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

FOURTH DISTRICT

FREDERICK RUTHERFORD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2673

[November 22, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502003CF006439A.

Frederick Rutherford, Milton, pro se. 

No response required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
9 / 1 7 / 1 3 T o x i c C h e m i c a l s A

s s o c i a t e d w

i t h t h i s S e c t o r | E x

c h a n g e

. R e g u l a t i o n s

. g o

v

e x c h a n g e

. r e g u l a t i o n s

. g o

v / t o p i c / t r i s e c t o r s r u l e

/ d i s c u s s i o n /

t r i

- p h o s p h a t e

- m i n i n g

- c h e m i c a l s # c o m m e n t

- 8 5 8 1 / 1 A r e t h e r e s p e c i f i c T R I

- l i s t e d t o x i c c h e m i c a l s

( / s i t e s / d e f a u l

t / f i l e s / d o c

_ f i l e s / T R I % 2 0 C h e m i c a l

% 2 0 L i s t % 2 0 R

e p o r t i n g % 2 0 Y e a r % 2 0 2 0 1 0

. p d f ) f o r w h i c h y o u b e l i e v e t h a t

t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h i s s e c t o r w o u l d p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n o f v a l u e t o c o m m u n i t i e s ? N o t e t h a t

r a d i o n u c l i d e s a r e n o t i n c l u d e d o n t h e T R I c h e m i c a l l i s t

( / s i t e s / d e f a u l

t / f i l e s / d o c

_ f i l e s / T R I % 2 0 C h e m i c a l

% 2 0 L i s t % 2 0 R

e p o r t i n g % 2 0 Y e a r % 2 0 2 0 1 0

. p d f )

.



## R e : T o x i c C h e m i c a l s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s S e c t o r

( / t o p i c / t r i s e c t o r s r u l

e / d i s c u s s i o n / t r i

- p h o s p h a t e

- m i n i n g

- c h e m i c a l s # c o m m e n t

- 8 5 8 )

T h u

, 1 0 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 1

- 1 1 : 5 6 a m

— b g e s t r i n g

E a r t h w o r k s u r g e s t h e E P A t o a d d p h o s p h a t e m i n i n g t o t h e T R I s e c t o r d u e t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n t

r e l e a s e s o f s e l

e n i u m t o w a t e r a n d l a n d a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s i n d u s t r y

. P h o s p h a t e m i n e s i n I d a h o

a r e t h e s o u r c e o f s e l

e n i u m c o n t a m i n a t i o n t o s u r f a c e a n d g r o u n d w a t e r i n t h e r e g i o n

, a f f e c t i n g

p e o p l e w h o l i v e

, w o r k a n d r e c r e a t e i n t h e a r e a

. S e l e n i u m p o l l u t i o n f r o m I d a h o p h o s p h a t e m i n e s

h a s r e s u l t e d i n e x t e n s i v e h a r m t o l i v e s t o c k

, w i t h m u l t i p l e e x a m p l e s o f c a t t l e a n d s h e e p d e a t h s

.

I t ' s a l s o c a u s e d h a r m t o f i s h a n d w i l d l i f e

. T h i s r e p r e s e n t s a t h r e a t t o p u b l i c h e a l t h

, a n d i t ' s v i t a l

t h a t t h e p u b l i c h a v e a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t r e l e a s e s o f s e l

e n i u m i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a r o u n d

t h e i r c o m m u n i t y

. O M B C o n t r o l N o

. 2 0 2 5

- 0 0 0 8

U s e r n a m e : * P a s s w o r d : * S i g n I n

C r e a t e n e w p r o f

i l e R e q u e s t n e w p a s s w o r d
#### J. M. MITCHELL v. PATSEY TEDDER.

*Appeal.*

When the transcript of the record is not accompanied by a case on appeal (wh.ere such case is required) and no error appears in the record, the Supreme Court will, upon motion, or mav. *ex mero motu.*affirm the judgment rendered below, unless good cause is shown for the apparent *laches*of the appellant.

Appeal, from Wilkes Superior Court, Fall Term, 1889, *Gümer, J.,*presiding.

*Mr. W. W. Barber,*for plaintiff.

No counsel for defendant.

