alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 0459 LT Case No. 16

- 2019

- CA

- 002324

_____________________________ S TATE F ARM F LORIDA I NSURANCE C OMPANY , Appellant,

v.

D EBBIE M C C L ENDON , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Katie L. Dearing , Judge

. C. Ryan Jones, Scot E. Samis, and Brandon R . Christian , of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry
, LLP
, St. Petersburg , for Appellant.

Mark A. Nation, of The Nation Law Firm, LLP
, Longwood , for Appellee.

October 3, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L AMBERT , H ARRIS , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
EX-4.3





 Exhibit 4.3 
  

			
	Number C-______	  	_______________ Shares
		  	Common Stock

 THIS CERTIFIES THAT ___________ is the record holder of ______________________ shares of Common
Stock of 
 QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. 

a Delaware corporation 

transferable only on the records of the corporation upon surrender of this certificate, properly endorsed or assigned. 

This certificate and the shares it represents are subject to the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the
corporation, and any amendments thereto, as well as the restrictive legend(s) on the back of this certificate. Upon request, stockholders may obtain free of charge from the corporation’s principal office a statement describing the preferences,
limitations and relative rights granted to or imposed upon each class or series of shares or upon the holders of such shares. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers on this _____ day of ____________, 20__. 
  

							
	              
	 		 		 	              

	_____________, Secretary	 		 		 	_____________, Chief Executive Officer













 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER ___________SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE TO
______________________ AND HEREBY IRREVOCABLY APPOINT ____________________________ AS ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THESE SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE CORPORATION. 
  

									
	DATED	 	
                 
	 		 		 	
                 

		 		 		 	(Stockholder)
				
	              
	 		 		 	              

	(Witness)	 		 		 	(Stockholder)

 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND EXACTLY WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN ON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN
EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries of Simon Property Group, L.P.

Subsidiary

JurisdictionThe Retail Property Trust

MassachusettsSimon Property Group (Illinois), L.P.

IllinoisSimon Property Group (Texas), L.P.

TexasShopping Center Associates

New YorkSimon Capital Limited Partnership

DelawareM.S. Management Associates, Inc.

DelawareRosewood Indemnity, Ltd.

BermudaMarigold Indemnity, Ltd.

DelawareBridgewood Insurance Company, Ltd.

BermudaSimon Business Network, LLC

DelawareSimon Brand Ventures, LLC

IndianaSimon Global Limited

United KingdomSimon Services, Inc.

DelawareSimon Property Group Administrative Services Partnership, L.P.

DelawareSPGGC, LLC

VirginiaKravco Simon Investments, L.P.

PennsylvaniaSPG ML Holdings, LLC

DelawareSimon Management Associates II, LLC

DelawareSimon Management Associates, LLC

DelawareCPG Partners, L.P.

DelawarePrime Retail, L.P.

DelawareSPG Mayflower, LLC

Delaware


Omits
names of subsidiaries that as of December 31, 2010 were not, in the aggregate, a "significant subsidiary."

114

---



QuickLinks
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: July 31, 2014 104983

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ELIA JACKSON, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 28, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________ James P. Milstein, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered June 29, 2011, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the first degree. In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant entered into a negotiated plea agreement pursuant to which she entered a guilty plea to a reduced count of attempted assault in the first degree. The charges arose from defendant's admitted conduct in intentionally striking the victim with her car while driving, causing serious physical injuries. As part of the agreement, defendant waived her right to appeal the conviction and sentence and, in exchange, was promised a prison sentence of-2- 104983

no more than nine years but not less than 31⁄2 years, with three years of postrelease supervision. County Court imposed a sentence of 81⁄2 years in prison, with three years of postrelease supervision, restitution and other terms. Defendant now appeals. Initially, defendant argues that her appeal waiver and guilty plea were not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. A review of the plea colloquy establishes that defendant made a voluntary and knowing choice to waive her right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 279-280 [1992]). 1 While defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of her plea survives that appeal waiver (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]), the record on appeal does not reflect that she challenged her guilty plea on this ground in a motion to withdraw her plea and, as such, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Watson, 115 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2014]; People v White, 104 AD3d 1056, 1056 [2013], lvs denied 21 NY3d 1018, 1021 [2013]). In any event, we find that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 365-366 [2013]; People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1992]). Finally, given that County Court abided by its sentencing commitment, defendant's challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive is precluded by her valid and unqualified appeal waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Martin, 105 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2013]). Lahtinen, Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

