the hospital on February 13, 1935. There was no evidence of direct injury at the point of development of the sarcoma nor was there any evidence that the injury to the hip was in itself responsible for any disability.

In our opinion, there was no evidence to sustain the finding that there Avas a causal connection between the alleged accident and the sarcoma. The only medical testimony offered by claimant is the testimony of Dr. James F. Blair as follows: “Q. What was the cause of his death? A. Well, as near as' I could determine, I signed the death certificate ‘Sarcoma of the left hip.’ But I tried to get his plates and charts from the hospital, but I haven’t been able to. I haven’t access to anything but as near as I could determine that is Avhat I thought it Avas. Q. Could that have been caused by an injury that he suffered? A. They say 52% of sarcoma is that way. Q. Beg your pardon? A. 52% of sarcoma may be caused by previous injury. Q. By injury? A. May be; yes. Q. He died when, doctor? A. 5-16-35.” This clearly does not measure up to the required standard, *Monahan v. Seeds and Durham,*336 Pa. 67, 6 A. (2d) 889; *Elonis v. Lytle,*134 Superior Ct. 264, 3 A. (2d) 995.

Judgment is reversed and entered for defendant.
----

Action brought on 11 October 2004 by Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-405/04)

(2004/C 314/56)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 October 2004 by Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg (Germany), represented by M. Wolter, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

----
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1283

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ACCELERON LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in

case no. 07-CV-650, Judge Sue L. Robinson.

ON MOTION

Before LINN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) moves to expedite briefing and oral argument in

this appeal. Acceleron LLC consents.

HP states that it reached agreement with Acceleron concerning expediting of the

briefing schedule. Based on the parties' agreement, the court agrees that expedited

briefing is appropriate. With respect to oral arguMent, although HP has not shown that

oral argument should be expedited, it is the usual practice of this court to assign cases

to an oral argument calendar promptly after briefing is completed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1)	The motion to expedite briefing is granted to the extent that HP's brief is

due no later than April 22, 2009, Acceleron's brief is due within 30 days of the date of
service of HP's brief, and HP's reply brief and the appendix are due within seven days

of the date of service of Acceleron's brief.

(2)	The motion to expedite oral argument is denied.

FOR THE COURT

APR 2 0 2009	/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date	 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Jason W. Cook, Esq.

Charlene M. Morrow, Esq.

s17

US. COURr55PPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APR 2 0 2009

HUliDALY

CLERK

2009-1283	 2
**Exhibit10.112****AMENDMENT TO COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT**This Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Warrant (this “**Amendment**”), effective as of February 29, 2008,by and between Applied Digital Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “**Company**”), and ValensOffshore SPV I, Ltd. (“**Holder**”) amends that certain Common Stock Purchase Warrant,issued as of October 31, 2007, by the Company in favor of Holder and exercisable into up to1,269,431 shares of Common Stock of the Company (as amended, modified or supplemented from time totime, the “**Warrant**”).**PREAMBLE****WHEREAS**, the Company issued and sold the Warrant to Holder;**WHEREAS**, the parties wish to amend the Warrant in connection with the Amendment of Warrantsand Conditional Consent to Asset Sales made and entered into effective as of February 29, 2008, byand among Kallina Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Laurus Master Fund, Ltd., a Delawarecorporation, Valens U.S. SPV I, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Holder, Valens Offshore SPV II, Corp.,a Delaware corporation, PSource Structured Debt Limited, a Guernsey limited liability closed-endedcompany, and the Company.**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the covenants, agreements and conditions hereinafter setforth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:1. The definition of “Exercise Price” in the Warrant is hereby deleted and replaced by thefollowing:The “Exercise Price” applicable under this Warrant shall be the price of $0.70 per share foreach share acquired hereunder.2. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof following the execution anddelivery of this Amendment by each of the Company and Holder (the “**Amendment Effective Date**”).3. Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, there are no other amendments,modifications or waivers to the Warrant, and all of the other forms, terms and provisions of theWarrant remains in full force and effect.4. This Amendment shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors andpermitted assigns and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by each of the partieshereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. **THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUEDAND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.**This Amendmentmay be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of whichshall constitute one instrument.
 
