alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 12, 2017.

________________

No. 3D17-979

Lower Tribunal No. 15-15572

________________



### S.C.P., t he Mother,

Petitioner,

vs.



### Department of Children & Families, et al.

,

Respondents.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria

Sampedro-Iglesia

, Judge.

Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third

Region, and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, for respondent Department of Children and Families; Laura J.

Lee (Sanford), for respondent Guardian ad Litem Program.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.S.C.P., the Mother, petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the

trial court’s March 30, 2017 order that changed the goal of her case plan from

reunification to permanent guardianship. We grant the petition and quash the order.

The Mother’s children were adjudicated dependent on February 10, 2016.

On January 4, 2017, the trial court accepted a case plan which set forth the primary

goal of reunification. On March 30, 2017, however, the trial court entered the

order under review. The order found that the Mother was in compliance with her

case plan but nevertheless, it changed the goal from reunification to permanent

guardianship. This change could prevent the Mother from eventually reuniting

with her children.

The governing rules and statutes contemplate an evidentiary basis to support

a case plan amendment. See § 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2016); R.N. v. Dep’t of Children

& Families

, 25 So. 3d 697, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“Rule 8.420 contemplates an

evidentiary basis to support a case plan amendment”). The Department properly

and commendably concedes that the trial court order lacks an adequate evidentiary

basis to support the case plan amendment, and the guardian ad litem also indicated

that it has no argument against granting the petition. Based upon our independent

review of the record and the Department’s confession of error, we grant the

petition and quash the order.

Petition granted.

2
Exhibit 10.30

November 8, 2010

Mark Hepsworth

6 Armstrong Lane

Riverside, CT 06878

Dear Mark:

This letter confirms your change in status from an UK contract employee seconded in
the US to that of a US regular employee. This change is effective November 1, 2010 and it supersedes any other agreement in place including your Secondment Extension Letter of October 30, 2007.

Your base salary, effective November 1, 2010 will be $420,000. Your bonus target for 2010 is 66.67%. Your bonus target for 2011 will be 75%.

All allowances provided to you as an expatriate cease as of November 1, 2010. However, you remain eligible for tax preparation and
filing assistance through such time as your 20IItax filings are settled in the US and UK Any reimbursements to you, or fees paid to a third party on your behalf, related to this assistance will be treated as income and include gross up for taxes.

This letter is not intended to create a contract or a guarantee of employment for any particular period of time. Your employment will be
at will, which means that either you or the company may end the employment relationship at any time with or without notice. Your UK employment contract, and any provisions contained within, is not longer in effect.

You will be eligible as of the effective date of this change to participate in the Interactive Data 401(k) Plan as well as to continue in other US
benefit programs that Interactive Data provides to similarly situated employees from time to time.

To confirm your understanding of the items
outlined in this letter, please sign below and return a copy of this letter to me.

Sincerely,

/s/ Peg Murphy

Peg Murphy

Vice President Human Resources

Phone: 781 687
8024

Fax: 781 687 8737

Accepted
and Agreed:

/s/ Mark Hepsworth



|     |  |  |  |       |  |                  
|---- |  |  |  | ----- |  | -----------------
|NAME |  |  |  | DATE: |  | November 17, 2010
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.9.1


                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT
                    ----------------------------------------

    THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), is made as
of and is effective as of September 29, 1995 by and among NEW META LICENSING
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation") and each of the
undersigned (collectively referred to as the "Shareholders"):


                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                              --------------------

    WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, the Shareholders and the Corporation entered
into a Shareholder Agreement (the "Shareholder Agreement); and

    WHEREAS, to correct and clarify the Shareholder Agreement to reflect the
intentions of the parties thereto, the Corporation and the Shareholders enter
into this Amendment;

    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Agreement,
intending to be legally and equitably bound, hereby agree as follows:

    1. Article 4(d)(iii)(A) of the Shareholder Agreement is amended by replacing
that section in its entirety with the following:

       One fifth (1/5) of the Shares owned on the date hereof by each of Ynjiun
       P. Wang, Yung Fu Chang and John Chu, respectively, are hereby deemed to
       have "Fixed" on January 1, 1995 and one fifth (1/5th) shall "Fix" on
       each of the next four (4) anniversaries of January 1, 1995.
        
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of 
the date first appearing above.

                                NEW META LICENSING CORPORATION


                                By: /s/ David B. Swank
                                    ---------------------------
                                    David B. Swank, President
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2016

No. 04-16-00611-CV

Sandra Campos VIDALES,

Appellant

v.