1 The written waiver of appeal, which the record reflects was signed and discussed in open court, is not included in the record on appeal.-3- 104983

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1




The following certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238 are being “furnished” to the SEC rather than “filed” either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and are not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certifications shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.







Certification of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:







(i)  the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period ended May 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: September 28, 2010
/s/ Bruce J. WoodBruce J. Wood

President and Chief Executive Officer








Certification of Chief Financial Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:







(i)  the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual period ended May 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: September 28, 2010
/s/ Joseph W. BatyJoseph W. Baty

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MARCUS E. ENSLOW,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D16-2260

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2016

Petition for Belated Appeal

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Marcus E. Enslow, Milton, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General 

Tallahassee, and, Kaylee Tatman

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the March 20, 2015

judgment and sentence in Case No. 13-CF-4789 in the Circuit Court in and for Osceola

County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED.

LAWSON, C.J., COHEN, LAMBERT JJ., concur.
# C_2016227EN.01000102.xml

| 23.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8007 — Avril/Bpifrance/BPT Israel/Evertree)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 227/02)

On 30 May 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8007. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8007. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Lena Mackay Jack v. Adam Kness.

1. Slander— *Sufficiency of Proof of Slanderous Words.*—In an action for slander, proof of enough of the identical words charged to constitute substantially the imputation of the whole, is sufficient.

Tro spa-s on the Case, for slander. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Carroll County; the Hon. James S. Batjme, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the April term, 1901.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 12, 1901.

John O. Kerch, attorney for appellant.

W. S. Marklet and G. L. Hoffman, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action on the case by appellee for slander, the declaration charging that appellant, in the presence of several persons, accused the appellee of stealing her corn. Appellant pleaded the general issue. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $275.

We find upon an examination of the record that no errors have been assigned by appellant, consequently there is nothing before us for consideration and the judgment of the court below must be affirmed, notwithstanding that fact, however, we have examined the case and are of the opinion that it should be affirmed upon the merits.

The speaking of one or more of the various sets of words mentioned in the declaration charging appellee with larceny, were proven by several witnesses. The only witness for the defense was appellant herself, who denied that she had spoken any of the vrords charged. Appellant complains of the third instruction given by appellee, which told the jury that “ while it is necessary to entitle the plaintiff to recover in an action of slander that he should prove the slanderous words alleged in the declaration, still it is not necessary to prove all the words charged to have been spoken; it is sufficient to prove sub*337stantially the words in one or more of the statements of slanderous words contained in the declaration. To authorize a verdict for the plaintiff in an action of slander it is not necessary that all the slanderous words alleged in the declaration should be proved unless it takes them all to constitute the slander charged," etc. This instruction is correct upon the authority of Ransom v. McCurley, 140 Ill. 626.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 290 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2794 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase automatic maximum 

coverage under the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance program and 

the Veterans’ Group Life Insurance program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 22 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 21), 2021 

Mr. TUBERVILLE (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. 

BRAUN, Mr. BARRASSO, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. CORNYN, and 

Mr. ROUNDS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

MARCH 1, 2022 

Reported by Mr. TESTER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase automatic 

maximum coverage under the Servicemembers’ Group 

Life Insurance program and the Veterans’ Group Life 

Insurance program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2794 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Families 

3 of the Fallen Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AUTOMATIC MAXIMUM COVERAGE 

5 UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP LIFE IN6 SURANCE AND VETERANS’ GROUP LIFE IN7 SURANCE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1967(a)(3)(A)(i) of title 

9 38, United States Code, is amended by striking 

10 ‘‘$400,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$500,000’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall take effect on the later of— 

