alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Edward CRAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-82-88.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 27, 1982.

*221David' Miller, Asst. Public Defender, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Robert W. Cole, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, James Edward Crain, was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-81-2979, of Pointing a Firearm at Another, and Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon, After Former Conviction of a Felony, was sentenced to five (5) and twenty (20) years’ imprisonment, respectively, and he,appeals.

Testimony was received at trial that the appellant and Joyce Crain, who were divorced but living together, became embroiled in an argument on June 27, 1981, which culminated with the appellant firing shots from a pistol at Joyce, one of which hit her in the left shoulder as she ran to a neighbor’s house. As the neighbor, Brenda Nichols, was telephoning the police, the appellant entered her home and pointed the gun at her. Officer Clark, who responded to the call, arrested the appellant and found a gun in the grass where Joyce Crain told him James had thrown it; it contained three live and three spent shells. The appellant took the stand and denied shooting his wife or pointing a gun at Ms. Nichols; rather, he maintained that Joyce’s wound occurred when he hit her with a corner of an ashtray.

The appellant argues that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s referral to him as the “criminal defendant” on thirteen (13) occasions prejudiced him, was evidence of “other crimes,” and violated the holding of *Burks*v. *State,*594 P.2d 771 (Okl.Cr.App.1979).

Although we do not condone the use of the adjective “criminal” by the prosecutor, in referring to Crain, we do not find that the use of such term is a violation of Burks, supra, as the appellant alleges. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced thereby.

Moreover, the appellant has not properly preserved the issue for appeal, as a review of the record reflects that he wholly failed to object to the use of the term during trial, and such an issue was not presented in his motion for new trial nor in his petition in error. *Butler*v. *State,*645 P.2d 1030 (Okl.Cr.App,1982). In view of the overwhelming evidence of the guilt of the appellant, and finding no error which is jurisdictional or fundamental in character which would justify modification or reversal, the judgments and sentences appealed from are AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P.J., and CORNISH, J., concur.
#### HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 87-1918.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 6, 1988.

Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Daniel N. Burton and Judith W. Simmons of Foley & Lardner, Tampa, for appellant.

Duncan B. Dowling, III, of Rogers and Dowling, P.A., Orlando, and Dennis J. Wall, Orlando, for appellee.

ORDER

This appeal seeks review of orders of the trial court granting motions for partial summary judgment and to dismiss the Third Amended Fourth Party Complaint. Rule 1.100, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that all motions “shall state with particularity the grounds therefor” and rule 1.140 requires that motions to dismiss shall state “the grounds on which any of the enumerated defenses are based and the substantial matters of law intended to be argued shall be stated specifically and with particularity.” Rule 1.510 requires that a motion for summary judgment “shall state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued.” Appellate review of orders granting such motions requires the court to consider such grounds. The record on appeal in this case contains 847 pages of pleadings and transcripts of hearing. The record on appeal in case number BO-26, which is included in this appeal by order of this court dated July 1, 1988, contains over 1400 pages, excluding trial transcripts and depositions. Rule 9.210, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, requires that “references to the appropriate pages of the record or transcript shall be made” by the parties in their briefs on appeal. Our review of the briefs filed by the parties in this cause reveals that the statement of the case and facts fail to contain appropriate references to the record sufficient to permit the court to identify the precise motions and orders being referred to. Instead, the statements of the case and facts dwell too much upon matters argued to the trial judge during hearings on various motions, some of which are not the subject of this appeal and do not appear to be relevant to our review of the appealed orders. None of the briefs identifies the specific grounds of the motions that were granted or directs argument to those specific grounds. This court has neither the time nor disposition to cull through such lengthy records in an attempt to locate the relevant motions and orders. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the briefs of both parties are stricken for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 9.210(b)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant shall have twenty (20) days from the date of this order within which to serve an amended brief complying with the require*1050ments of the rule. Appellee shall have twenty (20) days after service of appellant’s brief within which to serve its answer brief, which likewise shall comply with the rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument of this cause, heretofore set for 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 11, 1988, is canceled.
Exhibit 10.4(b)

