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

FOURTH DISTRICT

CARLO MANUEL CARSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-3931

[March 25, 2015]

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

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562012CF003625A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required by appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal 

sentence without prejudice to his right to timely seek postconviction 

remedies under rule 3.850, if appropriate. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.

MAY, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350)







Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), the
undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify to his knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report of Form 10-K for the year December 31, 2008 of the Company (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.






/s/ Corey M.
      HorowitzCorey
      M. HorowitzChief
      Executive Officer and ChairmanMarch
      31, 2009
#### ELIJAH WINSTON v. EDWARD DALBY.

A covenant *not to prosecute the suit to judgment*against Mm, given to' one of two makers of a promissory note, upon consideration of Ms baying, pending such suit, paid a part of tbe note sued upon, does not extinguish the debt as to the other maker.

*300Debt, tried before Waits, J-., at Fall Term 1869 of Gran-ville Court.

Tbe suit was upou a promissory note, signed “ Dalby & Bullock,” wbicb was the name of a firm in which the defendant and one John D. Bullock, were partners. The suit was originally against both, but whilst it was pending, Bullock paid one-half of the principal, and a *nol. pros,*was taken as to him, and an instrument under seal executed by the plaintiff to him, acknowledging the receipt of the money, and, in consideration thereof, covenanting with *him*— “ that I will not prosecute to judgment, a suit now pending in the Superior Court of Granville county against him upon a promissory note,” *&o.,*— being that in suit.

The question was, whether the effect of such instrument was to discharge the defendant.

His Honor was of opinion that the defendant was dis•charged, and gave judgment accordingly; and the plaintiff appealed.

*Rogers &*Batchelor, for the appellant.

*No*counsel, *contra.*

Settle, J.

We are of the opinion that the instrument given by the plaintiff to Bullock, does not amount to a release.

It operates in the nature of a covenant not to sue.

Upon an examination of the authorities, it will be found, that the Courts have been slow to adopt the doctrine, that a covenant not to sue, may operate as a release, and have only permitted such covenants to have that effect, in order to avoid circuity of action.

In *Dean*v. *Newhall,*8 T. R. 168, it is held that the obli-gee, who had *covenanted not to sue*one of two joint and several obligors, might sue the other, although a *release*to one would have been a bar as to both.

The same point is decided in *Hutton*v. *Eyre,*1 E. C. L. *301385, where the debt was a joint one, and not joint and several; and Gibbs, C. J., says “ we think the rule that a covenant not to sue, operates as a release, applies only to eases where the covenantor and covenantee are single.”

Upon the authority of these cases, and of *Walmsly*v. *Cooper,*39 E. C. L. 51, the text writers lay it down, that a covenant not to sue has not the effect of a release, in discharging a co-contractor: 1 Archb. N. P. 191; 1 Tidd. 10.

No question was raised before us as to whether this debt was joint or several, nor do we think there could have been, for our statute provides that “in all cases of joint obligations or assumptions of co-partners in trade or others, suits may be brought and prosecuted on the same, against all or any number of the persons, making such obligations, assumptions or agreementsBev. Code, ch. 31, sec. 84.

The judgment of the Superior Courtis reversed, and judgment entered here in favor of the plaintiff, according to the case agreed.

Peb Cubiam. Judgment reversed, &c.
*February 10, 1942.*

#### Strauss, Respondent, vs. Howdin Distilled Products, Inc., and others, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Marshall J. Palakow,*attorney, and *E. G. Wurster*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Olsen & Barr*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on February 10, 1942.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tix Corporation (the “Company”) hereby
certifies based on his knowledge that:





(i)
            The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
    and





(ii)
            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.




DATE:
        August 9, 2010
            /s/ STEVE HANDYSteve
      Handy,Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Tix Corporation and will be retained by Tix Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an Exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-Q.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This legend contains summary financial information extracted from (A) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such (B)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               22749
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       399760
<ALLOWANCES>                                         50000
<INVENTORY>                                        1139662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1940733
<PP&E>                                              348012
<DEPRECIATION>                                      418778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2843672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1480400
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                              4927
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                         1358345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2843672
<SALES>                                             590758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    590758
<CGS>                                               389555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       389555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    584056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   15257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (398110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (398310)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (398310)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.08)
        


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.1

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE
U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Capital
Environmental Resource Inc. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
Sutherland-Yoest, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                  
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the report fully complies with the
    requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
    U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                           
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| | /s/ DAVID SUTHERLAND-YOEST  
| |                             
| | Name: David Sutherland-Yoest

| |        |                        
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2004

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cardo Medical, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Brooks, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

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/ ANDREW  A. BROOKS
                      Andrew A. BrooksChief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  August 13, 2009

---
#### JAMES L. MATHEWS et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF SAMPSON COUNTY et al.

This case is controlled by the principle announced in *Railroad*v. *Lewis*and *Maee*v. *Commissioners, ante.*

This was an action to restrain the COLLECTION of taxes, heard upon motion for-injunetion -before *Philips, X,*at Fall Term, 1887, of Sampson Superior Court.

The plaintiffs are .tax payers of Clinton township in the County of Sampson, and they bring this action to restrain and prevent by injunction the collection- of -certain < taxes levied by the defendants, Commissioners of that county, and about to be collected-by the defendant Sheriff thereof* alleged for sundry causes stated in the complaint to be illegal, and to have been illegally levied. A Judge at Chambers granted an injunction pending the action, until the hearing *70upon the merits, and the defendants having excepted, appealed to this Court.

