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 17

- 2902

_____________________________
D ERRICK A LLEN , Appellant,

v.

R.M. S CORE , Senior Clerk, T.R. W ASHINGTON , Senior Class Officer, J.N. B EEN , Lieutenant, M ICHAEL B OOK ER , Acting Warden, and R ICHARD D. C OMERFORD , Superintendent, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, and J ULIE L. J ONES , Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,

Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Karen Gievers , Judge

. August 1, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant challenges the trial court’s order dismissing his action a gainst Appellees in which he alleged that he was wrongfully disciplined at his correctional institution. The court dismissed the acti on with prejudice for a number of reasons,2 including the failure to state a cause of action for damages in tort, the untimeliness of the filing, res judicata and collateral estoppel, and immunity of the individual defendan ts

. We affirm.

We additionally con clude that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is dir ected to provide a certified copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections for referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures

. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (providing that a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal is subject t o disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections).

A FFIRMED

.
R AY , K ELSEY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________

Derrick Allen, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and K enneth S. Steely, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee s

.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-66055) pertaining to the 1996 Incentive Stock Plan, the 1998
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1998 Director Option Plan of Abgenix, Inc.,
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90707) pertaining to the 1999
Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan of Abgenix, Inc. for the registation of 1,778,000
shares of its common stock, and the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-83837) and related Prospectus of Abgenix, Inc. for the registration of
495,356 shares of its common stock, of our report dated January 28, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Abgenix, Inc. included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-k for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 24, 2000
#### COOPER v. STATE.

No. 22863.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 17, 1944.

Irwin & Irwin, of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conyiction is for murder, punishment six years in the penitentiary. No bills of exception are brought forward; neither are there found any objections to the court’s instructions.

Appellant and his wife had separated. He attributed this to deceased’s attention to the wife, or at least held deceased responsible for the failure to effect a reconciliation. Appellant claimed to have acted in self-defense in the killing. Unfortunately for appellant eyewitnesses gave an entirely different account of the trouble. The jury settled the question against appellant. The case calls for no recital of the facts.

The judgment is affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

T.J. , a child

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 13

- 1282

[ January 28, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Elijah H. Williams , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 12

- 584DL00A

and 12

- 1249DL00A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

S TEVENSON

, J.

In this appeal, the minor defendant challenges an order finding him guilty of numerous violations of probation

, including the commission of

numerous substantive criminal offenses, and the resulting revocation of his probation and commitment to a level 6 facility. While defendant raises a number of issues, we affirm the trial court’s order in its entirety, save the finding that defendant violated probation by committing the crime o f

criminal mischief.

Since all the evidence purportedly establish ing defendant as the culprit

who threw a rock through the window of a Walgreens store was hearsay

, we reverse this finding

. See § 806 .13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (defining

offense of cri minal mischief); Russell v. State , 982 So. 2d 642, 646 (Fla. 2008) (recognizing hearsay is admissible in violation of probation proceedin gs, but hearsay alone may not f o r m the sole basis for revocation).

The trial court’s order is affirmed in all other re spects , including the findings that defendant violated his probation by failing to complete community service hours and committing pet it theft, grand theft and2

burglary

. See McKenzie v. State

, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D2379 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 13, 2013) (recognizi ng reversal of one of many violations does not require reversal of order of revocation or sentence

, where, based upon the record, appellate court is confident the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence).

Reversed in part and Affirmed in part

.

C IKLIN and G ERBER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**

 

I, Bonnie M. Klein, Vice President and Treasurer of BCSB Bancorp, Inc.,certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of BCSB Bancorp, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport 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 periodcovered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial 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 thisreport; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

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

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s 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 ofthe registrant’s board 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 and report financial information; and 

 

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

 

Date: December 28, 2004
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 336 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for counterfeiting 

or selling Presidential inauguration tickets, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2013 

Mr. CAPUANO (for himself, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. MCNERNEY, and Ms. NORTON) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties 

for counterfeiting or selling Presidential inauguration 

tickets, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SELLING OR COUNTERFEITING PRESIDENTIAL 

4 INAUGURATION TICKETS. 

5 Chapter 25 of title 18, United States Code, is amend6 ed by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘§ 515. Selling or counterfeiting Presidential inau8 guration tickets 

9 ‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly— 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 336 IH

1 ‘‘(1) except as provided in subsection (b) trans2 fers for money or property a ticket to a Presidential 

3 inaugural ceremony; 

4 ‘‘(2) with intent to defraud, falsely makes, 

5 forges, counterfeits, or alters a ticket to a Presi6 dential inaugural ceremony; or 

7 ‘‘(3) with intent to defraud, enters or attempts 

8 to enter a Presidential inaugural ceremony with a 

9 ticket, knowing that ticket to have been falsely 

10 made, forged, counterfeited or altered; 

11 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 

12 6 months, or both. 

