alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

AMBER AYERS LARKIN, 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, 

v. Case No. 5D16-1455

DENNIS MICHAEL LARKIN, 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed January 13, 2017 

Non-Final Appeal from the 

Circuit Court for Orange 

County, Bob Leblanc, Judge. 

Marc James Ayers, of Bradley Arant Boult,

Cummings, LLP, Birmingham Alabama, 

and Terry C. Young and Jennifer R. Dixon, 

of Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor &

Reed, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant/CrossAppellee.

Andrew F. Nickolaou, and Ophelia G. 

Bernal-Mora, of Bernal-Mora & Nickolaou, 

Winter Park, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

PER CURIAM. 

We affirm, without discussion, the trial court’s determination as to the proper 

distribution of the parties’ Morgan Stanley account pursuant to the terms of their marital 

settlement agreement. However, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to award 
2

the former wife a reasonable attorney’s fee. The marital settlement agreement provided 

for an award of fees to the prevailing party “in the event of a legal action or other 

proceeding arising under this Agreement.” Here, the former wife prevailed on the only 

significant issue resolved by the trial court in its post-judgment order. Therefore, we 

reverse the portion of the trial court’s order denying the former wife’s motion for attorney’s 

fees. 

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED. 

TORPY, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Memorandum 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meetings 

From: John Bradfield 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

To: Dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-6002, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 

This memorandum summarizes meetings held with stakeholders in the month of November, 2014 

On November 3, Air Quality Analysis Division Associate Director Juan Santiago and Sector Policy and 

Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Jeremy Tarr of the Duke University 

Nicholas Institute. Meeting handouts are attached. EPA generally answered basic questions about the 

clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

On November 13, Clean Air Markets Division Director Reid Harvey and Sector Policy and Programs 

Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Conrad Schneider ofthe Clean Air Task Force (CATF). 

EPA generally answered basic questions about the clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

On November 18, Sector Policy and Programs Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with 

Katherine Stainken Solar Energy Industry Association. Mr. Culligan generally answered basic questions 

about the clean power plan proposal for existing sources. 

On November 21, Clean Air Markets Division Director Reid Harvey and Sector Policy and Programs 

Division Associate Director Kevin Culligan met with Robert Manning of the Florida Electric Power 

Coordinating Group (FCG). EPA generally answered basic questions about the clean power plan 

proposal for existing sources. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
#### STATE of Alaska, Petitioner, v. Joseph ANDREW, Jr., Respondent.

No. S-862.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

May 9, 1986.

Cynthia M. Hora, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, and Harold M. Brown, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for petitioner.

Susan Orlansky, Barbara Brink, Asst. Public Defenders, and Dana Fabe, Public Defender, Anchorage, for respondent.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

BURKE, Justice.

We affirm and adopt the majority opinion of the court of appeals in *State v. Andrew,*694 P.2d 168 (Alaska App.1985), with three modifications. First, we express no opinion on the use of an express pretrial order requiring Criminal Rule 45 objections by a certain date. *See Andrew,*694 P.2d at 171. This issue was not before either the court of appeals or this court.

Second, we wish to clarify that defense counsel’s mere failure to calculate the 120 day period will not bar a waiver. *472Where a defendant’s attorney knows at the trial setting of all the circumstances that make the trial date violate Rule 45, but merely fails to calculate the relevant 120 day period, the court may imply a knowing waiver.

Third, we wish to clarify *whose*knowledge is relevant to determining the waiver. The court of appeals remanded to the trial court to determine whether Andrew’s counsel, Blair McCune, actually knew at the trial setting conference that the chosen date violated Rule 45. 694 P.2d at 171. The State now argues that on remand it should be able to examine other attorneys from the firm with which McCune is associated. The State wishes to impute their knowledge of Andrew’s circumstances to McCune.