Raymond CAMPOS,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04500

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The completed record in this case was filed October 24, 2016, and the deadline for 

appellant’s brief is currently November 23, 2016. Appellant has notified the court that she 

intends the letter she filed on October 7, 2016, to be her brief. Appellant’s October 7, 2016 filing 

contains a six-page handwritten letter addressed to this court, other handwritten notes, copies of 

documents apparently filed in the trial court, and other documents.

Appellant’s October 7, 2016 filing does not satisfy the requirements for an appellant’s 

brief. The requirements for an appellant’s brief are contained in the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, 38.1. Appellant is advised that as a pro se litigant, she 

must comply with all applicable procedural rules, and is held to the same standards as a licensed 

attorney. Paselk v. Rabun, 293 S.W.3d 600, 611 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. denied); 

Sweed v. City of El Paso, 346 S.W.3d 679, 680 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, pet. denied).

We order appellant Sandra Campos Vidales to file an amended brief that complies with 

all applicable rules of appellate procedure by November 23, 2016. If a timely amended brief that 

corrects these deficiencies is not filed, we “may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing 

another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). This 

may include dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. Id. R. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City 

of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000067326-OCT-201210:12 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM CONDENSED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JULY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                             632
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    36916
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      31608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 71165
<PP&E>                                          249526
<DEPRECIATION>                                  123584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  200227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28681
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       88411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    200227
<SALES>                                          55914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 56360
<CGS>                                            48297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    48297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2981
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1206
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1775
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
# N Shawn Martin Finch, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED SEP -1 2011 Clerk, US Dj trl Courts fo'r ihe

### tlsf~c&t BfanCkruptcy o olumbla

v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 

# {1
Kim R. Gibson, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review ofthe plaintifTs complaint and application for leave to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the informapauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); seeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice ofthe claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

# 3The plaintiffis a District ofColumbia resident suing an individual in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. In the cryptic complaint captioned "Action Involves Discrimination," the plaintiff claims violations ofthe first, eighth and ninth amendments to the Constitution and the "Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title III
... [d]ue to dismissal ofcases and denying a fair hearing." Complaint at 1. The plaintiffhas stated no supporting facts. He therefore has failed to provide the defendant with any notice ofa claim. See BellAtlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 555 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (a plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to reliefabove the speculative level
....") (citations omitted). A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: 

# 4U 3,2011

2
• ... • •• • • - • • ••• ·- of • 

SECR£1REF ID : Al 0 4 710 

CSOAS (3 liar 49) lat Ind 

Headquarters, Army Secur~.ty Agency, The Pentagon, Waohington 25, D. a., 

TO:t Mr. William. Ji". Friedman, Arlington Hall Station, Arlington, Va. 

8 3 MAY194S 

l. Tour attention is invited to Comments l th:t'ough 5 of D/F :t'rom 

this D1v1Sion to the Judge Advocate Oenoral, subject 1•Patent Application 

Serial llo. 443~32011 , dated 29 Deo 1947, which is attached ro-r.t your 

inf'orma.tion and retum. 

f ! 

2. In new ot the information contained in Coment No. 5 of thi8 

D/F, tho oaao ia considered closed and no rurther action is contemplated 

by this Division. 

FOR THE DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE 

JOHN A. GEDDES 

Lt. Colonel, Signal Corps 

2d Inc 

Acting Chief 

Army Security AgencJ 

Kr. William F. Friedman, Arnw Seourit7 Agency, Washington 25, D.C., 

8 September 1949 

TOi Chief, A:rmy Securit7 Agency 

l. The comments referred to in Par. 1 or the foregoing let Ind. P.ave 

been care.fullJ' studied and all the papers are being returned herewith. 

2. It is respectfully requested that the statement made in ~ar. 2 of the 

let Ind., viz., that •the oaee 1~ considered closed and no .further action ie 

oontemplated by t.hiB l)iviaion, 11 be revieweq in the light ot the following 

remarks. 

; : 

b~ 3. a. Thia caea was initiated by my letter dated S Deae::tber 1947 {~ to the Director of Intellig~nce, copy or whioh will be found in attached !~tile, In Par. ·2b thereo£ the answers to two questions were requested. The 

: eeoond of the two questions has been answered in a categorical. manner b7 the ~ Judge Advocate General in Par. 4 of Comment No. 5. However, the tirat question, ~Tis., whether there would be objection to my seeking private counsel, with the ~j understanding that no details or the construction or operation of the equipments ~ involved would be disclosed to euch counsel, has not yet been answered in an 

\'\_ . ... ~- ... 

. 