Clark, J.:

When this case was before us at last term (107 N. C., 358) there was no “case settled on appeal,” and we held that judgment below might be properly affirmed. But as no motion to that end had been made by the appellee, instead of entering such judgment *ex mero motu,*as might have been done, the case was remanded to give the appellant another opportunity to have the case settled. This was four months since. When the cause was regularly called, in its order, at this term, it appeared that no “ case settled ” had yet been filed. There is no affidavit negativing *laches,*and no application for *certiorari*based thereon. *Pittman*v. *Kimberly,*92 N. C., 562. Appellees'have lights as well as appellants, and among them is the right to an affirmance of the judgment of the Court below, when the appellant displays such *laches*in presenting his case for review in this Court.

Nor are we inadvertent to the fact that this is an action in ejectment, in which the defendant was permitted to defend without giving bond, and has also appealed to this Court without security. The action was begun four years ago, and *267the plaintiff, who, by the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the Court below, was adjudged (over eighteen months ago) the owner, and entitled to the possession of -the premises, is kept out of the same and from enjoyment of the rents and profits without any hope of recovering compensation for the detention or any of the co=ts and disbursements of so protracted a litigation. The appellant has no right to speculate upon the chances of further delay and the profitableness of negligence. There being no error on the face of the record, the motion of the appellee to affirm the judgment must be allowed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, John C. Barpoulis, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of USEC Inc.; and


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.


April 30, 2014/s/ John C. BarpoulisJohn C. BarpoulisSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.02



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)



In connection with the Annual Report of Concur Technologies, Inc.
(Concur) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. Adair, as Chief Financial Officer of Concur, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|       |  |                   |  |  |  |    |  |                                      
|------ |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | -- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: |  | December 14, 2006 |  |  |  | By |  | /S/    JOHN F.
ADAIR                 
|       |  |                   |  |  |  |    |  | John F. Adair Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies this
report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CRAIG M. STRAHLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1700

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:20-cv-01469-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz. 

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

Case: 22-1700 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2022
2 STRAHLER V. US

FOR THE COURT

June 16, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 16, 2022

Case: 22-1700 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 06/16/2022
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                                    AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                        1996 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
                       OF MICROCIDE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


         Pursuant to the authority reserved to the Board of Directors (the
"Board") of Microcide Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware (the "Company"), under Section 19(a) of the
Company's 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended (the "Plan"), the Board
hereby amends the Plan as follows:

        1.   Stock Subject to the Plan.  The first sentence of Section 12(a) of
             -------------------------
the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                "The maximum number of shares of the Company's Common Stock
which shall be made available for sale under the Plan shall be four hundred
seventy thousand (470,000) shares, subject to adjustment upon changes in
capitalization of the Company as provided in Section 18 hereof."

                               * * * * * * * * * *

        I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment to the Plan was duly
adopted by the Board of Directors of Microcide Pharmaceuticals, Inc., effective
as of May 1, 2001, and was approved by the shareholders of the Company at the
Annual Meeting of Shareholders on June 21, 2001, as required under applicable
state and federal law.

         Executed on this 18th day of October, 2001.



                                    /s/ Alan C. Mendelson
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Alan C. Mendelson, Secretary
#### J. T. Cannady, Appellant, v. Belle Cannady, Appellee.

Appeal: notice: jurisdiction.

*Appeal from Mahaska District Court.*— Hon. J. K. Johnson, Judge.

*745Thursday, May 26, 1892.

*Bolton §• McCoy,*for appellant.

*George W. Lafferty,*for appellee.

Rothrock, J.

It appears from certain abstracts and arguments on •file in this court that J. T. Cannady procured a decree of divorce in the court below against Belle Cannady on the sixth day of December, 1890, and that on the next day he was married to another woman. The original notice was served by publication. On the fifteenth day of the same month the defendant filed a paper which was designated as a motion, and the object of the paper was to set aside the decree and permit the defendant to answer. The matter came on to be heard, and the court made an •order in these words: “And thereupon the case came on for hearing on application to set aside default and decree, and same is treated a'§ peti-tion in equity, and ordered to be heard as such, either to have leave to file additional pleadings or amendments to pleadings before first day •of next term.” This order appears to be the ground of complaint on the part of the plaintiff. But the record does not show that he has at any time appealed from the order, and we have no jurisdiction to determine whether the order was erroneously made. As the parties were in court upon the application, and the court merely ordered that it should be treated as a petition with the right of either party to amend, it may be questionable whether the order was an appealable order But as we have no jurisdiction of the case, it would be improper to determine any .question presented oy the papers on file. The proceeding is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Lynch, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 843]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated July 9, 2001 *(People v Lynch,*285 AD2d 518 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 940 [2001], *cert denied*535 US 1081 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 30, 1999.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, S. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### L. D. GULLEY *v.*WILLIS COLE.

