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

FOURTH DISTRICT

MEDERI CARETENDERS VISITING SERVICES OF SOUTHEAST 

FLORIDA, LLC, and ALMOST FAMILY, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Appellants,

v.

ELIZABETH WHITE,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D14-488 and 4D14-2460

[October 25, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562011CA003562.

Patrick M. Muldowney, Marilyn G. Moran, Tiffany L. Cummins and 

James W. Seegers of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Orlando, for appellants.

Margaret Cooper of Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., Jane 

Kreusler-Walsh and Stephanie L. Serafin of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & 

Vargas, P.A., West Palm Beach, Joel C. Zwemer and Daryl J. Krauza of 

Dean, Mead, Minton & Zwemer, Fort Pierce, for appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

In accordance with the supreme court mandate in White v. Mederi 

Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida, LLC, No. SC16-28 (Fla. 

Sept. 14, 2017), we reverse the final summary judgment and remand for 

proceedings consistent with the supreme court opinion. We also reverse 

the award of attorney’s fees, as we did in our original opinion.

WARNER, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History: Annual                                              
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|Virginia Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|Virginia Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 2      | 1      | -5     | 19     | -17    | 2      | 10     | 0     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | -77    | 99     | 196    | 348    | -7     | -3     | 109    | 344    | -495   | -12   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | -10    | 19     | 1      | 1      | -19    | 18     | 25     | -25    | -6     | 339   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 59     | -413   | 66     | -9     | 89     | -24    | 12     | -15    | -8     | 29    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -22    | -4     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 00-2479 RANDALL J. COFSKE, Petitioner, Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA The opinion of this court issued May 13, 2002, should be amended as follows: On page 17, line 6, replace the phrase "known at defense counsel" with the phrase "known to defense counsel".
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5219 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5219

  To suspend temporarily the duty on check valves of steel, having an 
opening approximately 7.62 cm. or more in diameter and certified by the 
importer as meeting ASME B16.34 certification requirements as approved 
                     for use in nuclear facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

 Mr. Mulvaney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on check valves of steel, having an 
opening approximately 7.62 cm. or more in diameter and certified by the 
importer as meeting ASME B16.34 certification requirements as approved 
                     for use in nuclear facilities.

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

SECTION 1. CHECK VALVES OF STEEL, HAVING AN OPENING APPROXIMATELY 7.62 
              CM. OR MORE IN DIAMETER AND CERTIFIED BY THE IMPORTER AS 
              MEETING ASME B16.34 CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AS 
              APPROVED FOR USE IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Check valves of     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        steel, having an                                                   31/2015.......
                        opening
                        approximately
                        7.62 cm. or more
                        in diameter and
                        certified by the
                        importer as
                        meeting ASME
                        B16.34
                        certification
                        requirements as
                        approved for use
                        in nuclear
                        facilities
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        8481.30.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No. 20-cv-00642

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Western District of Texas

JACK MILLER, ANNABEL CAMPBELL, MATTHEW 

PESINA, LISA PESINA, M.P., a minor, and 

J.G., a minor, CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, et al.

Kirby Police Department

4130 Ackerman Rd, 

San Antonio, TX 78219

Solomon M. Radner, Esq.

Excolo Law, PLLC

26700 Lahser Rd., Suite 401

Southfield, MI 48033

(866) 939-2656

sradner@excololaw.com

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 1-8 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 1-8 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
  (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 Registrant.
 /s/ Robert J. SprowlsRobert J. SprowlsSenior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and SecretaryDate: August 18, 2005
 33
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

BRANDEN M. CORRIVEAU , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No s . 4D 21

- 1803 and 4D21

- 1804

[ January 13, 2022 ]

Consolidated a ppeal of order s denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Sherwood Bauer, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 43

- 2012

- CF

- 000892 and 43

- 2012

- CF

- 001280

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beac h, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5308 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Cypermethrin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Ms. SCHWARTZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Cypermethrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CYPERMETHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.74 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Cypermethrin) is amended by striking the date in the ef7 fective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5308 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### E. V. REEVES, Movant, v. Pearl Harris GARDNER, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 26, 1951.

Harry B. Miller and Harry B. Miller, Jr., Lexington, for movant.

Charles Wylie, Lexington, F. Selby Hurst, Lexington, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8140 N. MOPAC | WESTPARK 4, SUITE 250 | AUSTIN TX 78759

MARSHALL A. THOMPSON	 	 EMILY S. RICKERS

CARLOS G. SALINAS	 	 JAMES GERARD MCDERMOTT, II

April 22, 2015 

Hon. Jeffrey D. Kyle 

Clerk, Third Court of Appeals 

PO Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Appeals in State v. Jonathan Porterie, Causes 03-14-00214-CR, 03-14-00215-CR, 

03-14-00216-CR, 03-14-00217-CR

Dear Mr. Kyle:

In compliance with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I am writing to 

inform the Court that I mailed a copy of the opinion and the judgments in the above-listed cases 

to the Appellant at his address as recorded online in the inmate search function of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice. 

