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

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 4, 2017.

________________

No. 3D16-1844

Lower Tribunal No. 15-28620

________________

Ryan Escobar,

Appellant,

vs.

Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto,

Judge.

Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellant.

Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Berard Rockenbach and David A.

Noel (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin, P.A., and Stephen A. Marino, Jr., Benjamin C.

Hassebrock and Andrew M. Shapiro, for United Policyholders, as amicus curiae.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.
Ryan Escobar, the plaintiff below, appeals an order granting final summary

judgment in favor of his insurer, Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company. Upon

Tower Hill’s commendable confession of error, and because genuine issues of

material fact exist as to the amount of the actual cash value of the insured loss at

hand, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand the case to the trial court

for further proceedings. See § 627.7011(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“In the event of a

loss for which a dwelling . . . is insured on the basis of replacement costs . . . the

insurer must initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss, less any

applicable deductible.”); Siegel v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 3D16-1861, at

*10-11 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 30, 2017) (reversing final summary judgment in favor

of Tower Hill, concluding “[w]e find no support in Slayton[ v. Universal Property

and Casualty Insurance Co., 103 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)]—or any other

authority Tower Hill cites—for the proposition that the insurer is able to

unilaterally determine, as a matter of law, actual cash value or replacement cost

value” by simply paying its own independent adjuster’s estimate of the insured

loss, less the deductible) (footnote omitted); Francis v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co.,

42 Fla. L. Weekly D1565 (Fla. 3d DCA July 12, 2017) (reversing final summary

judgment in favor of insurer where “widely-divergent estimates of covered repair

costs created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment

regarding the roof leak claims,” expressly rejecting insurer’s argument that its

2
payment of its own adjuster’s estimate less the deductible entitled it to summary

judgment under Slayton).

Reversed and remanded.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN IRA BADBEAR,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 30041

D.C. No. 1:19

- cr

- 00092

- SPW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Benjamin Ira Badbear appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 87

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

possession of a stolen firearm

, receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment for

a felony, and being a prohibited person i n possession of a firearm

, in violation of

* 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). 

# FILED

NOV 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 30041

18 U.S.C. § 922(j), (n) and (g)

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

Badbear contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because of

his need for drug treatment , lack of prior felony convictions , and acceptance of

responsibility

. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United

States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). T he sentence at the low end of the Guidelines is

substantively reasonable i n light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances

, including the seriousness of the offense and

Badbear’s criminal history

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 ; see also United States v.

Gutierrez

- Sanchez , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the

various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”)

.

Moreover, c ontrary to Badbea r ’s contention , the record reflects that the district

court considered the § 3553(a) factors and Badbear’s arguments for a below

Guidelines sentence

. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 99 1

- 9 2 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc)

.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Phillip J. Smith, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: February 8, 2006     /s/ Phillip J. Smith  Phillip J. Smith  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)
Steven Clayton THOMASON v. STATE

CR-16-0058

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01910]



[[Page 4957]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Meeting for the Proposal Review Panel for Materials 
Research; Correction

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) published a document in 
the Federal Register of January 21, 2022, concerning a Part-open, 1-
day, virtual site visit meeting for the Proposal Review Panel for 
Materials Research. The virtual site visit date will be corrected from 
April 27, 2022 to May 27, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Crystal Robinson 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#402332322f22292e33002e33266e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1a2b3b3aea3a8afb281afb2a7efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a> or 703-292-8687.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register published January 21, 2022, in FR Doc. 
2022-01100 (Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 a.m.), on page 3369, first column, Date 
and Time Section, please change the meeting date to May 27, 2022.

    Dated: January 26, 2022.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2022-01910 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Bernadin DEMOSTHENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3151

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jessica A. De Vera, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bernadin Demosthene, Pompano, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


<PAGE>   2


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 33-48706 and 333-31717 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, No. 33-93816 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan, and No. 33-93818 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan and to the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 Nos. 33-93820, 333-39607, 333-44043, and 333-48837 of
CytRx Corporation and in the related prospectuses of our report dated
March 15, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of CytRx Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                       /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 2000
Monte THOMAS v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-15-1314

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Ct. of Civ. App.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**906 Certification**
Certification of Chief Executive Officer
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ocular Sciences, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
          (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
          (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Dated: November 13, 2003   /s/Stephen J. Fanning  Stephen J. Fanning Chief Executive Officer
 

 

Certification of Chief Financial Officer
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ocular Sciences, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
          (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
          (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Dated: November 13, 2003   /s/Steven M. Neil  Steven M. Neil Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.5(b)






Exhibit 10.5(b)




VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC

1310 Goshen Parkway

PO Box 2656

West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380




December 18, 2008




Jack Wyszomierski

6635 Armitage Road

New Hope, PA 18938




Dear Jack:



In order to comply with final regulations under §409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, the terms of your employment agreement dated June 29, 2007, are hereby revised as follows:



The second and third paragraphs of the section entitled “Severance/Restrictive Covenants”
are revised to read as follows:




If you incur a Disability (as defined on Annex 1), you will be entitled to
receive a lump-sum payment, as soon as practicable following your Disability but in
no event later than March 15 of the calendar year following the calendar year in
which such Disability is incurred, in an amount equal to the target amount of your
bonus for the year in which such Disability is incurred, prorated for the portion of
such year during which you were employed with VWR. In addition, you shall be
entitled to receive payments of your base salary until payments to you under VWR’s
long-term disability plan commence but in any event for a period not to exceed 18
months from the date of your termination of employment.




