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

SECOND DISTRICT

THE ESTATE OF DORIS L. BRANTLEY, BY AND THROUGH SHANNON R. 

BRANTLEY, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE,

APPELLANT,

V.

CLEAR WATER CARE ACQUISITION, LLC; CW CARE HOLDINGS, LLC; 

CITADEL CARE GROUP, LLC; LEOPOLD FRIEDMAN; 2055 PALMETTO 

REALTY, LLC; MELANIE WILSON; AND DESTENY OLIVER (AS TO 

KENSINGTON GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER),

APPELLEES.

NO. 2D2023-2228

August 14, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Amy M. Williams, 

Judge.

Lisa M. Tanaka of Wilkes & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

David O. Doyle, Jr. and Bethany w. Nduka of Pearson Doyle Mohre & 

Pastis LLP, Maitland, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
SERVED APRIL 4, 2012 ,.p,,TMrNTOF 

;RAMSP0RTAT10N 

^:OCKt;T OPERATIONS • 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS i^q /\PR - b P 2^ 21 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RIANC. SEEMAN 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

FDMSNO. FAA-2012-0198 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011SO370103) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

fcOiuiie A. 

Chief Administrative 
FDMSNO. FAA-2012-0198 

(Civil Penally Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WIOOO' 

ONE COPY 

Rian C. Seeman, Respondent 

12433 Pineneedle Drive 

Indianapolis, IN 46236-3160 

Rashawn Rich George, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

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; Anention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                             TELECHIPS CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

       
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Years ended
                                                        December 31,
                                                     ------------------
                                                        1996     1995
                                                     ---------  -------

<S>                                                   <C>         <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding              139         40

Shares, warrants and options treated as common
share equivalent pursuant to SEC Staff Accounting
Bulletin Topic 4d                                       113        113
                                                    -------    -------
Total common and common equivalent shares               252        153
                                                    =======    =======

Net loss                                            $(6,111)   $(3,388)
                                                    =======    =======
Loss per common and common
equivalent shares                                   $(27.65)   $(22.15)
                                                    =======    =======
</TABLE>
Net loss per common share and common equivalent share is computed by
dividing net loss, after increasing the net loss by the discount on issuance of
Series A 4% cumulative convertible preferred stock, by the weighted average
number of common and common equivalent shares outstanding during each period.
The discount on the Series A Preferred Stock amounted to $837,500 for 1996.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULES 1901.3, : NO: 682

1901.6, 1905, 1910.4, 1910.7, 1910.11, :

1910.27, 1915.3, 1915.4

- 4, 1915.7, : CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES

1915.15, 1915.17, 1920.13, 1920.15, :

1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.75, 1930.1, : DOCKET

1930.6, 1953, and 1959 OF THE :

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL :

PROCEDURE :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1 st day of June , 2018 , upon the recommendation of the Domestic

Relations Procedural Rules Committee ; the proposal having been submitted without

publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3) :

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania

that Rules 1901.3, 1901.6, 1905, 1910.4, 1910.7, 1910.11, 1910.27, 1915.3, 1915.4

- 4,

1915.7, 1915.15, 1915.17, 1920.13, 1920.15, 1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.75, 1930.1,

1930.6, 1953, and 1959 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are amended in

the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance wit h Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall

be effective on July 1, 2018.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANA EPIFANIA GONZALEZ

TALAMANTES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71537

Agency No. A096-360-451

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Ana Epifania Gonzalez Talamantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her

FILED

JUN 08 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-71537

motion to reissue the BIA’s prior order. We review for abuse of discretion, LaraTorres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105

(9th Cir. 2005), and we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion by failing to address the declaration Gonzalez

Talamantes submitted to show that she did not receive the BIA’s November 22,

2006 order. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 2007)

(presumption of proper mailing created by transmittal of cover letter may be

overcome by evidence of non-receipt by a petitioner or counsel). We remand for

the BIA to review the evidence in the first instance and to determine whether it is

sufficient to overcome the presumption of mailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                               EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                             THREE MONTHS    THREE MONTHS     NINE MONTHS      NINE MONTHS
                                                 ENDED           ENDED           ENDED            ENDED
                                             SEPTEMBER 30,   SEPTEMBER 30,   SEPTEMBER 30,    SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                 1995            1996            1995             1996
                                             -------------   -------------   -------------    -------------
<S>                                          <C>             <C>             <C>              <C>
Weighted average shares
 outstanding............................       1,713,000       1,713,000        1,713,000        1,713,000
Incremental effect of issuance of       
 Convertible Preferred Stock within
 one year prior to an initial public
 offering at a price below the
 offering price (i.e. cheap stock)......         750,000         750,000          750,000          750,000
Incremental effect of issuance of       
 warrants and options within one            
 year prior to an initial public
 offering with an exercise price
 below the offering price (i.e. cheap
 stock) based on the treasury stock
 method using the offering price........       1,397,792       1,397,792        1,397,792        1,397,792
                                             -----------      ----------      -----------      -----------
                                               3,860,792       3,860,792        3,860,792        3,860,792
                                             ===========      ==========      ===========      ===========
Net loss attributable to common              
 stock..................................     $(1,306,092)     $ (590,697)     $(1,764,968)     $(2,297,698)
                                             ===========      ==========      ===========      ===========
Net loss per share......................     $     (0.34)     $    (0.15)     $     (0.46)     $     (0.60)
                                             ===========      ==========      ===========      ===========