*Messrs W. R. Allen*and *W. 8. Thompson,*for the plaintiffs.

*Mr. Geo. Davis,*for the defendants.

MerrimoN, J.

It is alleged in the complaint that the taxes complained of, were, for numerous causes stated, levied illegally, but it is not alleged or contended that they were “ levied or assessed for an illegal or unauthorized purpose.”

Indeed, so far as appears, the purpose was a proper and lawful one. The Court therefore had no authority to grant relief by injunction, as has been expressly decided in the *R. & G. Railroad Company*v. *Lewis,*and *Mace*v. *Commissioners,*decided at the present term. This case is in all material respects like and must be governed by those cases.

There is error in that the Court granted the injunction.

Let this be certified to the Superior Court, to the end that further proceedings may be had in the action according to law.

Error.
GORAN CAPITAL INC. - Consolidated                                 Exhibit 11.01
Analysis of Earnings Per Share
US GAAP - Treasury Method
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     Three Months               Three Months
                                                                        Ended                       Ended
                                                                     March 31, 1999             March 31, 1998
                                                                      Restated

<S>                                                                    <C>           <C>           <C>
Average Price (US $)                                                    $9.64        (A)           $28.76

Proceeds from Exercise of Warrants and Options (US $)                  $204,816      (B)         $9,582,503
                                                                        =======                   =========
Shares Repurchased - Treasury Method                                     21,251    (B)/(A)          333,189
                                                                         ======                     =======
Shares Outstanding - Weighted Average                                 5,876,398                   5,798,750
Add:  Options and Warrants Outstanding(1)                                43,946                     576,304
Less:  Treasury Method - Shares Repurchased                             (21,251)                   (333,189)
                                                                         ------                   ---------
Shares Outstanding for US GAAP Purposes                               5,899,093      (C)          6,041,865
                                                                      =========                   =========
Net Earnings in Accordance with US GAAP                              $  123,000      (D)         $3,517,000
                                                                      =========                   =========
Earnings Per Share - US GAAP - Basic                                      $0.02                       $0.61
                                                                           ====                        ====
Earnings Per Share - US GAAP - Fully Diluted                              $0.02    (D)/(C)            $0.58
                                                                           ====                        ====
</TABLE>


Note 1: Only those options with a dilutive  effect were  included  above for the
three  months  ended  March 31,  1999.  Total  options  outstanding  amounted to
682,572, of which 638,626 options had exercise prices which exceeded $9.64.

                                      -20-
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 12.0


                       TRI-STATE OUTDOOR MEDIA GROUP, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Year Ended December 31
                                                                -------------------------------
                                                                1997          1998         1999
                                                                ----          ----         ----
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>          <C>
Loss before income taxes                                    $   (3,445)     $ (9,739)    $ (11,453)
Add
   Portion of rent expenses representative of the
     interest factor                                               571         1,049         1,222
   Interest on indebtedness                                      4,200        10,417        13,006
                                                            ----------      --------     ---------
           Income as adjusted                               $    1,326      $  1,727     $   2,775
                                                            ==========      ========     =========

Fixed charges
   Interest on indebtedness                    (1)          $    4,200      $ 10,417     $  13,006
                                                            ----------      --------     ---------

Rent:                                                            1,713         3,146         3,667
                                                            ----------      --------     ---------

Portion or rent expenses representative
   of interest factor                          (2)                 571         1,049         1,222
                                                            ----------      --------     ---------

     Fixed charges (1)+(2)                                     $ 4,771      $ 11,466     $  14,228
                                                            ==========      ========     =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                   -             -             -
                                                            ==========      ========     =========
</TABLE>



                                                                              55
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JINNI TECH LTD; BRUCE ROYCE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

RED.COM, INC.; RED.COM, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35789

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00217-JLR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 9, 2021** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Jinni Tech Ltd. and its founder Bruce Royce (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from the

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of RED.com, Inc. and

FILED

JUL 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RED.com, LLC (together, “RED”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. 

First, Plaintiffs claim that comments posted online by RED’s president,

Jarred Land, accused Plaintiffs of stealing or hacking RED’s intellectual property

in order to develop what Plaintiffs describe as a competing product. Plaintiffs

argued in their First Amended Complaint and in their opposition to RED’s motion

for summary judgment that these statements amounted to defamation per se as to

Bruce Royce and trade libel as to Jinni Tech Ltd. under Washington law. See Life

Designs Ranch, Inc. v. Sommer, 364 P.3d 129, 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015); Auvil v.

CBS 60 Minutes, 67 F.3d 816, 820 (9th Cir. 1995). In granting summary judgment

in RED’s favor on these claims with respect to statements concerning unlawful or

criminal behavior, the district court relied solely on the ground that no such

statements were made by Land. In doing so, however, the district court appears to

have inadvertently overlooked Land’s statements and instead addressed only

comments posted by RED customers and fans. Accordingly, we vacate the

summary judgment order as to these two claims and remand to the district court to

allow it to consider whether Land’s comments constitute defamation per se or trade

libel. We leave for the district court to address, in the first instance, the parties’

additional arguments concerning these claims.

2
Second, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to

Plaintiffs’ other claims. These claims include intentional infliction of emotional

distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light, tortious interference,

and violations under the Lanham Act and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. 

Plaintiffs cite no authority supporting their argument that damages presumed for

purposes of their defamation per se claim may be actual damages for the purposes

of these other claims. Plaintiffs’ argument fails, and we hold that the district court

correctly granted summary judgment as to these claims. 

Each party shall bear its own costs. 

VACATED in part, AFFIRMED in part. 

3