 The opinion and judgments in this case issued March 27, 2015. On March 31, 2015, I 

mailed, by return receipt, the opinion and the judgments, as well as a review of of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. I also informed him that I would not be filing a petition for 

discretionary review on his behalf. 

 I have attached the return receipt for my mailing in this case. It is signed by an “M. 

Hernandez” on April 3, 2015.

 Sincerely, 

/s/ James Gerard McDermott, II 

James Gerard McDermott, II

THOMPSON SALINAS RICKERS & MCDERMOTT, LLP

8140 N. Mopac, Westpark 4, Suite 250

Austin TX 78759

512.201.4099

512.298.1129 (fax)

james@centraltexaslawyers.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1

MAIN LINE 512.201.4083 | FAX 512.298.1129

WWW.CENTRALTEXASLAWYERS.COM

ACCEPTED

03-14-00217-CR

4993796

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/22/2015 4:07:28 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/22/2015 4:07:28 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
WACO

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

CIVIL NO:

vs. WA:20-CV-00454-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MARKMAN HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

MARKMAN HEARING by zoom on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 at 09:30 AM. The link for

the hearing will be sent by e-mail.

reset

zoom

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

25th day of February, 2021.

Alan D Albright

IT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

§

§

§

§

§

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 55 Filed 02/25/21 Page 1 of 1
From: Anderson, Wes 

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:42:24 PM 

To: Edwards, Brenda 

Cc: Res_Central_AC_HP 

Subject: Note to File on DOE meeting with HARDI 

Auto forwarded by a Rule

Brenda,

Please put a note in the docket stating the below information.

Thanks,

WES

Wes Anderson

Mechanical Engineer

Building Technologies Program

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

U. S. Department of Energy

202-586-7335

Note to file:

The Department of Energy met with a few members of Heating, Air conditioning & Refrigeration 

Distributors International (HARDI, an industry trade organization dedicated to advancing the 

science of wholesale distribution in the HVAC-R industry) via conference call to gather 

information about the residential central air conditioner and heat pump distribution channel on 

December 18, 2008 from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM (EST). The discussion centered on DOE 

developing an understanding of the current structure of wholesale distribution network and its 

economics in the United States. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0006 COMMENT 45
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PROVEN NETWORKS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB 

SERVICES, INC,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00266

ORDER

The Court, having considered the Unopposed Motion of defendants Amazon.com, Inc. 

and Amazon Web Services, Inc., (collectively, “Amazon”) for Extension of Time to Answer or 

Otherwise Respond to Complaint, hereby ORDERS that the motion is GRANTED.

Amazon’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended up to and 

including June 12, 2020.

SIGNED this _________ day of ____________, 2020.

__________________________________________

THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00498-ADA Document 10-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31(a)**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Richard K. Davidson, certifythat: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Union PacificRailroad Company; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of 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 financialinformation 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(s) and I are responsible for establishingand 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 ensurethat 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 controlsand 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 internalcontrol 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 materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(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 andreport financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 8, 2004
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5483 

To suspend temporarily the duty on light emitting diode (LED) spot light 

modules (SLM). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on light emitting diode 

(LED) spot light modules (SLM). 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED) SPOT LIGHT 

4 MODULES (SLM). 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Light emitting diode 

(LED) spot light modules 

(SLM) (provided for in 

subheading 9405.40.80) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5483 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### SHEPHERD v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 4, 1953.

S. M. Ward, Hazard, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STEWART, Justice.

Appellant, Melvin Shepherd, was indicted •by the Perry Circuit Court, charged with the crime of “deserting and abandoning his children, without complying with the orders of the Perry Circuit Court, as set forth in the judgment * * * relative to the custody and support of said children, * * This offense is denounced by KRS 435.240(3). A demurrer to the above indictment having been overruled, trial was had, and a verdict of guilty was rendered and a sentence of one year in prison imposed.

The evidence in this case and the statute relied upon for conviction are in effect the same as those appearing in Commonwealth v. O’Harrah, Ky., 262 S.W.2d 385. In that opinion this Court declared, and set forth the reasons why, 435.240(3) is unconstitutional. The O’Harrah case fully discusses the question before us and we deem it unnecessary to repeat here what was there written. Therefore, the demurrer should have been sustained and the indictment dismissed.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.