        Schedule of Warrants (refinancings) Issued by NCT Group, Inc. to
            Carole Salkind for the three months ended June 30, 2005



   Grant Date       Expiration Date      Exercise Price       Shares Granted
   ----------       ---------------      --------------       --------------
    04/14/05           04/14/10             $0.0130              7,750,000
    04/29/05           04/29/10             $0.0120             17,250,000
    05/18/05           05/18/10             $0.0123              8,250,000
    06/10/05           06/10/10             $0.0100             24,250,000
                                                            ------------------
                                                                57,500,000
                                                            ==================
#### Susan LEVY and Howard Levy, her husband, Appellants, v. HAWK’S CAY, INC., Hawk’s Cay Investors, Ltd., Brandy Group, Inc., Brandy Marine of the Keys, Inc. and Jeffrey Sylvester, Appellees.

Nos. 87-2947, 88-976.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 30, 1989.

*1300Shutts & Bowen and Richard M. Leslie, Miami, for appellants.

Butler and Burnette and John W. Weih-muller and Kendall A. Almerico (Tampa), Canning & Murray and C. Robert Murray and Jocelyn Poole, Miami, for appellees.

Before NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ., and HERBOTH S. RYDER, Associate Judge.

HERBOTH S. RYDER, Associate Judge.

The Levys appeal an adverse final judgment entered upon a jury verdict and a judgment taxing costs in their action for automobile negligence and products liability. They assert that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to strike for cause three jurors who indicated during voir dire that they could not be impartial. We agree, and reverse.

The record reveals that the three jurors in question clearly indicated that they had negative attitudes toward the legal system due to previous unfavorable experiences with lawsuits filed against themselves or members of their families, and that their predispositions would result in bias. When any reasonable doubt exists as to whether a juror possesses the state of mind necessary to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the law announced at trial, he should be excused. *Longshore v. Fronrath Chevrolet, Inc., 527*So.2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); *Club West v. Tropigas of Florida, Inc.,*514 So.2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), *review denied,*523 So.2d 579 (Fla.1988). *Cf. Price v. State,*538 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Here, the jurors’ testimony was more than sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to their impartiality. The trial court’s failure to excuse these jurors for cause constitutes reversible error, because the Levys were unnecessarily forced to use peremptory challenges to excuse the objectionable jurors, then exhausted their remaining peremptory challenges, and were thereafter denied additional peremptory challenges. *Hill v. State,*477 So.2d 553 (Fla.1985); *Smith v. State,*516 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Because of our reversal on the Levys’ first point on appeal, we need not address their remaining two points. We reverse and remand for a new trial, and in so doing, we also reverse the judgment taxing costs against the Levys.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.1

            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Robert E. Williams, President, Chief Executive Officer (principal
financial and accounting officer) of PetMed Express, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), certify to the best of my knowledge, based upon a
review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report") of the Registrant, that:

  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
       13(a) 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 Registrant.



                             By:  /s/  Robert E. Williams
                                ---------------------------------
                                       Robert E. Williams

                             Date: March 23, 2004
-/•T"-;' ! 

i SERVED AUGUST 20,2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WISCONSIN AVIATION, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10SW0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0542 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On May 18, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as 

"Complainant") filed a Complaint. On May 11, 2010, Respondent Wisconsin Aviation, 

Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. On August 19, 2010, 

Complainant withdrew its Complaint, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Complaint having been read and 

considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Complainant's Withdrawal of Complaint be and is hereby granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 
SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CP10SW0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Jeffery Baum, President 

Wisconsin Aviation, Inc., Respondent 

1741 River Drive 

Watertown, WI53094 

TEL: 920-261-4567 

Autumn Killingham, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of Regional Coimsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7728 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Dfficc^ef Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 337

Relative to the death of the Honorable John O. Pastore, formerly a Senator

from the State of Rhode Island.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 17, 2000

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. CHAFEE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relative to the death of the Honorable John O. Pastore,

formerly a Senator from the State of Rhode Island.

