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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2885

_____________________________

DDD CONSTRUCTION & SITE 

WORK, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, DANNY DAVIS,

individually, and TOMMY DAVIS,

individually,

Petitioners,

v.

WESEMAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

a Florida limited liability 

company,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

December 6, 2023

PER CURIAM.

The Court dismisses the petition for writ of prohibition as 

facially insufficient.

Additionally, this opinion shall serve as a warning to all of 

those who practice before this Court against filing cases or case 

documentation as an emergency unless a true emergency exists. 

The warning applies to both counsel and pro se filers. When an 
2

individual selects the emergency box in the courts’ e-filing system, 

or titles their filing as an emergency, whether during working 

hours or after hours and on weekends, an important chain of 

events is triggered which utilizes significant time and judicial 

resources. First, the Clerk of the Court receives notification of an 

emergency and must immediately review and formally receive the 

filing. The Clerk then alerts the director of central staff who also 

must review the filing and make a determination whether 

emergent circumstances may exist. If so, or if it is unclear, the 

director alerts the panel of three judges on call for emergencies. 

Those three judges must then review the case and filing. The 

director of central staff or a staff attorney reviews and researches 

the case creating a case summary for the sitting emergency panel. 

The emergency panel reviews the summary, the case in its 

entirety, and the pertinent legal authority before conferencing the 

case to determine the outcome of the emergency. 

If an emergency is filed during working hours, time is 

expended on the emergency by the judges, the Clerk of the Court, 

and central staff and away from pending cases. If an emergency is 

filed after hours or on holidays and weekends, significant family 

time is taken from the members of the Court. The Court and its 

employees remain willing and able to serve the State of Florida 

and, thus, often work after hours and on holidays and weekends 

when the need arises, either from an emergency filing or 

otherwise. The emergency option is not taken lightly by the Court, 

nor should it be utilized without proper thought and consideration 

by any counsel or pro se filer. If an individual exhibits continued 

improper use of the emergency filing option, this may result in the 

imposition of sanctions.

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
3

Randall Shochet and Doreen Inkeles of Shochet Law Group, 

Trenton, for Petitioners.

Kirstin Jurecko Megraw of Scruggs, Carmichael & Wershow, P.A., 

Gainesville, for Respondent.
Gregory AZOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-4053

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                            Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
----                                            ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                              <C>
ICI Holdings, LLC                                                Delaware
Insight Communications Company, L.P.                             Delaware
Insight Midwest, L.P.                                            Delaware
Insight Capital, Inc.                                            Delaware
Insight Communications of Indiana, LLC                           Delaware
Insight Communications of Kentucky, L.P.                         Delaware
Insight Kentucky Partners I, L.P.                                Delaware
Insight Kentucky Partners II, L.P.                               Delaware
Insight Kentucky Capital, LLC                                    Delaware
Insight Holdings of Ohio, LLC                                    Delaware
Insight Communications of Central Ohio, LLC                      Delaware
Insight Interactive, LLC                                         Delaware
</TABLE>
#### Loida Coradin et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 640]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated January 7, 2003, which denied their motion to vacate a decision of the same court dated September 30^2002.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

No appeal lies from an order denying a motion to vacate a decision *(see Matter of Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v Culley,*144 AD2d 363 [1988]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Petro Deran PUGH v. STATE

CR-15-1033

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
#### IN RE: Larry D. HILL, JR., Petitioner.

No. 17-1561

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Larry D. Hill, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry D. Hill, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d) motion filed on April 17, 2017. However, Hill did not file a Rule 60(d) motion on April 17, 2017, and the district court has since dismissed Hill’s Rule 60(d) motion filed on May 8, 2017. Additionally, insofar as Hill claims in his petition that newly discovered evidence proves he is actually innocent of his convictions, there are “other adequate mpans” for Hill to *142attain the relief sought. *See In re Braxton,*258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we grant Hill leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FILED AS
PART OF THE APACHE MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,107
<SECURITIES>                                       448
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,484
<ALLOWANCES>                                       456
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,905
<PP&E>                                           3,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,510)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,101
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,658
<SALES>                                          1,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,551
<CGS>                                              761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,210
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,386)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.19)


</TABLE>
Norman WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5384

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Charles Deisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp.





Date: March 30, 2010





/s/ Charles DeisbeckCharles Deisbeck, Chief Executive Officer






E-15
Marco DEJESUS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1113

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 1, 2018

Marco Dejesus, Okeechobee, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General Tallahassee, and, Kaylee D. 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 September 1, 2017 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2016-CF-000537, in the Circuit Court in and for Flagler County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; Genetic Architecture of Mental Disorders in 
Ancestrally Diverse Populations (U01).
    Date: March 10, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: David W. Miller, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of 
Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 
6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 
301-443-9734, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae7e3e6e6eff8eeebcae7ebe3e6a4e4e3e2a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcb1b5b0b0b9aeb8bd9cb1bdb5b0f2b2b5b4f2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental 
Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02904 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Gary Lee HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6185

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Gary Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Lee Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing this civil action advising the district court of an appeal pending with the Supreme Court of Virginia. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Harris v. Virginia,*No. 1:17-cv-00057-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000883476
<NAME> CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,288
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             745
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,780
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                72,548
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      2,796
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,796
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,796
<LOANS>                                         37,288
<ALLOWANCE>                                        557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,216
<DEPOSITS>                                      75,511
<SHORT-TERM>                                    25,189
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             25,757
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           861
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 138,216
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,006
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   45
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    52
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,648
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 797
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,073
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,576
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       43
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,280,753
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,280,753
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   759,356
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.45
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                        12
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    924
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   515
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  557
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               507
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             50
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Brion Umidi, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances 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 includedin this 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 this report;     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 controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 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 (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. 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 the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 20, 2006         By:         /s/ BRION UMIDI    Name:  Brion Umidi    Title:  *Chief Financial Officer*
Daniel STENNIS v. STATE

CR-15-1111

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Juan E. IGLESIAS, Jr., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Daniela LOMBARDO, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1570

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000474

10-MAR-2016

09:10 AM
EX PARTE Reginal A. OWENS

CR-15-1427

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0719 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM087AD

767 -25 - 0428, R2 --- 2/4/10 767 -25 - 0428 IN 03 --- 5/6/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
----

hib

|   | 1. | The      Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934, as amended, and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Pomeroy IT      Solutions, Inc. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November      7, 2008 |                                                                |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | /s/ Craig J. Propst                                                 |
|                  | Craig      J. Propst                                                |
|                  | Vice      President, Treasurer and Interim Chief Financial  Officer |

----
Donald C. MORINGIELLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2748

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.