. ~" 1:- SECRi'"f 

···' vl . .. r-) ·-·--·----· ·--- ---~~--_, __________ S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~__:_ ___ .:..._ __ __; __ --' 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-13-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352\3 
2d Ind (Continued) 

unmistakable manner. In regard to that question it wae atated bT 

ths Judge .Advocate General, in Par. 3 ot Comment No. 5, that 

•this otrice 111 ot the Yin that it is highl)" improbable that Mr. Friedman could eecu.re the service or a 

private counsel to apaiat him in his claim without 

diaolosing to the counsel claasif'ied matter relating 

to his patent application. The decision on thia point, 

however, 1• a matter tor date:rmination by the Director 

ot Intelligence in that it ia predom1nantq a aecurity 

qu.estion. • 

b. I.t the decision referrod to in the foregoing exliract 

rrom the Judge Advocate General'• comment• has boen made, it is 

respeotfull.7 request~d that I be advised thereof. It it ha• not 7et 

been ~~de, it is respeatfully requested that the matter be referred 

to the Direotor of Intelligence for determination and deaiaion. 

l Incl 

file 

WILLIAM F. lRIEDlf.AlC 

SECRET 

3
MfO 

l'i'\'l'IOiTAL SECU!UT'l AGEITCY 

\1"lshtnc:bon 25, D. C. 

S/Ass IGJ~r.EHAL C>nDEHS 

l:Ul·iDETl 27 4 April 1955 

UATIOilAL SECURITY AGEUCY 'roP SECRET COHTP.OL uJll'ICER 

SEC'l'IOIJ I - RESCISSION 

SECTIOH II - APPOnT~1EHT OF USA 'roP SECRET COHTROL OFFICER 

SECTION I - RTo;SCISSIOI1 

NSA Inbter Orders 2576, 2577 and 2578, dated 16 December 195~, 

arc hereby rescinded. 

SECTIOH II - APPOll1'.IMENT OF llSA 'l'OP SECRET CO?I'l'ROL OFFICER 

Mr. Emerson Lee, Jr., NSA lll, is appointed NBA Top Secret Control orricer, COSMIC Control orrice~ o~ the Bub-Registry :l"or NSA, OJlU 

METRIC and VAGRJ\111'T Control Officer, rrplo.cina let LT 'Daniel A. Vcnor, 

019176ol1, AC'..C. let LT Dn.niel A. Venor, 019176o4, AOO, :ls appointed 

a.lte,..nnte Top Secret Control Of:l"icer :l"or this Aeency, replacina Umn 

Keith Ho.rt, 309718, U. S. rJavy. 

BY COMtWJD O'F LIEUTENANT GErlEI'.AL CAN WE: 

OFFlCl.AL: 

~ 

I 

Colou~l, AGC 

Adjutai.1b Gcuernl 

OIS'm.IDUTIOH I JI lu:; 

Imli vidunls Cow~· rrll'•l 

JOlIN B ACI~i.'\N 

~L~Jor OcncroJ., US Air Force 

Ch:ler or sta.rr 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on O 1-13-2015 pursuant to E .0. 1352e 

NAfO CONFIDENTIAL
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            721                   5163
<SECURITIES>                                        0                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0                      0
<INVENTORY>                                         0                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  721                   5163
<PP&E>                                              0                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    721                   5163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             958                   8796
<BONDS>                                             0                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                      0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                      0
<COMMON>                                         6941                    441
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7178)                 (4074)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      721                   5163
<SALES>                                             0                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0                      0
<CGS>                                               0                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6844                  17604
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                      0
<CHANGES>                                           0                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6844)                (17604)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.002)                 (.009)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0                      0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2184 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2184

    To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to institute a trading 
  prohibition for certain issuers that retain public accounting firms 
    that have not been subject to inspection by the Public Company 
          Accounting Oversight Board, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2021

Mr. Kennedy (for himself and Mr. Rubio) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to institute a trading 
  prohibition for certain issuers that retain public accounting firms 
    that have not been subject to inspection by the Public Company 
          Accounting Oversight Board, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TRADING PROHIBITION FOR 2 CONSECUTIVE NON-INSPECTION YEARS.

    Section 104(i) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 
7214(i)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking ``the foreign 
        jurisdiction described in clause (i)'' and inserting ``a 
        foreign jurisdiction''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``3'' and 
                inserting ``2''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding 
                clause (i), by striking ``3'' and inserting ``2''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1999
<CASH>                                           2,347
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,863
<INVENTORY>                                     55,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,861
<PP&E>                                         336,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                 137,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 480,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          156,186
<BONDS>                                        125,457
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           99,972
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,704
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   480,490
<SALES>                                        857,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               859,532
<CGS>                                          654,721
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  654,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   643
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,752
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          595
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,036
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
<FN>
<F1>EXCLUDES SELLING, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AS THESE ARE PART OF
5-03(b)(4).
</FN>


</TABLE>