1 Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound

2 sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death

3 of the Honorable John O. Pastore, formerly a Senator

4 from the State of Rhode Island.

5 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate commu6 nicate these resolutions to the House of Representatives

7 and transmit an enrolled copy thereof to the family of the

8 deceased.
2

SRES 337 ATS

1 Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns today, it

2 stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the mem3 ory of the deceased Senator.

Æ
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)





OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended September 29, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission ("Report"), I, Stephen J. Sather, President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
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.





Date:
November 12, 2010





/s/ Stephen J. SatherStephen
      J. SatherActing
      President and Chief Executive OfficerEPL
      Intermediate, Inc.





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by
EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Paul Kim, Chief Financial Officer of Cogent, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



This certification has not been, and shall
not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2005                                      
|                                                              
|/s/ PAUL KIM                                                  
|Paul Kim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 940 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2012 -NE - 26 response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### SP33 54 EN - E **Next Step:** FRA

N SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, li st latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (no t by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### SP33 54 EN - E

**ASE** Printed Name **:** 

### Frederick Zink **Date**

**Branch Manager Date**
#### FIRST NATIONWIDE SAVINGS f/k/a Washington Savings & Loan Association of Florida, Appellant, v. DUAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, Title and Trust Company of Florida, Robert Wayne, Julio Blanco and Citation Title Co., Inc., Appellees.

No. 87-374.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1987.

Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick, Schneider & Mager and Jack F. Weins, Joseph J. Huss and Andrew Lavin, Hollywood, for appellant.

Rubin, Baum, Levin, Constant, Friedman & Bilzin and David W. Trench and Kathy Stark, Fogle & Poole, Miami, King, Leavy & Rabin, South Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Wool Wholesale Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Abdo,*365 So.2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); *Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Lasseter,*247 So.2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); *Reina v. Gingerale Corp.,*472 So.2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.120(b); 27 Fla.Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 20 (1981); *Williams v. McFadden,*23 Fla. 143, 1 So. 618 (1887).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00693-CV

In re Frank Joseph

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Frank Joseph has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the

trial court’s order related to his request for DNA testing was unclear. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. 1

Having reviewed the petition, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See id. R. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Filed: November 17, 2015

According to relator’s petition, the trial court erroneously checked next to the “granted” 1

box and then crossed that out and indicated that the request was instead denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133635 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133635 COA: 272000 Calhoun CC: 00

− 023365-FC ELMER IRON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 14, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
EXHIBIT 10.4

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the Employment Agreement (the
"Agreement"), dated January 1, 2004 by and between Zone 4 Play, Ltd., a Israeli
corporation (the "Company"), and Uri Levy (the "Executive"), is made and entered
into as of the 1 day of May, 2005 (the "Effective Date"). All capitalized terms
used herein without definition shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in
the Agreement.

                                    RECITALS

     WHEREAS, Executive is currently the CFO of the Company; and

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto now desire to amend the terms of employment of
the Executive

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this
Amendment, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:

     1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting paragraph (a),
in its entirety and replacing them with the following:


          "(a) 1. Effective as of May 1, 2005, the Company shall pay the
               Executive a gross salary of 25,000 New Israeli Shekels ("NIS")
               per month (the "Base Salary").

               2. Effective as of January 1, 2006, the Company shall pay the
               Executive a gross salary of 30,000 New Israeli Shekels ("NIS")
               per month (the "Base Salary").

     2. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and is hereby
confirmed and ratified in all respects. This Amendment and its terms and
provisions shall be effective as of the Effective Date. This Amendment may be
executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Israel.

                  [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as a
sealed instrument as of the Effective Date.

                                           ZONE 4 PLAY, LTD.


                                           By: /s/ Shimon Citron
                                           ---------------------
                                           Shimon Citron
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



                                           EXECUTIVE:


                                           By /s/ Uri Levy
                                           ---------------
                                           Uri Levy