alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSE MARTIN FERNANDES
, Appellant,

v.

SHARON TAUREL
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 784

[ March 4, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Dina Ke e ver

- Agrama , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502016DR009804

.

Jose Martin Fernandes, Boynton Beach, pro se.

Tyler Jaymeson Cade of TJ Cade Law, LLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, F ORST and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
AUXILIO, INC.

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Auxilio, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James P. Stapleton, Principal Financial Officer 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, that to the
best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and
(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.


/s/ James P. Stapleton
---------------------------------------
James P. Stapleton
Principal Financial Officer
September 17, 2004

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Auxilio, Inc. and will be retained by
Auxilio, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### ESTELL v. STATE.

No. 15244.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1932.

E. G. Brown, of Refugio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, P. J.

Unlawfully possessing a forged instrument is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular. The facts ¡heard before the trial court are not brought up for review; nor does the record reveal a sentence. In a felony case less than capital, a sentence is imperative to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal. See article 772, C. C. P. 1925; Dorsey v. State, 114 Tex. Cr. R. 678, 27 S.W.(2d) 186; Williams v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 356, 269 S. W. 434.

The appeal is dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**In connection with this quarterly report of RushEnterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W.M. “Rusty” Rush, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

**1.**                                     The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

** **

**2.**                                     The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | By:    | /S/ W.M. “RUSTY” RUSH       |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | W.M. “Rusty” Rush           |
|   | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | August 10,  2009                 |

 

 

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

 

----
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of USCorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period
ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Dultz, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, 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 Company.




/s/
      Robert DultzRobert
      Dultz, PresidentChief
      Executive Officer and
                  Acting
      Chief Financial Officer




Date:
December 28, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,947
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    607,192
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,525,558
<ALLOWANCE>                                     17,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,207,473
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,551,240
<SHORT-TERM>                                   393,988
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             14,889
<LONG-TERM>                                    111,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,699
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,907
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,207,473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                121,335
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               43,075
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               164,410
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              79,674
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,179
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           51,231
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,029
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 34,040
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,798
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,790
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,790
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.57
<LOANS-NON>                                     16,251
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,488
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,219
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,423
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               17,298
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            17,298
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of ESB Financial Corporation (the Registrant) hereby certifies
that the Registrants Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Charlotte A. ZuschlagCharlotte A. ZuschlagPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 12, 2009

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ESB Financial Corporation and will be retained by ESB Financial Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         160,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (9,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    205,478
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               470,233
<PP&E>                                          16,814
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,499)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 485,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          539,233
<BONDS>                                        201,917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,431
<OTHER-SE>                                    (258,853)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   485,728
<SALES>                                        208,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,607
<CGS>                                           85,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  540,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (423,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (423,256)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (423,256)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JERRAL M. BELL, DC #S24476, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 2D18-3511

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed June 28, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Stephen M. Walker, Judge.

Jerral M. Bell, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SLEET, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31462]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement: Dallas County, TX

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for a Trinity Parkway reliever route, a 
transportation project, in the Federal Register on June 16, 1999 
(Volume 64, Number 115). The FHWA is now issuing this supplementary 
Notice of Intent to include in the EIS a City of Dallas evaluation of a 
proposed City of Dallas Lake Plan located within the Trinity River 
Dallas Floodway in Dallas County, Texas. This proposed Lake Plan 
potentially affects the project corridor for the transportation 
project, and several of the route alternatives under consideration. 
Supplementary analysis is needed to fully address the impacts of joint 
development of these actions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick A. Bauer, P.E., District 
Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 300 East Eighth Street, 
Federal Office Building, Room 826, Austin, Texas 78701, Telephone (512) 
536-5950. Mr. Jerry Hiebert, Executive Director, North Texas Tollway 
Authority (NTTA), 5900 West Plano Parkway, Suite 100, Plano, Texas 
75093, Telephone (214) 522-6200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, jointly with the Texas Department 
of Transportation and the NTTA, and in cooperation with the City of 
Dallas, will prepare an EIS for the Trinity Parkway reliever route and 
associated improvements in the project corridor. Associated 
improvements include one or more proposed lakes, recreation amenities, 
and possible wetlands as identified in the City of Dallas Trinity River 
Corridor Master Implementation Plan Lake Design and Recreational 
Amenities Report, which are located within the Dallas Floodway.
    Impacts caused by construction and operation of the Trinity Parkway 
and the Dallas Lake Plan will vary according to the alternatives 
selected. Generally, these projects may impact floodplains, water 
quality, air quality, socio-economic conditions, historic and other 
man-made structures.
    The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and 
comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure that the full range of 
issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all 
significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited 
from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this 
proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA or NTTA at 
the address provided above.

    Issued on: December 1, 2000.
Salvador Deocampo,
Urban Programs Engineer, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-31462 Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Company Report
 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.
 By:
    /S/ W.M. RUSTY RUSHName:
    W.M. Rusty RushTitle:  Date:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
 May 10, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Trimol Group, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that: (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 as of and for the
periods covered in the Report. /s/ Jack
  BravermanJack
  BravermanChief
  Financial OfficerTRIMOL
  GROUP, INC.May 15, 2007 23
Order entered March 15, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01041-CV

KRISTIAN EDUARDO GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

SOPHIA KATHERINE RIGG, Appellee

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV20-00303

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 11, 2021 second motion to extend 

time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no 

later than April 14, 2021. 

We caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TAVARES E. FELTON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2937

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 10, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 10.2


 


Terms of Understanding with Michael Saracini,
Former GM of Americas


 


On August 28, 2008, RightNow Technologies, Inc.
(the “Company” or  “RightNow”) terminated the employment of Michael A.
Saracini, Vice President and General Manager – Americas. In addition to meeting
Mr. Saracini’s entitlements under his previously disclosed employment
offer letter with respect to limited salary continuation and partial
acceleration in the vesting of his stock options, the Company will pay Mr. Saracini
(a) his COBRA costs for a period of six months following the end of his
employment, and (b) $30,000 incentive payment for July and August,
2008.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lila C. Shagam, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 6, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Claimant contends that because her secondary vocation is only for "her future protection”, she is entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that she is no longer employed in her primary vocation. However, the evidence indicates that, at the time she filed for benefits, claimant was the president of an ongoing business at which there was mail and telephone service. Claimant also advertised the business and maintained a checking account for it. This evidence supports the conclusion that claimant was not totally unemployed, and the fact that she made little or no money at the business and only worked a few hours each week is not controlling *(see, Matter of Muller [Levine]*50 AD2d 1005, *lv denied*40 NY2d 806; *Matter of Carasso [Catherwood],*23 AD2d 935, 936).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit (4)(q)



 Exhibit 4(q) 
 Form of Policy Endorsement (Fund Facilitation Fee) 








			
	WESTERN RESERVE LIFE	 	Administrative Office:
	ASSURANCE CO. OF OHIO	 	4333 Edgewood Road N.E.
	(A STOCK COMPANY)	 	Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499
	Home Office: Columbus, Ohio	 	(800) 851-9777

 AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT 
 The policy to which this Amendatory Endorsement is attached is amended to include the addition of the following Subaccounts: 
  

				
	 	  	Fund Facilitation Fee	 
	 AllianceBernstein VPS Balanced Wealth Strategy Portfolio
	  	0.20	%
	 Franklin Templeton VIP Founding Funds Allocation Fund
	  	0.15	%

 If any of the above Subaccounts are elected, a Fund Facilitation Fee would be charged in addition to any policy
fees and charges, and will be used in the calculation of net investment factor as described in the Accumulation Units and Variable Annuity Units provisions of the policy. The Fund Facilitation Fee will only be charged when money is allocated to one
of the above Subaccounts and is guaranteed not to change during the life of the policy. The Fund Facilitation Fee is an annualized percentage taken from the daily net asset values of a fund share held in that Subaccount. 
 This endorsement takes effect and expires concurrently with the policy to which it is attached and is subject to all the terms and conditions of the policy not
inconsistent herewith. 
 Signed for us at our home office. 
  

			
	

	 	


	SECRETARY	 	PRESIDENT

 AE 1288 0608
#### COHEN v. EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO.

No. 7406.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided June 17, 1940.

Morris Simon, Lawrence Koenigsberger, Eugene Young, and Leroy S. Bendheim, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Edmund L. Jones and George Monk, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before STEPHENS, MILLER, and ,VINSON, Associate Justices.

MILLER, Associate Justice.

On May 28, 1936, appellant’s twelve year old son was injured by a track owned and operated by appellee. The accident occurred immediately after the child had alighted from a bus and while he was attempting to cross the street at or near the intersection of Seventh and Girard Streets, Northeast, in the City of Washington. Appellant, as next friend of the child, brought this action in the court below to recover damages for the injuries sustained. Following a trial, the jury found a verdict in appellee’s favor; and this appeal is from the judgment based thereon. All the points which are relied upon by appellant on this appeal challenge the refusal of the trial court to give five prayers for instructions offered by appellant. In our view the court committed no error in refusing these prayers.

A party has no vested interest in any particular form of instruction.1 This is true, even though the proffered prayer may be unobjectionable in itself, standing alone, as a statement of law.2 What the language of the instructions shall be is for the trial judge to determine.3 If, on exam-*524¡nation of the entire charge, it appears that the jury has been fairly and adequately instructed, the requirements of the law are satisfied.4

A careful examination of the whole charge reveals that the instructions given covered all points material to appellant’s case which were contained in the instructions requested.5 It is significant in this respect that appellant offered no objections to the court’s charge as it was given to the jury; either on the ground that the whole charge was inadequate, or that particular instructions were incorrect.6

Affirmed.

1

 Ayers v. Watson, 137 U.S. 584, *601,*11 S.Ct. 201, 34 L.Ed. 803. See Gassenheimer v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 432, 446; Shettel v. United States, - App. D.C. —, 113 F.2d 34, decided June 10, 1940.

2

 Redman *v.*Smith, 51 App.D.C. *131,*277 F. 533; Utah Power & Light Co. v. Woody, 10 Cir., 62 F.2d 613.

3

 Ayers v. Watson, 137 U.S. 584, 601, 11 S.Ct. 201, 34 L.Ed. 803; Washington *524Times Co. v. Murray, 55 App.D.C. 32, 34, 299 F. 903, 906.

4

 McCartney v. Holmquist, 70 App.D.C. 334, 337, 106 F.2d 855, 858, 126 A.L.R. 375; Redman v. Smith, 51 App.D.C. 131, 277 F. 533.

5

 Capital Traction Co. v. Lyon, 57 App.D.C. 396, 401, 402, 24 F.2d 262, 267, 268; Dean v. H. Koppers Co., 49 App.D.C. 230, 263 F. 626; Utah Power & Light Co. v. Woody, 10 Cir., 62 F.2d 613, 614.

6

 Nunan v. Timberlake, 66 App.D.C. 150, 154, 85 F.2d 407, 411. See Rule 51, Fed.Rules of Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.