*Homestead*— Re-allotment *of.*

Where the homestead has once been regularly laid of, it cannot be disturbed by a re-valuation thereof, or laying it off a second time.

This was an appeal by the defendant from an allotment of homestead, made to him under execution in favor of the plaintiff, tried at October Term, 1885, of Wayne Superior Court, before *Clark, J.,*and a jury.

In 1879, the homestead of the defendant was duly valued and laid off to him. Thereafter the plaintiff obtained a judgment against him, sued out an execution upon the same, and under this execution the Sheriff proceeded to have valued and laid off the defendant's homestead in the same land, as if no homestead had ever theretofore been laid off to him.

The Court below held that the homestead, as valued and laid off the second time, was affected with such irregularities as rendered it void. The plaintiff excepted, and appealed to-this Court.

*Messrs. E. W. Kerr*and *N. Y. Gulley,*for the plaintiff.

*■Messrs. Strong, Gray & Stamps, C. B. Aycock*and *W. R. Allen,*for the defendant.

Mebbjmox, J.

(after stating the case). The Court .properly decided that the attempt to value and lay off the homestead of the defendant in the same land a second time was void — not upon the ground upon which the Court based its judgment, but because the homestead, as at first laid off, was effectual, continued to be so, and could not be disturbed by a re-valuation thereof and laying it off a second time. This Court so expressly decided in the defendants appeal in this case. *Gulley*v. *Cole,*96 N. C., 447. That case is conclusive of this, and we need not do more than cite it.

Judgment affirmed.
#### B. F. MARTIN *v.*THE DEEP RIVER COPPER MINING COMPANY.

A motion to amend, or to vacate, a judgment, cannot be entertained by tbe Court oí tbe county to wbicb such judgment has been transferred, and where it bas been docketed. It should have been made in tbe county where tbe judgment was rendered.

(*Williams*v. *Rockwell, ante*325, cited and approved.)

Motion to vacate a judgment, made before Tom-gee, at Spring Term 1870, of Guilford Court.

No statement beyond wbat appears in tbe Opinion, is necessary.

His Honor granted an order to vacate tbe judgment, and tbe plaintiff appealed.

Gorrell, for tbe appellant.

*Dillard*and *Phillips & Merrimon, contra.*

Eemde, J.

Tbe plaintiff sued out an attachment, and ■obtained judgment, in Eowan Superior Court, against tbe defendant, by tbe name of tbe Deep Eiver Copper Mining Company; and, under tbe provisions of tbe Code, bad tbe judgment transferred from Eowan to Guilford County, and docketed there, and sued out a *ft. fa.*and levied it on tbe lands of tbe *u*Deep Eiver Copper Company of tbe City of Baltimore *f*who, upon motion and affidavit in Guilford Superior *654Court, obtained an order to vacate the judgment docketed in Guilford, and to enjoin proceedings under the *fi. fa.*

Admitting for the sake of the argument, that the Deep River Copper Company of the City of Baltimore, could be heard at all in a suit to which they were no party, we are of the opinion that the motion to -vacate ought to have been made in Rowan Superior Court, where the judgment was rendered, and not in Guilford, to which it had been transferred. If the Deep River Copper Company of the City c>f Baltimore, who made the motion in this cause, had no opportunity to defend the suit, and really desired to do so, the judgment in Rowan could be vacated, and they could be allowed to defend by setting up the misnomer. And on the other hand, if there is any irregularity in the proceedings affecting the plaintiff, he could there move for leave to-amend; as, for instance, to aver that the defendants were known as well by one name as the other.

There was error in vacating the judgment docketed in Guilford, and in the perpetual injunction: *Williams*v. *Rockwell,*ante 325. Let this be certified, &c.

There will be judgment here against the Deep River Copper Company of the city of Baltimore, for the costs of the appeal.

