alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2022

- 3667

_____________________________
L ARRY B RYANT N ETTLES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Timothy Register , Judge

. March 8, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , N ORDBY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 83 9 . KELL v . J P MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

Th e ap pel l ee h as fi l ed a m o t io n t o di s m i s s th i s cas e fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

. On

J u n e 3 0

, 2 01 4, t h e tri al co u rt d en i ed ap pel l an t ’s m o t i o n s eek i n g p au per s t at u s

. On

J u l y 2 1, 2 0 1 4

, th e co u rt en t ered an o rd er d en y i n g ap p el l an t ’s m o t i o n fo r p art i al

s u m m ary ju d g m en t

. Ap p el l an t fi l ed a t i m el y n o ti ce o f d i rect ap peal fro m th e co urt ’ s

d en ial o f p au p er s t at u s o n J u l y 2 9

, 2 0 1 4 (d o ck et ed as A1 5 A 1 7 3 0 ). On Au g u s t 1 9,

2 0 1 4

, h owev er, t h e ap p el l an t fi l ed a s ep arat e “ No ti ce o f Di rect Ap peal ” fro m t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t

. Bu t t h e den i al o f a m o t i o n

fo r p art i al s u m

m ary ju dg m en t req u i res an ap p l i cat i o n fo r i n terl o c u t o r y rev i ew

fo l l o w i n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s certif ic a ti o n o f th e m at t er fo r i m m ed i at e rev i ew. See OCGA

§ 5 -6 -3 4 (b ). An d

, ev en as su m i n g t h at ap p el l an t co u l d h av e rai s ed t h e d en i al o f t h e

m o ti o n fo r p art i al s u m

m ary ju dg m en t i n h i s p en d i n g d i rect ap p eal o f th e den i al o f

p au per s t at u s

, h e fai l ed t o do so

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (d ) (wh ere ap p eal i s t ak en u n d er

an y p ro v is i o n of s u bs ect io n (a), (b ), o r (c) o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4

, al l ju d g m en t s

, ru l i n g s

,

o r o rd ers ren d ered i n th e cas e rai s ed s h al l b e rev iewed w i t ho u t reg ard t o ap peal ab i l i t y

o f ju dg m en t o r ru l i n g s t an d i n g al o n e). Becau s e t h i s co u rt i s d ep ri v ed o f j u ri s d i ct i o n

i n t hi s m at t er, t h e ap p el l ee’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m is s t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y GRANTED. January 14, 2016C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 01/14/2016
Letter Agreement, dated January 12, 2007--Plainfield Direct LLC


 Exhibit 10.7.2 
 Synova Healthcare Group, Inc. 
 1400 N. Providence Road 
 Suite 6010, Building II 
 Media, PA 19063

 January 12, 2007 
 Plainfield Asset Management LLC 
 55 Railroad Avenue 
 Greenwich, CT 06830 
 Attn: Jean Smith 
  

	 	Re:	Synova Healthcare Group, Inc. 

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

This letter evidences our agreement that upon closing of, and your funding under, the financing contemplated by that certain Securities Purchase
Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, among Synova Healthcare Group, Inc., Synova Healthcare, Inc., Synova Pre-Natal, Inc. and the various investors identified therein, Synova Healthcare Group, Inc. shall reimburse you (or, at your written
direction, pay on your behalf) your actual legal expenses incurred in connection with such Securities Purchase Agreement, not to exceed $10,000. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	SYNOVA HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Stephen E. King
		 	Stephen E. King, Chairman and CEO
EXHIBIT 32.2

Section 906 Certification

In connection with the report on Form 10-Q of NCI, Inc. (the Company)
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, to the
best of her knowledge and belief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |                                                                                                   
|----------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 4, 2007 |  | /s/ JUDITH L. BJORNAAS                                                                            
|                  |  | Judith L. Bjornaas Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NCI, Inc. and will be
retained by NCI, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Diario Oficial C 210A/25 d

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 210A |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 65.° año25 de mayo de 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 210A

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

65.° año25 de mayo de 2022

---

| Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrección de errores |
| 2022/C 210 A/01 | Corrección de errores de la Empresa Común para una Europa Circular de Base Biológica (Empresa Común CBE) — Publicación de una vacante para el puesto de director ejecutivo (h/m) (Agente temporal — Grado AD 14) — COM/2022/20077 ( DO C 206 A de 23.5.2022 ) | 1 |