13 ‘‘(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a transfer that 

14 occurs after the date on which the Presidential inaugural 

15 ceremony for which the ticket was issued takes place. 

16 ‘‘(c) In this section, the term ‘Presidential inaugural 

17 ceremony’ means a public inaugural ceremony at which 

18 the President elect or the Vice President elect take the 

19 oath or affirmation of office for the office of President 

20 of the United States or the office of Vice President of the 

21 United States, respectively.’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 336 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT. 

2 The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 25 

3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 

4 the end the following new item: 

‘‘515. Selling or counterfeiting Presidential inauguration tickets.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with
#### EVANS v. STATE.

No. 22745.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1944.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1944.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Under his plea of guilty of the offense of burglary, appellant was assessed a punishment of two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment appears to be in proper form. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. Nothing- is presented for review.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3110 

AN ACT 

To allow for the harvest of gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit 

people within Glacier Bay National Park in the State 

of Alaska. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3110 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Huna Tlingit Tradi3 tional Gull Egg Use Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LIMITED AUTHORIZATION FOR COLLECTION OF 

5 GULL EGGS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior (re7 ferred to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’) may allow the 

8 collection by members of the Hoonah Indian Association 

9 of the eggs of glaucous-winged gulls (Laurus glaucescens) 

10 within Glacier Bay National Park (referred to in this Act 

11 as the ‘‘Park’’) not more frequently than twice each cal12 endar year at up to 5 locations within the Park, subject 

13 to any terms and conditions that the Secretary determines 

14 to be necessary. 

15 (b) APPLICABLE LAW.—For the purposes of sections 

16 203 and 816 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Con17 servation Act (16 U.S.C. 410hh–2, 3126), the collection 

18 of eggs of glaucous-winged gulls within the Park in ac19 cordance with subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 

20 use specifically permitted by that Act. 

21 (c) HARVEST PLAN.—The Secretary shall establish 

22 schedules, locations, and any additional terms and condi23 tions that the Secretary determines to be necessary for 

24 the harvesting of eggs of glaucous-winged gulls in the 
3 

•HR 3110 EH

1 Park, based on an annual harvest plan to be prepared by 

2 the Secretary and the Hoonah Indian Association. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3110 

AN ACT 

To allow for the harvest of gull eggs by the Huna 

in the State of Alaska. Tlingit people within Glacier Bay National Park
EXHIBIT 32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the Company) hereby
certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December
31, 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

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

Dated: March
16, 2010

|                                      |                    | 
|------------------------------------- | ------------------ | 
|By:                                   | /s/ LEO
 LIEBOWITZ | 
|                                      |                    | 
|Leo
 Liebowitz                        |                   
|Chairman and
 Chief Executive Officer |                   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.

---
#### BLEVINS v. McKENZIE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 1, 1953.

J. B. Clark, and Wheeler & Wheeler, Paintsville, for appellant.

Ed H. King, Paintsville, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Dennis Blevins appeals from a judgment recovered against him in an action in ejectment instituted by Lonnie McKenzie, ap-pellee.

The dispute concerns the. correct location of a boundary between lots No. 4 and 5 of the subdivision of a farm *sold*at auction in October, 1949.' Appellant is the owner of lot No. 4 and appellee owns lot No. 5. The parties agree that the stake monument marking the common front corners of these -two lots is correctly located on the south edge of Mudlick Road, but disagree as to the course of the boundary running back from the stake to Mudlick Creek.

The lots were located on a plat of the subdivision made by a civil engineer and recorded in the Johnson County Court records. A copy of this plat was in the hands of the real estate" agents at the auction and was used to show bidders and purchasers at the auction the location of the lots. ■ The plat to which the deeds refer and which was relied-upon by all purchasers at the auction,-' represents the course of the boundary in question as a 90-degree angle from the general course of Mudlick Road.

We think the court correctly found the boundary to be .as shown on the recorded plat.

Appellant urges reversal on the grounds that the owners of. other lots purchased at the auction were necessary parties to this action since their boundaries also are affected by the judgment in this suit.

Section 28 of the Civil Code of Practice is cited to sustain appellant’s contention. It reads:

> “The court may determine any controversy between parties before it, if it can do so without prejudice to others; if it cannot do’so, it must require such other persons to be made parties, or must dismiss the action without prejudice.”