Per Curiam. Reversed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 3, 2018

t0625

Order 

Clerk

July 3, 2018

154390 (119)

ALEXANDER FIGURSKI, Minor, by his

Conservator, HOWARD LINDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154390

COA: 318115 

Livingston CC: 11-026468-NH

TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN, d/b/a SAINT

JOSEPH MERCY LIVINGSTON HOSPITAL,

WILLIAM BRADFIELD, M.D., and

CATHERINE McAULEY HEALTH

SERVICES CORPORATION, a/k/a SAINT

JOSEPH MEDICINE FACULTY ASSOCIATES,

a/k/a SAINT JOSEPH MERCY PRIMARY

CARE,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 13, 

2018 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 447 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 447

  To deem as timely filed, and process for payment, the applications 
    submitted by the Dodson School Districts for certain Impact Aid 
                     payments for fiscal year 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 23, 1999

   Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To deem as timely filed, and process for payment, the applications 
    submitted by the Dodson School Districts for certain Impact Aid 
                     payments for fiscal year 1999.

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

SECTION 1. IMPACT AID.

    The Secretary of Education shall deem as timely filed, and shall 
process for payment, an application for a fiscal year 1999 payment 
under section 8003 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703) from a local educational agency serving each of 
the following school districts if the Secretary receives that 
application not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act:
            (1) The Dodson Elementary School District #2, Montana.
            (2) The Dodson High School District, Montana.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-68464 of Lodgian, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 21, 2003,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Lodgian, Inc. as of
December 31, 2002, for the period November 23, 2002 to December 31, 2002
(Successor Company operations), and the period January 1, 2002 to November 22,
2002, (Predecessor Company operations) appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Lodgian, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 31, 2003
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Louisa Arlen, Appellant.

Nuisance: judgment: affirmance.

*Appeal from Jones District Court.*— Hon. J. H. Preston, Judge.

Wednesday, February 10, 1892.

Indictment for keeping and maintaining a nuisance. Verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon, from which the defendant appeals.

Per Curiam.

The case is submitted on a transcript of the record, but without the evidence. We have examined the transcript, and discover no error. The judgment is affirmed.
SUBSIDIARIES OF WASTE SERVICES, INC.   December 31, 2008
 JURISDICTION OFNAME
    
    INCORPORATION
    
    OPERATING/TRADE NAMES9180-1720 Quebec Inc.
    
    Quebec
    
    n/aCapital Environmental Holdings 
Company
    
    Nova Scotia
    
    n/aFreedom Recycling Holdings, LLC
    
    Florida
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)
WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Jacksonville Florida Landfill, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    n/aOmni Waste of Osceola County LLC
    
    Florida
    
    J.E.D. Landfill (expires Dec 31 2013)

Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)

WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Ram-Pak Compaction Systems Ltd.
    
    Canada
    
    Waste Check (expires Aug 20, 2012)RIP, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    n/aSanford Recycling and Transfer, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)
WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)SLD Landfill, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)
WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Sun Country Materials, LLC
    
    Florida
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)
WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Taft Recycling, Inc.
    
    Florida
    
    Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)
WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)Waste Services (CA) Inc.
    
    Ontario
Extra-Provincially
Registered in:
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
Quebec
Saskatchewan
    
    A & B Portables (expires Feb.21/11)

Capital Environmental Resource (expires Feb.22/11)

Frith Regional Waste Systems (expires Feb.22/11)

Johns Cartage Waste Management Services (expires Feb.22/11)

Larue Waste & Recycling (expires Feb.22/11)

Maverick Waste Systems (expires Feb.22/11)

McGill Environmental Services (expires Feb.22/11)

Muskoka Containerized Services (expires Feb.22/11)

Waste Services (expires Feb.22/11)

WSI (expires Feb.22/11)

Turney Disposal (expires July20/11)

Nibourg Waste Management (expires Nov.1/11)

GAP (expires Oct.31/10)Waste Services of Arizona, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Arizona Waste Services (expires 20/07/09)
Complete Waste Services (expires 02/04/09)Waste Services of Florida Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Florida Recycling Services (expires Dec 31 2010)

Waste Services (expires Dec 31 2013)

WSI (expires Dec 31 2013)

Commercial Clean-up Enterprises (expires Dec 31 2013)

We Haul of South Florida (expires Dec 31 2013)
 Page 1
#### SUSAN MILLER v. E. T. CLEMMONS.

Eor syllabus see preceding ease.

Civil- action, pending in the Superior Court of Buncombe county, heard by *Gudger, Judge,*at Chambers, on September 24th, 1885.

The plaintiff appealed.

*Mr. G. A. Moore,*for the plaintiff.

No counsel for the defendant.

Smith, C. J.

The facts of this case are essentially the same a? those in *West*v. *Reynolds,*preceding, and for.the reason stated in the opinion in that case, it must be disposed of in a similar way. Appeal dismissed. Let this be certified.

Appeal dismissed: