alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Miguel TIRADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-2043

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 25, 2018]

James S. Lewis, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.* See *State v. Abreau* , 363 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1978) (where the omitted instruction relates to an offense two or more steps removed, the reviewing courts may properly find such error to be harmless).

Levine, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JOSHUA NORFLEET, 

 Case No. 2:18–CV–834 

 Petitioner, Judge James l. Graham 

 Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

 v. 

WARDEN, OHIO STATE 

PENITENTIARY, 

 Respondent. 

ORDER 

On April 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed. 

(ECF No. 16.) Although the parties were advised of the right to file objections to the R&R, and 

of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. Therefore, the R&R (ECF 

No. 16) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The petition is dismissed with prejudice. The Court 

further DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability and CERTIFIES that any appeal 

would be objectively frivolous. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: May 14, 2019 s/ James L. Graham_______________ 

 JAMES L. GRAHAM, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
July 29, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

YIGAL BOSCH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00623

- CV V.

3 PARK ’ S ENTERPRISES, LLC D /B/A LAH CLEANERS , A ppellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, 3 Park ’ s Enterprises, LLC d/b/a LAH Cleaners, signed May 17, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Yigal Bosch , to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
                                 EXHIBIT 10.114
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                          REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment to Registration  Rights  Agreement is made and entered
into as of March 11, 1999 by and among ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION (the "Company"), a
Delaware   corporation  and  Cogentrix  Delaware  Holdings,   Inc.,  a  Delaware
corporation ("CDH").

     WHEREAS,  the  Company  and CDH have  entered  into a  Registration  Rights
Agreement dated as of December 30, 1998 (the "Registration Rights Agreement");

     WHEREAS,  the  Company  and CDH wish to  amend  certain  provisions  of the
Registration Rights Agreement;

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

1.   Amendment  of  Agreement.  The  references  to the date  "March  16,  1999"
     contained in Sections  2(a),  2(c) and 2(e)(i) of the  Registration  Rights
     Agreement are hereby deleted and replaced with the date "June 15, 1999."

2.   Representation  of CDH. CDH hereby  represents that it is the sole owner of
     the Shares (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) and it has not
     transferred  or  assigned  any of  such  Shares  or its  rights  under  the
     Registration Rights Agreement to any other party.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have  executed and  delivered  this First
Amendment to Registration Rights Agreement as of the date first above written.

                                    ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
                                By: /s/Michael A. DeGiglio
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Michael A. DeGiglio
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

                                    COGENTRIX DELAWARE HOLDINGS, INC.
                                By: /s/ Thomas F. Schwartz
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Thomas F. Schwartz
                                    Title: Senior Vice President
#### Dillard *v.*State.

4848

293 S. W. 2d 697

Opinion delivered October 1, 1956.

*W. E. Billingsley*and *E. H. Lamore,*for appellant.

*Tom Gentry,*Attorney General and *Paul C. Rawlings,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Lee Sbamstbk, Chief Justice.

Arnold Dillard has appealed from the judgment of the Fulton Circuit Court, based upon a jury verdict, which found him to be guilty of violating the provisions of Ark. Stats. 1947, § 41-3202, and assessed the punishment there prescribed.

The appellant, for reversal, contends that the Court erred in the following points:

■ (1) In refusing to instruct a verdict of “not guilty” upon motion of defendant made at close of State’s case (Tr. p. 18).

(2) In refusing offered instruction No. 1 defining the terms “prostitution” and “sexual intercourse.” In refusing offered instruction No. 2 defining the doctrine of “Ejusdem Generis” in construction of statutes. In refusing offered instruction No. 3, that sexual intercourse is not lewdness, prostitution or assignation, and is not indecent or obscene per se.

(3) In failing and refusing, “upon the Court’s own motion,” to declare § 41-3202 of Ark. Statutes not sufficiently definable to support a criminal conviction and/ or to support the information upon which defendant was tried.

*721The facts (about which there is very little dispute) are that the appellant, on November 19, 1955, registered at a tourist court near Salem in Fulton County under a fictitious name and address. He was accompanied by a married woman, not his wife; but he registered them as man and wife, rented a cabin, and the two of them stayed in the cabin alone the remainder of the night. They left the tourist court together the next day.

