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

Case No. 5D17-3163

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

Rachael E. Reese, of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit






Management Election Program 
On November 22, 2018, the Compensation Committee (the "Committee") of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted a program pursuant to which eligible employees, including the Company’s named executive officers, may elect to receive all or any portion of their annual bonuses otherwise payable in cash in any combination of the following:
		
	(1)
	Cash.


		
	(2)
	Fully-vested profits interest units of Digital Realty Trust, L.P. (“PIUs”) or fully-vested shares of Company common stock, in either case, having a value (based on the Company’s closing share price on the date of grant) equal to 100% of the annual bonus amount subject to the election.


		
	(3)
	Unvested PIUs or unvested restricted stock units covering shares of Company common stock (“RSUs”), in either case, having a value (based on the Company’s closing share price on the date of grant) equal to 125% of the annual bonus amount subject to the election. 50% of each award of unvested PIUs or unvested RSUs (as applicable) will vest on each of the first two anniversaries of the grant date, subject to the participant’s continued service through the applicable vesting date.




Participants must make their elections by a specified date in the year preceding the year in which his or her annual bonus would otherwise be paid. PIUs, shares of Company common stock and RSUs awarded pursuant to elections are expected to be granted when annual equity awards are otherwise granted by the Company during the first quarter of the year following the year in which a participant’s election is made.


Unvested PIUs and unvested RSUs will be subject to accelerated vesting in the event of a change in control of the Company or certain qualifying terminations of employment. In the event of a qualifying termination of employment, the units or shares so accelerated may not be disposed of prior to the date on which such units or shares would have otherwise vested under the award’s original vesting schedule.
** **

Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm

 

Board of Directors

 

Elephant Talk Communication Corp

 

We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.333-177205), Form S-8 (No. 333-135931), Form S-8 (No.333-152276), FormS-3 (No. 333-181738), Form S-3 (No. 333-181320)and Form S-3 (333-180977) of our reports dated April 2, 2013, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and the effectiveness of Elephant Talk Communication Corp’s internal control over financial reporting,appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. Our report related to the consolidatedfinancial statements included an explanatory paragraph regarding the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP

Los Angeles, California

 

April 25, 2013
Kenneth Paul ALFONSO, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O Rachel Jeanelle ALFONSO, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0244

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Lashawn Edward Meane v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00291-CR

Trial court case number: 1464891

Trial court: 183rd District Court of Harris County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court for the trial court to enter written 

findings of fact and conclusions of law related to appellant’s suppression motion in the trial court. 

The district clerk has filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7.

Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of appellant’s 

brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

 Acting individually 

Date: October 25, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED  SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                 SEP-9-1998
<CASH>                                                         93,686
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                    12,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              116,966
<PP&E>                                                        453,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                598,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          30,764
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                      392,180
<OTHER-SE>                                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  598,349
<SALES>                                                       142,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              142,157
<CGS>                                                          54,329
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 129,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                8,113
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 5,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    1,811
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    3,734
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0.10
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deshawn Jamel GREENE, a/k/a Train, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6770

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Deshawn Jamel Greene, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States'Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina; Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Deshawn Jamel Greene seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 .U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*812We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Greene has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Highlights

EMEDS Health Response 

Team (HRT) 

• Brings initial medical equipment,

supplies, five tents and the ability

to perform life-saving operations

to include patient stabilization

and surgical procedures

• Maintains 40 medical personnel

and has 10 pallet positions of

equipment and supplies

• Ability to care for a Population

At Risk (PAR) of up to 3000

personnel

• In addition to surgical care,

provides primary medical care

and has four holding beds that

rely on aeromedical evacuation

to transport the patient to more

definitive medical care facilities

EMEDS+10

• Builds to a total of eight tents and

19 pallets of equipment/supplies

• Maintains 67 personnel

• Ability to care for a PAR of

3,000- 5,000 personnel

• Ancillary services include:

laboratory, radiology,

pharmacy, and dental

• Ability to care for ten medical

or surgical patients for an

extended period of time

EMEDS+25

• Builds to a total of eleven tents,

24 pallets of equipment/

supplies

• Maintains a staff of 97 personnel

• Ability to care for a PAR of 5,000-

6,500

• Adds ancillary physical therapy

and additional surgical capacity

• An EMEDS+25 can care for both

surgical and medical inpatients

Capability: The Air National Guard’s EMEDS is a modular, scalable, rapid 

response medical package that can be used in humanitarian relief, wartime 

contingencies and disaster response operations. The package contains three 

unique and distinct building blocks: EMEDS Health Response Team 

(HRT), EMEDS+10 and EMEDS+25 personnel and specialized equipment 

components. 