We do not think other lot owners in the subdivision in question are necessary parties to this suit since only the *581boundary between appellant’s and appel-lee’s property was fixed by the judgment and the judgment is not res judicata as to persons not parties to the suit. Patrick v. Daniel, 238 Ky. 172, 37 S.W.2d 71.

Appellant also claims that the description of the property set forth in ap-pellee’s petition was not sufficiently exact to maintain an action in ejectment. The description in the petition is the ■ same as that in the deeds to the lots in question and reference was made to the recorded plat for further identification.

We think the pleading adequately identifies the property. We find no error in the proceedings in the circuit court.

Judgment affirmed.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000427 18-MAR-2019 07:52 AM
<PAGE>

[LOGO]                                                             EXHIBIT 10.26

                                                                      EMPLOYMENT
                                                                       AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is made between EXTENDED SYSTEMS INCORPORATED (ESI) and KARLA K.
ROSA (EMPLOYEE) for the employment of EMPLOYEE by ESI.

IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

1.   EMPLOYMENT: ESI hereby hires EMPLOYEE and EMPLOYEE accepts employment with
     ESI as Vice Pres. Of Finance/CFO.

2.   TERMSOF EMPLOYMENT: This Agreement shall commence the 25th day of November,
     1998 and shall continue until terminated by either party pursuant to
     paragraph five.

3.   COMPENSATION: The EMPLOYEE shall receive as compensation for his/her
     services the amount of $10,100 per mo. plus all employee benefits as set
     forth in the current issue of the Extended Systems Employee Handbook.

4.   DUTIES OF EMPLOYEE: EMPLOYEE shall have the duties and authority as set
     forth in the job description.

5.   ROLLING SIX (6) MONTH CONTRACT: This contract is a continuous, rolling six
     (6) month agreement entitling employee to six (6) months termination pay,
     at employees current salary, if terminated without cause or without six (6)
     months written notice.

6.   VACATION: EMPLOYEE shall accumulate paid vacation as set forth in Extended
     Systems Time-Off Policy.

7.   TRAVEL EXPENSES: EMPLOYEE shall be reimbursed for all authorized travel and
     lodging expenses.

8.   FRINGE BENEFITS: Fringe benefits shall be provided by ESI as set forth in
     the Extended Systems Employee Handbook. I hereby acknowledge receiving a
     copy of the Employee Handbook. I understand that I am responsible for
     familiarizing myself with the contents of the handbook. I understand that
     the contents in the Employee Handbook are subject o change at Extended
     Systems' discretion and do not create any contractual commitments by the
     Company. /s/ KR (Employee Initials)

9.   DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY: EMPLOYEE agrees to abide by the terms of the
     Extended Systems Drug and Alcohol Policy. Receipt of Drug and Alcohol
     Policy is hereby acknowledged. /s/ KR (Employee Initials).

10.  NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT: EMPLOYEE agrees to abide by the terms of the
     Extended Systems Non-Disclosure Agreement.


DATED this 25th day of November, 1998.


/s/ Steven D. Simpson                 /s/ Karla K. Rosa
----------------------------          -----------------------------------------
Extended Systems                       Employee
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*RONALD VASQUEZ

*J. Brendan*Sharkey, special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Denise B. Smoker,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided May 26, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 130 (AC 16118), is denied.

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                Exhibit 11


                   NUMBER NINE VISUAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

     STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)(2)

                     (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED                            NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   SEPTEMBER 27, 1997  SEPTEMBER 28, 1996     SEPTEMBER 27, 1997  SEPTEMBER 28, 1996
                                                   ------------------  ------------------     ------------------  ------------------
<S>                                               <C>                  <C>                  <C>                  <C>
HISTORICAL

Common Stock Outstanding, beginning of the period      9,110                  9,006                  9,053                  8,758
Weighted average cheap stock                               -                      -                      -                      -
Weighted average redeemable common stock                   -                      -                      -                      -
Weighted average number of common stock issued            22                      6                     50                    187
Weighted average of common stock equivalents               -                  1,832                      -                      -
Less:  assumed purchase of treasury shares                 -                 (1,039)                     -                      -
                                                     -------                -------              ---------               --------
 
Weighted average number of common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding                        9,132                  9,805                  9,103                  8,945
                                                     =======                =======              =========               ========
 
Net income (loss)                                    $(3,438)               $   326              $( 15,424)              $( 9,007)
                                                     =======                =======              =========               ========
 
Net income (loss) per common and common
  equivalent share outstanding                       $ (0.38)                 $0.03              $   (1.69)              $  (1.01)
</TABLE>


    (1)  Primary and fully diluted calculations are substantially the same.