</TABLE>
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 20, 2009*

#### KELLY D. GEORGE VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-08-0057)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when his 2000 Kia Spectra struck a hole on Pleasant Valley Road in Fairmont, Marion County. Pleasant Valley Road is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for the reasons more folly set forth below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the first week of February 2007. The speed limit on Pleasant Valley Road is forty miles per hour. At the time of the incident, claimant was driving from his house on Leonard Avenue in Fairmont towards Valley Lanes to take his son bowling. Claimant was driving on Pleasant Valley Road at approximately forty miles per hour when his vehicle struck a hole that was approximately two feet wide. The Church of Christ was the landmark closest to the hole. Claimant traveled on this road regularly and testified that he was aware that this was a rough road with numerous holes. As a result of this incident, claimant’s vehicle sustained damage to its tire in the amount of $73.14.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on Pleasant Valley Road. Respondent did not present a witness at the hearing.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins*v. *Sims,*130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman v. Dep’t of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent had, at the least, constructive notice of the hole which claimant’s vehicle struck and that it presented a hazard to the traveling public. The size of the hole leads the Court to conclude that *242respondent had notice of this hazardous condition. Thus, there is sufficient evidence of negligence to base an award. Notwithstanding the negligence of the respondent, the Court is also of the opinion that the claimant was negligent since he was aware of the condition on the road and did not reduce his speed accordingly. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction such as West Virginia, the claimant’s negligence may reduce or bar recovery in a claim. Based on the above, the Court finds that the claimant’s negligence equals ten-percent (10%) of his loss. Since the negligence of the claimant is not greater than or equal to the negligence of the respondent, claimant may recover ninety-percent (90%) of the loss sustained.

In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to the claimant in the amount of $65.83.

Award of $65.83.
|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |  |
| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218 |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

----

----

----

|      |                                                                            |
|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 99.1 | Press Release, dated April 24, 2014, issued by First Merchants Corporation |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PHILLIP WOLF,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 56 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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

I, Dennis L. Bergquist,  the Chief Financial  Officer of Molecular  Diagnostics,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the  Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m or
78o(d)); and

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

         Date:  April 14, 2004
                                        /s/ Dennis L. Bergquist
                                        Dennis L. Bergquist
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        of Molecular Diagnostics, Inc
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Smith Barney Mid-West Futures Fund L.P. II (the‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’),I, Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Director ofCitigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Daniel R. McAuliffe,Jr.Citigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer andDirector     Date: August 14,2006

----
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael L. Heider, certify that:

- I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial 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 this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 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's disclosure 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 internal control 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 materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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'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

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.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-10992 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Modesto Balderas, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:19-CR-66-1 

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Modesto Balderas appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for 

being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and for 

possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). 

According to Balderas, the district court erred in treating two of three prior 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 14, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-10992 Document: 00515862475 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2021
No. 20-10992 

2 

Texas convictions, one for robbery and one for aggravated assault, as 

predicate violent felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) and subjecting him 

to enhanced penalties. 

With respect to the robbery conviction, Balderas argues that the 

offense is not a violent felony because it may be based on reckless conduct or 

forceless injury and does not conform to the elements of common law 

robbery. As Balderas concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. See United 

States v. Reyes-Contreras, 910 F.3d 169, 183 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc); United 

States v. Burris, 920 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. 

Oct. 3, 2019) (No. 19-6186); and United States v. Griffin, 946 F.3d 759, 761-

62 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 306 (2020). Balderas’s challenge to the 

treatment of his Texas aggravated assault conviction as a violent felony under 

§ 924(e)(2)(B) based on the same forceless-injury argument is likewise 

foreclosed, as he also concedes. See Griffin, 946 F.3d at 761; Reyes-Contreras, 

910 F.3d at 183; see also United States v. Torres, 923 F.3d 420, 426 (5th Cir. 

2019). 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, which is proper if “the position of one of the parties is clearly 

right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the 

outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 

(5th Cir. 1969). Because Balderas correctly concedes that his claims are 

foreclosed by Reyes-Contreras, 910 F.3d 169; Burris, 920 F.3d 942; and 

Griffin, 946 F.3d 759, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED

and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief is DENIED as moot. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-10992 Document: 00515862475 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2021
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30904 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
BRYAN LEE ADDINGTON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 98

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bryan Lee Addington has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Addington has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfri volous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 14, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30904 Document: 00514793360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2019No. 17

- 30904 Conference Calendar

2 motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. In light of the court’s recent decision in United States v. Lucero , ___ F. App’x ___, No. 17

- 50709, 2018 WL 6200326 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2018), we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of re

- entering its corrected order. Case: 17-30904 Document: 00514793360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2019
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-20037 and
33-68128) and in the Prospectuses on Form S-3 included therein of Moore Medical
Corp. of our report dated February 16, 1998, except for Note 5, as to which the
date is March 30, 1998, appearing on page 15 of this Form 10-K. We also consent
to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectuses.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
March 18, 1999

                                      36