The appellant contends that this conduct was not a violation of the law because only one incident was charged or proven. Section 41-3202, Ark. Stats. 1947, which is Section 2 of Act 240 of 1943, makes it a misdemeanor for any person to enter or remain in any house, place, building, tourist camp or other structure for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation. Section 41-3203, Ark. Stats. 1947 is Section 3 of the same Act, and it defines lewdness for the purpose of the act as: “The term ‘Lewdness’ shall be construed to include any indecent or obscene act.” One definition by Webster’s dictionary of the word “indecent” is “morally offensive.”

The General Assembly by passing this law intended, among other things, to make it unlawful for any person to do what the appellant did in this case, whether one incident or several. No one could successfully contend that the acts of the appellant in this case were decent or morally right.

The Court properly instructed the jury as to the law in such cases. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

9/30/19

 Southern District of Ohio

Martin Jackson

3:18-CV-251

Commissioner of Social Security

✔ Judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff; Affirming Commissioner's decision that Plaintiff was

not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to bensfits under the Social Secuirty Act

✔ Walter H. Rice

Report and Recommendations
Michael SPANGLER, Petitioner, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, not individually but as Trustee for Carlsbad Funding Mortgage Trust ; Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Creditors, Lienors; Trustees of Lois Spangler, deceased; Unknown Spouse of Michael Spangler; Sharon Dexter, heir ; Shelley Holcomb, heir; Robyn Dillard, heir; Stacie L. Collins, heir; Joan Phipps, heir; Ford Motor Credit Company; and Unknown Tenant #1, n/k/a Angela Ciccarelli, Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-1376

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         164,305
<SECURITIES>                                    98,685
<RECEIVABLES>                                  179,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,854
<INVENTORY>                                      2,801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               472,616
<PP&E>                                         152,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                (71,310)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 682,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          309,022
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,480
<OTHER-SE>                                     356,267
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   682,445
<SALES>                                        458,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               632,770
<CGS>                                           37,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               438,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,508
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,522)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,094
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Franklyn MILA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1982

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mitchell SIERRA, Jr., Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.

No. 3D17-203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


     The following are the Company's subsidiaries as of April 26, 2001. All
beneficial interests are wholly-owned by the Company and are included in the
Company's consolidated financial statements.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

              Name of Subsidiary              State of Organization           Date of Incorporation
              ------------------              ---------------------           ---------------------
<S>            <C>                             <C>                                   <C>
               MA Brands, Inc.                      Delaware                         9-16-97
                 Mador, S.A.                   Dominican Republic                    10-29-99
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             829
<SECURITIES>                                    15,037
<RECEIVABLES>                                      416
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,802
<PP&E>                                           5,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,966
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,170
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,769
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,875)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,875)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
ex10_2.htm


    MODIFICATION
AGREEMENT

    


    Rock Hard
Laboratories, LLC (“the Company”), and Health and Wellness Partners, Inc., (the
“Independent Contractor”), agree as follows:

    


    1.           Relationship
of Parties. The parties agree that the provisions of that certain contract
between them, dated March 23,
2009, pursuant to which the Company retained the Independent Contractor
as an independent contractor to sell and promote the Company’s products in the
State of California, hereinafter referred to as the ''original contract,'' shall
continue in effect except as modified in Paragraph 2.  A copy of the
original contract is attached.

    


    2.           Modifications.

    


    
      (a)           The
parties agree to modify Paragraph 4(a) of the original contract so that in
addition to the rights described therein, the Company grants to the Independent
Contractor the exclusive right to sell and promote the Company’s products in the
State of California, in return for which the Independent Contractor agrees to
provide such services and the provision of other services in California as
requested by the Company from time to time;

       

      (b)           The
parties agree to modify Paragraph 4(a) of the original contract so that in
addition to the rights described therein, the Company grants to the Independent
Contractor the exclusive right to do direct response in California
only.  The parties further agree that any national direct response
campaign must be approved in writing by the Company;

       

      (c)           The
parties agree to modify Paragraph 5 of the original contract so that in addition
to the rights and restraints described therein, both parties agree that the
“Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information” excludes disclosures mandated by
federal and state law;

      


      (d)           The
parties agree to modify Paragraph 6 of the original contract so that in addition
to the rights and restraints described therein, both parties agree that the “No
Disclosure of Trade Secrets” excludes disclosures mandated by federal and state
law.