 

 
**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, each of the parties hereto has executed this Amendment or has caused thisAmendment to be executed on its behalf by a representative duly authorized, all as of the datefirst above set forth.       COMPANY: HOLDER:       APPLIED DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC. VALENS OFFSHORE SPV I, LTD.       By: /s/ Lorraine M. Breece By: /s/ Scott Bluestein       Name: Lorraine M. Breece Name: Scott Bluestein       Title: Senior VP and Acting CFO Title: Authorized Signatory       
 Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Warrant
<page>



										  EXHIBIT 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey A. Rothman, President of Demeter Management Corporation
("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this 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 report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are 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 have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, 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
report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	 Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and

<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

	b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:   March 30, 2004      /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman
	Jeffrey A. Rothman
	President,
	Demeter Management Corporation,
	general partner of the registrant
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 ContinuityX Solutions
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q, for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony Roth, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice-President
of ContinuityX Solutions Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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, 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.



|Date: February 14, 2012 | By:                                                                                        | /s/ Anthony Roth
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------
|                        | Anthony Roth                                                                              
|                        | Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
        (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 4.3**

 

*Translationfrom French*

*for information purposes only*

 

BNP Paribas

 

 

Euro Disney SCA

BP 100

77777 Marne La Vallee Cedex 4

 

Attention: Mr Speed

 

 

Paris, September 28, 2004

 

 

**RE: Approval of the memorandum of agreement dated June8, 2004 relating to the restructuring of the Euro Disney Group as amended by aletter dated September 20, 2004 (the “Memorandum of Agreement”)**

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

In our capacity as Agent of the Phase IA Banks, wehereby inform you that your request formulated through your letter datedSeptember 20, 2004 relating to the approval of the amended June 8, 2004Memorandum of Agreement was unanimously approved.

 

Please note, however, that certain creditors haveexpressly indicated that their approval was subject to satisfactory final documentation(in particular, an extension, in due course and should the creditors requestone, of the term of the current hypothecs in order to match the final maturityof the loans).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 
| BNP PARIBAS    |         |
|----------------|--------------|
|           |         |
| Martine Aubert | Olivier Jean |
|                |              |  |

 

 

Copy: CALYON (X Monteau, J.H. Cariou)

Copy: CDC (C Le Corre)

 

----
#### John DeGradi, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Stella DeGradi, Deceased, Respondent, v Coney Island Medical Group, P. C., et al., Appellants.

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated September 11, 1989, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer so as to interpose an affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

*583The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to amend their answer so as to interpose the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations. It is well settled that leave to serve an amended answer should be freely granted "unless the amendment sought is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law or unless prejudice or surprise directly results from delay in serving such amendment” *(Barnes v County of Nassau,*108 AD2d 50, 52; *see also, Fahey v County of Ontario,*44 NY2d 934). In the instant case, the plaintiff failed to establish that any prejudice or surprise would result from the granting of the proposed amendment. The mere fact that the proposed amendment may defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action is an insufficient basis for denying leave to amend *(see, Burack v Burack,*122 AD2d 101, 103).

Moreover, upon amendment of the answer, the defendants were further entitled to dismissal of the complaint. By the terms of the affiliation agreement between Coney Island Medical Group (hereinafter CIMG) and the Health and Hospitals Corporation of the City of New York (hereinafter HHC), it is clear that CIMG, as well as the doctors who service Coney Island Hospital, must be characterized as employees of HHC *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-k [1] [e]). Therefore, they are entitled to the benefits of the abbreviated statutory period of limitation set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-i *(see, Norr v Spiegler,*53 NY2d 661, 663, *affg*72 AD2d 20; *Derlicka v Leo,*281 NY 266; *see generally, Urraro v Green,*106 AD2d 567; *Albano v Hawkins,*82 AD2d 871). As the plaintiff failed to commence his action within the abbreviated statutory period of one year and 90 days, the action is time-barred *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-i). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-90418) pertaining to the InPhyNet Medical Management
Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan and InPhyNet Medical Management Inc. 1994
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 14, 1997,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of InPhyNet
Medical Management Inc. and Subsidiaries included in its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.



March 27, 1997                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Miami, Florida