If your employment with VWR and its affiliates is terminated by reason of your
death, your beneficiary or estate, as applicable, will be entitled to receive a
lump-sum payment as soon as practicable following your death but in no event later
than March 15 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which your death
occurs, in an amount equal to the target amount of your bonus for the year in which
your death occurs, prorated for the portion of such year during which you were
employed with VWR.



If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (610) 692-1060.




Sincerely,




/s/
John Ballbach                     
                         
John Ballbach



Accepted and Agreed:



	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/
Jack Wyszomierski
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Jack Wyszomierski	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:
	 	12/19/08
Amendment dated February 3, 2009 to Amended Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.20 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of February 3, 2009 by and between TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. (the
“Parent”), Parent’s subsidiary, TPTX, Inc. (“TPTX”) and CRAIG JOHNSON (“Executive”). As used in this Amendment,
references to the “Company” shall include the Parent and TPTX, as appropriate. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Agreement (as defined below). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of November 12, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, the parties desires to amend the Agreement as set forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment hereby agree as follows: 
 AMENDMENT 
 1. Section 4.4.2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to
read as follows: 
 “The Company shall continue to pay the Executive’s base salary during the period following the
termination or resignation of the Executive for a period equal to tweleve (12) months (the “Compensation Severance Period”). Such severance payments shall be subject to standard deductions and withholdings and paid in
accordance with the Company’s regular payroll policies and practices. For purposes of calculating the amount to be paid pursuant this Section 4.4.2.1, the Company shall use the Executive’s base salary in effect on the date of such
termination or resignation, but determined prior to any reduction in base salary that would permit the Executive to voluntarily resign for Good Reason pursuant to Section 4.5.3(iii).” 
 2. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. 
  

 1. 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT as of the date set forth in the first paragraph hereof. 
  

									
	TORREYPINES THERAPEUTICS, INC.:	 		 	CRAIG JOHNSON
					
	By: 	 	/s/ Evelyn Graham	 		 	By: 	 	/s/ Craig Johnson
		 	Evelyn Graham	 		 		 	Craig Johnson
		 	Chief Executive Officer	 		 		 	Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20884 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-91-CR-27-4

-------------------- April 10, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Ruiz, federal prisoner #59024-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis , which was treated as a successive motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court properly denied Ruiz’ petition for writ of error coram nobis . The writ of error coram nobis is used to attack invalid convictions which have continuing consequences when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no longer in custody for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v.No. 01-20884 -2- Morgan , 346 U.S. 502, 506-13 (1954). Because Ruiz is currently incarcerated, this remedy is unavailable to him as a matter of law. Because Ruiz was asserting that his sentence was unconstitutional and should be vacated, the district court properly treated Ruiz’ petition as a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court did not err in denying Ruiz’ successive motion to vacate his sentence. Because Ruiz failed to obtain authorization from this court prior to filing his successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued November 3, 2009

Decided January 11, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 2057

PUSHKAR V. POTNIS,

Petitioner

,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

of the United States,

Respondent

. Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A094

‐ 998

‐ 386

O R D E R

On November 3, 2009, we heard oral argument on Pushkar Potnis’s petition for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. After argument, on December 28, 2009,

the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened his case and remanded it to an immigration

judge to consider new evidence Potnis had presented. Potnis has moved this court to

remand consideration of his petition for review to the BIA in light of the reopening of his

case. 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

### No. 09

‐ 2057 Page 2

Potnis is correct that the BIA’s decision to reopen his case affects our ability to consider

his petition, but instead of remanding his petition to the BIA, we are compelled to dismiss it

for lack of jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is premised on the existence of a final order of the

BIA. 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(1). The BIA’s order to reopen the proceedings in Potnis’s case

“vacates the previous order of deportation or removal and reinstates the previously

terminated immigration procedures.” Orichitch v. Gonzales

, 421 F.3d 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2005);

Bronisz v. Ashcroft

, 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 2004).Because the previous order is vacated,

we have no jurisdiction to consider it. Gao v. Gonzales

, 464 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir. 2006). “The

order sought to be reviewed is no more. Any judicial act while there is no outstanding

order of removal would be advisory.” Id. We note that our order dismissing the case does

not foreclose our future consideration of the issues in this petition in the event that Potnis

seeks review of the Board’s determination of his reopened petition. Id.

Accordingly, Potnis ʹ s petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46401-46402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18911]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME:  Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 11:00 a.m. EDT.

PLACE:  Broadcasting Board of Governors, Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT:  Notice of Closed Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors.

SUMMARY: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) 
will meet in a closed session to consider the appointment of the 
Director of Global Strategy for the Agency. This meeting will be closed 
to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) in order to 
protect the privacy interests of candidates considered but not selected 
for the position. In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act 
and BBG policies, the meeting will be recorded and a transcript of the 
proceedings, subject to the redaction of information protected by 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), will be made available to the public. The publicly-
releasable transcript will be available for download at www.bbg.gov 
within 21 days of the date of the meeting.

[[Page 46402]]

    Information regarding member votes to close the meeting and 
expected attendees can also be found on the Agency's public Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,
Director of Board Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-18911 Filed 8-6-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
E.M., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1852

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.