Overview: The Air National Guard Medical Service (ANGMS) began transitioning 

to EMEDS in 2002. Currently the ANGMS has 3 EMEDS HRTs and 3 EMEDS 

+25 personnel packages. To complement the personnel packages, ANGMS has 

acquired EMEDS equipment sets. Air National Guard rapid response EMEDS 

packages have deployed in support of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and the 

tornado in Greensburg, KS. 

Locations: The ANGMS has dispersed EMEDS personnel capabilities

throughout the Continental United States (CONUS) plus Puerto Rico, Hawaii and 

Alaska. All ANG EMEDS equipment sets are geographically located at the 

following sites within the United States: 111th Attack Wing, Horsham Air Guard 

Station (Horsham), PA; the 141st Air Refueling Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base 

(Spokane), WA; and the 190th Air Refueling Wing, Forbes Field (Topeka), KS. 

Current as of December 2017 Learn more at www.nationalguard.mil

Point of Contact: NGB Public Affairs at (703) 601-6767

Expeditionary MEDical Support (EMEDS)

 Perform initial life-saving operations to include patient stabilization and 

surgical procedures

Providing services, medical equipment, and supplies in need
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 21.1

                  SHOREWOOD PACKAGING CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
               Name                                                    State of Incorporation/Country
               ----                                                    ------------------------------
<S>                                                                     <C>
Shorewood Packaging of California, Inc.                                 California

Shorewood Packaging Company of Illinois, Inc.                           Illinois

SPC Company of Virginia, Inc.                                           Virginia

Shorewood Packaging Corporation of Alabama                              Alabama

Shorewood Packaging Corp. of Canada, Ltd.                               Ontario, Canada

Shorewood Transport, Inc.                                               New York

Shorewood Packaging of Delaware, Inc.                                   Deleware

Shor-Wrap, Inc.                                                         Delaware

Shorewood Technologies, Inc.                                            Delaware

Shorewood Packaging Corporation of Georgia                              Georgia

Toronto Carton Corporation Limited                                      Ontario, Canada

Shor-Wrap Packages of Canada, Ltd.                                      Ontario, Canada

Shorewood Acquisition Corp. of Delaware                                 Delaware

Shorewood Packaging Corporation of Virginia                             Delaware

SPC Company of New York, Inc.                                           New York

Shorewood Packaging Corporation of Connecticut                          Connecticut

Shorewood Corporation of Canada Limited                                 Ontario, Canada

SPC Corporation Limited                                                 Ontario, Canada

Shorewood Packaging Corporation of Oregon                               Oregon

Shorewood Packaging of North Carolina, Inc.                             Delaware

Shorewood Packaging Corporation of New York                             New York

Shorewood Packaging Company (Guangzhou) Ltd.                            China

Shorewood Holographic Patterns, Inc.                                    Delaware

Shorewood Asia Ventures Ltd.                                            Bermuda

SPC (Bermuda) Ltd.                                                      Bermuda

SPC Asia, Ltd.                                                          Bermuda

Shorewood Packaging China Ventures Ltd.                                 Mauritius
</TABLE>


                                 Page 44 of 45
Alberto FERNANDEZ, MBA, Ph.D., Appellant, v. BARRY UNIVERSITY, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 3D17-324 & 3D16-2635

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 05 50 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA ALLEN BALDWIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 31 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 20 2023

06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0550
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     I, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., 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 anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and 15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004         By:  /s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.    Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.    *President and*
Gregory D. FLOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Thomas E. EMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4116

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Mota, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 893]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered July 7, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his argument that the court should not have imposed sentence without having received a report of the psychiatric, psychological and intelligence testing it had ordered in aid of sentencing, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant was not prejudiced because he received the minimum lawful sentence and because nothing in the record casts any doubt on his mental competence. Defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary *(see People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9 [1983]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1356 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1356

 To amend title 23, United States Code, to include additional eligible 
          uses of revenue from tolls, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2021

 Ms. Malliotakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 23, United States Code, to include additional eligible 
          uses of revenue from tolls, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Resident Commuter Toll Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF REVENUES.

    Section 129(a)(3)(A) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
striking clause (v) and inserting the following:
                            ``(v) toll discounts, rebates, or credits--
                                    ``(I) for individuals residing on 
                                either side of a tolled bridge located 
                                in an urbanized area, as determined by 
                                the Bureau of the Census, for the use 
                                of tolled bridges within such urbanized 
                                area; and
                                    ``(II) from amounts consisting of 
                                the difference in revenue resulting 
                                from changing a toll facility from a 
                                one-way toll to a two-way toll.''.
                                 <all>
```