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    


    
      3.           Construction.
In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this
modification agreement and the original contract, the provisions of this
modification agreement shall control in all respects.

    

    


    Executed
___________________[date] at ___________________[city], California.

    


     

    INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR

    


    By: /s/ Milton Ault III

    Signature

    


    


    Milton
Ault III

    Print
Name

    


    


    ____________________________

    Title

    


    ROCK HARD
LABORATORIES, LLC

    


    By: /s/ Trent A. Broers

    Signature

    


    


    Trent
A. Broers

    Print
Name

    


    President

    Title
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of American Rare Earths and Materials, Corp. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Philip Clark, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)
The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.





A signed original 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section     1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

















Date: September 24, 2010
By:
/s/ Philip ClarkPhilip Clark, CA, CPA, CFAChief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
TAMERA BROWN et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-412
Plaintiffs, Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
CITY OF CINCINNATI et al., ORDER
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court following a telephone informal discovery conference held

on March 7, 2019. The Court hereby ORDERS the following:

1. The parties are directed to follow the discovery procedures set forth in their Rule
26(f) report (i.e., Doc. 14, Section 2A).

2. The parties are directed to discuss any discovery disputes amongst themselves and
bring particular discovery issues to the Court for the follow-up conference on March
20, 2019. The parties shall submit statements on the discovery issues to the Court no
later than close of business on March 19, 2019.

3. Once the Court resolves the discovery disputes and any required discovery is
provided to defendants,' defendants will have an additional 15 days to respond to
plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Accordingly, defendants’ second motion for
extension of time to file an answer to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (Doc. 26)
is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 2 / YA 9 Keown
Ei L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge

! According to defendant Pettis’s statement submitted to the Court prior to the conference, defendant Pettis served
her first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents on plaintiffs on December 3, 2018.
{00261482-1} 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

TAMERA BROWN, et al : Case No. 1:18-CV-412 

 : 

 Plaintiffs : Judge Dlott 

: 

v. : NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF 

 : COUNSEL 

CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al. : 

 : 

 Defendants : 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Notice is hereby given that Peter Stackpole, Chief Counsel - Litigation, is entering an 

appearance as trial attorney for Defendants City of Cincinnati, John Cranley, Patrick Duhaney, 

Harry Black, Elliot Isaac and Danita Pettis, in the above captioned case. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PAULA BOGGS MUETHING (0080018)

City Solicitor 

/s/ Peter J. Stackpole 

PETER J. STACKPOLE (0072103)

Chief Counsel - Litigation 

Room 214, City Hall 

801 Plum Street 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

Phone: (513) 352-3350 

Fax: (513) 352-1515 

E-mail: peter.stackpole@cincinnati-oh.gov 

Trial Counsel for Defendants 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/10/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 121
{00261482-1} 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 I hereby certify that on August 10th, 2018, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Appearance was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of 

the Court's electronic filing system and copies will be mailed to those parties by certified mailed 

who are not served via the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the 

Court's system. 

 /s/ Peter J. Stackpole 

PETER J. STACKPOLE (0072103)

 Assistant City Solicitor 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/10/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 122
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4574 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitations 

on the maximum amount of the deduction of interest on education loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2010 

Mr. WU introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the limitations on the maximum amount of the deduction 

of interest on education loans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Interest 

5 Full Deductibility Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4574 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF 

2 DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON EDUCATION 

3 LOANS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 221 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 (relating to maximum deduction) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by striking subsections (b) and (f), and 

8 (2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and 

9 (e) as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 6050S(e) 

11 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 221(d)(1)’’ 

12 and inserting ‘‘section 221(c)(1)’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 this section shall apply to payments made in taxable years 

15 beginning after December 31, 2009. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Anthony FERRER, Appellant, v. Rosanna FERRER, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2912

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.