Imputed knowledge, however, is constructive knowledge, not actual knowledge. Rule 45 waivers only aim to discourage silence at trial setting by individual defense lawyers then present in court who actually know that the chosen date violates the Rule. Thus, we will not impute the knowledge of attorneys not present at trial setting to the attorney who accepts the date.1

Nevertheless, the knowledge of other attorneys in the firm may be relevant for other purposes, such as establishing the trial setting attorney’s credibility. Thus, on remand the state may elicit such testimony to the extent that it is relevant and not barred by other considerations, such as undue delay or privilege.

The opinion of the majority of the court of appeals is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as MODIFIED above.

1

. Any manipulation of this rule by deliberately sending an attorney unfamiliar with a case to a trial setting conference will subject those responsible to professional discipline.
1

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         

      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    

     

    
      
         

      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    
      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          4

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

    

     

    
      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          5

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

    

     

    
      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          6

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

    

     

    
      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          7

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

    

     

    
      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          8

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

    

     

    
      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          9

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

    

     

    
      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          10
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Chris Craddock, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Sky Harvest Windpower Corp. (the Company) hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
      period ended November 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                    

Date: January 14, 2010

/s/ Chris Craddock Chris Craddock Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Sky Harvest
Windpower Corp. and will be retained by Sky Harvest Windpower Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# L_2006176EN.01010401.xml

| 30.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 176/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 176/104

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 12 April 2006

relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty

(Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP)

(notified under document number C(2006) 1548)

(Only the Spanish text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/446/EC)

On 12 April 2006 the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). A non-confidential version of the integral text of the decision in the authentic language as well as the working languages of the Commission is available on the Competition Directorate-General website at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_76.html#i38_348

1

(1)

This decision is addressed to Repsol Comercial de Productos Petroliferos, incorporated in Madrid, Spain (hereafter Repsol CPP), a company belonging to the Repsol-YPF oil group. The subject matter of the procedure is the supply of fuel to service stations in Spain and the conclusion, by Repsol CPP, of long-term exclusive supply agreements with service stations. In its preliminary assessment, the Commission considered that the non-compete clauses in the agreements notified by Repsol CPP, and in particular in the agreements of the DODO (2), tenancy and usufruct type, raised concerns under Article 81 of the EC Treaty insofar as they might create a significant foreclosure effect on the fuel retail market in Spain.

(2)

The Commission considers that the commitments offered by Repsol CPP are sufficient to address the identified competition concerns. In particular, Repsol CPP undertakes to offer to service stations concerned a concrete financial incentive to terminate the existing long-term supply agreements and to refrain from concluding further long-term exclusivity agreements. Further, Repsol CPP undertakes to refrain from buying independent DODO stations that it is not supplying. Accordingly, wholesale supply to a large number of service stations will be opened to competition.

(3)

The decision finds, in view of the commitments made binding on Repsol CPP, that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission.

(4)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 27 March 2006.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 8.3.2004, p. 1).

1

(2)

2

| DODO | = | Distributor owned, distributor operated. |
| --- | --- | --- |

DODO

=

Distributor owned, distributor operated.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



               MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                        2001             2000              1999
                                                   -------------    --------------    ----------------

<S>                                              <C>               <C>                <C>
Basic:
     Weighted average shares outstanding              8,512,196         8,511,834          8,588,216

Diluted:
     Weighted average shares outstanding              8,512,196         8,511,834          8,588,216
     Common stock equivalents                                --                --                 --
                                                   ------------      ------------      -------------
                                                      8,512,196         8,511,834          8,588,216
                                                   ============      ============      =============

Loss before extraordinary item and
     preferred dividend requirement                $ (6,509,719)     $(17,471,731)     $  (7,846,811)
Preferred dividend requirement                               --                --                 --
                                                   ------------      ------------      -------------

Loss applicable to common shareholders
     and before extraordinary item                   (6,509,719)      (17,471,731)        (7,846,811)
Extraordinary item                                           --                --         (1,706,416)
                                                   ------------      ------------      -------------

Net loss applicable to common
     shareholders                                    (6,509,719)      (17,471,731)        (9,553,227)
                                                   ============      ============      =============

Earnings per share:

Basic:
     Loss income before extraordinary item         $      (0.76)     $      (2.05)     $       (0.91)
     Extraordinary item                                      --                --              (0.20)
     Loss income                                          (0.76)            (2.05)             (1.11)

Diluted:
     Loss income before extraordinary item                (0.76)            (2.05)             (0.91)
     Extraordinary item                                      --                --              (0.20)
     Loss income                                          (0.76)            (2.05)             (1.11)

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      31.1




CERTIFICATION




I,
      James
      G. Reindl, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December
      31,
      2006, of Techprecision Corporation;




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 we
      have:




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




b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my 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 fourth fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




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 the
      registrant’s board of directors:




a)
      all
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control 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.




Dated:
              February 14, 2007
            
            /s/ James
              G.
              ReindlJames
              G. ReindlChief
                Executive Officer
# L_2006072EN.01001501.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 72/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/15

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2006/204/CFSP

of 10 March 2006

renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 30 March 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/293/CFSP renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1). These measures were renewed by Common Position 2005/227/CFSP (2) and are due to expire on 16 March 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 30 March 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/293/CFSP renewing measures in support of the effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1). These measures were renewed by Common Position 2005/227/CFSP (2) and are due to expire on 16 March 2006.

| (2) | The Council considers it necessary to renew the measures imposed by Common Position 2004/293/CFSP for a further period of 12 months, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Council considers it necessary to renew the measures imposed by Common Position 2004/293/CFSP for a further period of 12 months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Common Position 2004/293/CFSP shall be extended until 16 March 2007.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2006.

For the Council

The President

M. BARTENSTEIN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 94, 31.3.2004, p. 65. Common Position as last amended by Decision 2005/83/CFSP (OJ L 29, 2.2.2005, p. 50).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 74.

2

---
# Press Release

Director Bromwich to Host Public Meetings Nationwide to Discuss Deepwater Drilling Safety, Containment and Spill Response

Experts from Academia, Industry, and Environmental Organizations Will Provide Testimony

07/19/2010

Contact: Nicholas Pardi, BOEM (202) 208-3985

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Michael R. Bromwich, Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEM), announced today that he will be leading a series of public meetings to collect information and views about deepwater drilling safety reforms, blowout containment, and oil spill response. Bromwich will be soliciting input from the general public, state and local leaders, and experts from academia, the environmental community, and the oil and gas industry.

“We will engage the public and experts on these issues to determine what additional measures are needed so that deepwater drilling can proceed in a manner that is safe for crews, the environment, and coastal communities,” Bromwich said. “It’s important that we hear from those who have been directly affected by the BP Oil Spill, as well as from other stakeholders, including the conservation community and the oil and gas industry itself.”

“We need to know that industry got the message,” Bromwich continued, “and that they are quickly taking steps to ensure deepwater drilling operations are safe. They also have to demonstrate to us that they can contain a catastrophic blowout similar to BP Oil Spill as well as respond appropriately in the event of another oil spill.”

The suspensions announced last week established a temporary pause of deepwater drilling in order to address issues related to drilling, blowout containment, and oil spill response, including to allow time to collect additional information regarding these issues through public outreach and ongoing investigations into the Deepwater Horizon incident.

The suspensions are set to last until November 30, 2010, or until such earlier time that the Secretary determines that deepwater drilling operations can proceed safely.“Because we’re interested in getting input from a variety of sources, we plan to hold the meetings in seven states – Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas,” Bromwich said. “We’re working on finalizing the planning for thes e meetings, including the specific locations and dates, and will have another announcement with those details very soon.”

Meetings are currently being scheduled to occur in August in the following cities: New Orleans, LA, Lafayette, LA, Mobile, AL, Pensacola, FL, Santa Barbara, CA, and Anchorage, AK. Meetings will be held in early September in the following cities: Biloxi, MS and Houston, TX.

The meeting format planned is one that will allow representatives from academia, industry, and environmental organizations to serve as panel members to provide testimony, combined with the opportunity for audience members to provide public comment during the meeting.

Additionally, the public will be able to submit comments in person at the meetings, online, and by mail.

###