13 (1) the date that is 60 days after the date of 

14 the enactment of this Act; or 

15 (2) the date on which the Secretary of Veterans 

16 Affairs determines that— 

17 (A) the amount for which a member will be 

18 insured pursuant to the amendment made by 

19 subsection (a) and the premiums for such 

20 amount are administratively and actuarially 

21 sound for the Servicemembers’ Group Life In22 surance program under subchapter III of chap23 ter 19 of title 38, United States Code, and the 

24 Veterans’ Group Life Insurance program under 

25 section 1977 of such title; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2794 RS

1 (B) the increase in such amount carried 

2 out pursuant to the amendment will not result 

3 in such programs operating at a loss. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 290 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2794 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase 

gram, and for other purposes. and the Veterans’ Group Life Insurance proServicemembers’ Group Life Insurance program automatic maximum coverage under the 

MARCH 1, 2022 

Reported without amendment 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE04360A171
Exhibit
13.1




CARTHEW
BAY TECHNOLOGIES INC.




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


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Carthew Bay Technologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Michael Liik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and




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




/s/
      Michael LiikMichael
      LiikPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerJune
      24, 2010
RICKY E. GRUBBS JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE, DEPARTMENT OF 

REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT 

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 

and TABITHA A. TURGEON,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1725

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 8, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Florida Department of Revenue.

Ricky E. Grubbs Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of Revenue.

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Grubbs Jr. appeals a final order of the Florida Department of Revenue

(DOR) establishing his child support obligation. In the order, DOR found that 

Appellant had actual monthly net income of $2672.68. However, DOR admits that 
2

this finding is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, nor by findings of 

fact in the final order. The record reflects that Appellant provided no income 

information. Instead, DOR imputed income to Appellant, a taxidermist in Georgia, 

based on the average monthly income of individuals working as taxidermists in 

Georgia. While DOR is permitted to impute income to Appellant under section 

61.30, Florida Statutes (2015), it must make the statutorily required findings to 

support imputation.

Upon DOR’s proper confession of error, we reverse the Final Administrative 

Support Order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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 amended Quarterly Report of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Warren P. Levy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Warren P. Levy     
|Warren P. Levy         
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 20, 2008         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene
Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00794-CR

John Bass, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2013-158, HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

In the above cause, the State’s brief was originally due on June 20, 2016, and

the State has been granted two extensions, for a total of 90 days. The State has now filed a third

motion for extension of time, seeking an additional 30 days to file the brief, which would make the

brief due on October 19, 2016. In the motion, counsel for the State represents that this is the “last”

extension that will be requested by the State, and we agree that it should be. Accordingly, we

grant the motion and extend the deadline to the following Monday, October 24, 2016. No further

extensions will be granted.

It is ordered September 22, 2016.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Do Not Publish
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 8, 2016

No. 04-16-00786-CV

Anthony MOORE and Jo Moore,

Appellants

v.

David SUBIA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04165

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this appeal from a forcible entry and detainer action, Appellants Anthony Moore and 

Jo Moore have filed an Emergency Motion and Plea for Temporary Relief and Review of 

Excessive Supersedeas Bond, requesting that we review the trial court’s setting of supersedeas 

bond in the amount of $15,000. We GRANT appellants’ motion to the extent that we order the 

judgment of the trial court STAYED pending appeal of the amount of the supersedeas bond. See 

TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (West 2014); TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4. We ORDER the trial court 

clerk to file, within ten days from the date of this order, any documents related to the setting of 

the supersedeas bond. We further ORDER the court reporter to file, within ten days from the date 

of this order, the reporter’s record of the hearing held on December 1, 2016, including any 

related exhibits.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 15.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (FileNo. 333-139194) of The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland of our report datedJuly 24, 2007 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in the 2007 Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated inthis Annual Report on Form 20-F. We also consent to the incorporation by reference ofour report dated July 24, 2007 relating to the financial statement schedules, which appears in thisForm 20-F. We also consent to the references to us under the heading “Experts” in suchRegistration Statement.PricewaterhouseCoopers