Sumario

Página

Corrección de errores

2022/C 210 A/01

Corrección de errores de la Empresa Común para una Europa Circular de Base Biológica (Empresa Común CBE) — Publicación de una vacante para el puesto de director ejecutivo (h/m) (Agente temporal — Grado AD 14) — COM/2022/20077 ( DO C 206 A de 23.5.2022 )

( DO C 206 A de 23.5.2022 )

1

---

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

Corrección de errores

| 25.5.2022 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CA 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2022

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CA 210/1

---

Corrección de errores de la Empresa Común para una Europa Circular de Base Biológica (Empresa Común CBE) — Publicación de una vacante para el puesto de director ejecutivo (h/m) (Agente temporal — Grado AD 14) — COM/2022/20077

(
  Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea C 206 A de 23 de mayo de 2022
  )

(2022/C 210 A/01)

En la página 5, en la sección «Plazo límite», en el primer párrafo:

| donde dice: | «El plazo de inscripción finaliza el 13 de junio de 2022, a las 12.00 horas (hora de Bruselas), momento a partir del cual ya no será posible la inscripción.», |
| --- | --- |

donde dice:

«El plazo de inscripción finaliza el 13 de junio de 2022, a las 12.00 horas (hora de Bruselas), momento a partir del cual ya no será posible la inscripción.»,

| debe decir: | «El plazo de inscripción finaliza el 4 de julio de 2022, a las 12.00 horas (hora de Bruselas), momento a partir del cual ya no será posible la inscripción.». |
| --- | --- |

debe decir:

debe decir:

«El plazo de inscripción finaliza el 4 de julio de 2022, a las 12.00 horas (hora de Bruselas), momento a partir del cual ya no será posible la inscripción.».

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Southern Company Services, Inc.:

### 2012 Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning Process (SERTP) 1st Quarter Meeting—Regional Planning Stakeholders' Group Meeting and Interactive Training Session

March 14, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Local Time

The above-referenced meeting will be held at:

Alabama Power Company Corporate Headquarters, Room 4H, Birmingham, Alabama

The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

                    Further information may be found at:                     *www.southeasternrtp.com.*

The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

                    Docket No. ER10-2881,                     *Alabama Power Company, et al.*

                    Docket No. ER10-2882,                     *Southern Power Company, et al.*

                    Docket No. ER10-2883,                     *Mississippi Power Company, et al.*

                    Docket No. ER10-2884,                     *Georgia Power Company, et al.*

                    Docket No. ER10-2885,                     *Gulf Power Company, et al.*

                    Docket No. ER11-3429,                     *Alabama Power Company*

                    Docket No. ER12-337,                     *Mississippi Power Company*

                    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6139 or                     *Valerie.Martin@ferc.gov.*

Dated: March 7, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-5993 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10365 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus IGNACIO ENRIQUEZ-BLANCO; ROGELIO ALVELAIS, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CR-221-7-X

- - - - - - - - - - November 3, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Ignacio Enriquez-Blanco on appeal has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Enriquez has filed no response to this brief. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-28-1997     
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                 1,149,013
<SECURITIES>                                   0      
<RECEIVABLES>                            936,015       
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0       
<INVENTORY>                              632,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,751,548
<PP&E>                                 6,686,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        13,976,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,849,253
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          13,976,106
<SALES>                               15,867,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      15,867,868
<CGS>                                  8,194,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         13,138,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       9,040,869
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       424,533
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (6,736,157)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                          (6,736,157)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
# Flight Report

Session #:

Aircraft:

Battery:

Start V:

________ __________ ________

End V: Wind Speed:

Flight Start:

Flight End:

Duration:

Flying Style:

Preflight, Aircraft Completed skipped or NA Preflight, Camera(s)

Main battery fully charged:

Props secure

ESCs and motors cool

Transmitter(s) on

Transmitter switches set V Camera mounted

Gimbal drop

- pins in place

Verify memory card installed

Memory card formatted (3)

Remove lens caps

Camera checklist complete (1) Verify WiFi disabled/turned off (4)

Main battery connected / turned on

Compass calibrated

GPS lock obtained

Control link and response check

Video link check

Notes: Start recording (if necessary)

Postflight, Aircraft

Check motor temperatures:

Check ESC temperatures:

Complete pilot, flight and aircraft logs

Download flight logs from onboard recorder

(1) Manipulating camera while gimbal energized can damage gimbal motors and/or corrupt calibration

(2) Energizing gimbal without camera mounted can damange gimbal

(3) Or at least ensure enough free space for flight recording

(4) The control link is also 2.4Ghz, leaving WiFi enabled may “desensitize” control link receiver

2014

- 10

- 02 16:30PowerOnChecklist
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements of Naptau Gold Corporation for the years ended December 31,
2000, 1999 and 1998 (audited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such Financial Statements
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                  84
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                  84
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          84
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              759,403
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             5,934
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,582,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            84
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   117,228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (117,228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (117,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (117,228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.02)



</TABLE>
#### Kathleen L. Coyle, Appellant, v Oren E. Barker et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated November 2, 1989, which denied her motion for an order setting aside certain documents executed in a stipulation of settlement of the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff, by motion, sought to set aside certain documents, including a broad general release and an unconditional *757stipulation of discontinuance, settling this personal injury action. She claimed that owing to a "mutual mistake”, she settled the case before she realized that what she thought were only "soft tissue” injuries proved, some two years after the accident, to include a herniated disc. However, assuming there is a causal link between the accident and the later claimed injury, the plaintiff failed to establish that the herniated disc was nothing more than the unanticipated consequence of known injuries *(see, Mangini v McClurg,*24 NY2d 556). Further, the record demonstrates that the plaintiff’s physicians diagnosed the herniated disc five months *before*the plaintiff settled the action. Her application was thus without basis.

We note that although the plaintiff should have proceeded by way of a plenary action *(cf., Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold,*48 NY2d 51; *HCE Assocs. v 3000 Watermill Lane Realty Corp.,*131 AD2d 543), the parties have acquiesced in the procedures used *(cf., Stevenson v News Syndicate Co.,*302 NY 81, 87; *Mineroff v Macy’s & Co.,*97 AD2d 535, 536). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s application on the merits. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Fiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jason Kanter, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 24, 1990, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits.

Claimant admitted at the hearing that, in addition to attending college classes two days a week, he participated in an internship program three days per week for approximately six hours per day for which he was paid. He also admitted that he had not disclosed these facts upon his application for unemployment insurance benefits. Under these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was not totally unemployed and was unavailable for employment is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Richman [Ross],*67 AD2d 746, *lv denied*46 NY2d 711). Furthermore, the work-study exclusions apply only where the student is less than 22 years old or where the services are to the educational institution itself, neither of which is applicable to this case (Labor Law § 511 [15], [17]). Finally, the facts also support the finding that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits *(see, Matter of Muller [Levine],*50 AD2d 1005, *lv denied*40 NY2d 806).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Blair, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Failla, J.), rendered May 24, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (four counts), and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to four consecutive terms of imprisonment of fifteen years to life on the first degree robbery counts and a concurrent term of ten years to life on the second degree robbery count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, a persistent violent felon and an admitted drug user, was convicted of four separate knifepoint robberies against women, committed between October 20 and November 7, 1988, in the Sixth Avenue subway tunnel. One of the victims was shoved by the defendant down subway stairs, causing her to fracture her arm.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, his absence, and that of his attorney, from a hearing conducted by the trial court, outside of the presence of the jury, relating solely to the scope of defendant’s telephone privileges—following a threat made to one of the prosecution witnesses—had no "relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge” *(Snyder v Massachusetts,*291 US 97, 105-106). Insofar as the same witness gave testimony at trial concerning the menacing telephone call, we note the defendant had an opportunity to hear all the jury heard and to cross-examine the threatened witness *(see, People v Turaine,*162 AD2d 262).

Defendant was not denied a fair trial by certain summation remarks by the prosecutor. Insofar as the prosecutor suggested that the People were entitled to a safe community, as well as the right to a fair trial commensurate to that enjoyed by the defendant, we note that these comments were couched in moderate terms *(cf., People v Lombardi,*20 NY2d 266), and did not suggest that the interest of justice would be served only by a conviction of the defendant *(cf., People v Moore,*26 AD2d 902). Further, the court promptly sustained defendant’s objections to portions of the prosecutor’s summation. While *173the prosecutor did allude to the religious beliefs of one of the witnesses while commenting on the witness’ credibility, we note that the challenged remark was unobjected to, isolated, and harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Curley,*159 AD2d 969, *lv denied*76 NY2d 733).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.