alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Robert D. ASWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for petitioner's failure to respond to this court's order of January 17, 2018.

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Janice TOLSON, Appellant, v. John BOYLE, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2057

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

Justin C. Carlin of The Carlin Law Firm, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

David A. Hoines of Hoines, Hess & Rose, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
SCWC-11-0000398

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

SC, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

IC, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-11-0000398; FC-D NO. 10-1-6354)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Pollack, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Del Rosario, in place of McKenna, J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s application for writ

of certiorari filed on October 12, 2012, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 26, 2012.

Shawn A. Luiz for 

petitioner

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Dexter D. Del Rosario

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-11-0000398

26-NOV-2012

10:14 AM
Tonya Doggett THARP v. Jason Calvin DEASE

2160026

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Reginald D. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; Exel Inc, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1298

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald D. Evans appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his claims against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) but granting leave to amend his complaint to add a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Exel, Inc. After the district court filed its order, the court accepted Evans’ amended complaint. “[W]e have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. *Porter v. Zook,*803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); *see*28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved *all*claims as to all parties.” *Porter,*803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation *136marks omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court decision, if it appears from the record that the district court has not adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is no final order.” *Id.*

Although the district court dismissed all claims against the SSA, it allowed Evans to amend his complaint to add a new claim against a new defendant, and the record reflects that Evans did in fact file such an amended complaint. Because Evans still has a viable claim in this ongoing matter, the district court did not issue “a final decision,” and we lack jurisdiction over Evans’ appeal. *Id.*at 699.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court. We express no view on the ultimate disposition of Evans’ remaining claim. 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 AND REMANDED*
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. and Carrier Equipment, Inc., Appellants, v. SEABOARD MARINE LTD., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1682

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

Aponte Law and Darren R. Aponte, for appellants.

Blanck & Cooper and Jonathan S. Cooper, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants/counter-plaintiffs/appellants, Transportation Services, Inc., and Carrier Equipment, Inc., have appealed an order in favor of plaintiff/counter-defendant/appellee, Seaboard Marine Ltd., captioned "Final Judgment for Counterdefendant Seaboard Marine." That order granted Seaboard Marine's motion for summary judgment on the appellants' counterclaims, dismissing those counterclaims, and concluding that the appellants "shall take nothing by this suit and [the appellee] shall go hence without day." The order did not address or dispose of the appellee's still-pending claims as plaintiff against the appellants; those claims and the appellants' counterclaims arose from the same transactions and occurrences.

We issued an order to the parties to show cause why the order on appeal should not be reversed to exclude the purported *1007words of finality, "go hence without day," without prejudice to the rights of the parties to appeal when both the claims and counterclaims have been fully adjudicated, citing *Haven Center, Inc. v. Meruelo*, 22 So.3d 849, 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). No responses were filed.

We reverse the order sought to be appealed, and remand the case for the deletion from the order of the phrase "go hence without day." The reversal does not disturb the trial court's decision to grant the appellee's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, and is without prejudice to the rights of the parties to appeal when the claims and counterclaims have been fully adjudicated.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Joesph Elmer FREEMAN v. Kristen Michelle FREEMAN

2160179

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Stephen YAGMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Erwin MEINBERG, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-56318

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Stephen Yagman, Pro Se

Eliezer Ben-Shmuel, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen Yagman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment and chal*628lenges the denial of his motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and motions for sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Even if, as Yagman contends, the district court erred by dismissing his motions for attorney’s fees and for sanctions as moot, we need not remand for further proceedings because his motions fail on their merits. *See Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008) (we may affirm on any ground supported by the record).

Yagman contends he is a prevailing party under the EAJA because his habeas petition resulted in the Bureau of Prisons vacating the challenged disciplinary hearing. This action, however, was voluntarily undertaken by the Bureau of Prisons and the habeas petition was ultimately dismissed as moot. Accordingly, Yagman is not a prevailing party for purposes of the EAJA. *See Buckhannon Bd. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res.,*532 U.S. 598, 604-05, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001); see *also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,*589 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To receive what one sought is not enough to prevail: the court must require one’s opponent to give it.”).

Yagman next contends that the Respondent’s argument, made in opposition to his motion for attorney’s fees, that Yagman’s habeas petition is not a “civil action” for purposes of the EAJA is sanctionable under either 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Rule of Civil Procedure 11, or the court’s inherent authority. We disagree. The record demonstrates that this argument was not frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise brought in bad faith.

In light of this disposition, Yagman’s request for costs on appeal, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. Yagman’s request for sanctions to be imposed against appel-lee on appeal, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.20(b)










November 3, 2018






Reference is made to the Second Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement, entered into on February 25, 2014 and effective as of January 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by and between you and Mylan Inc.  The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the Term of Employment as set forth in Section 2 of the Agreement shall be extended to April 1, 2019.  All other provisions of the Agreement, as modified by the foregoing, shall remain in full force and effect.




	
		
	MYLAN INC.

	

by

	 
	/s/ JoEllen Lyons Dillon

	 
	Name:   JoEllen Lyons Dillon

	 
	Title:   Authorized Signatory








	
		
	 
	/s/ Rajiv Malik

	 
	Name:   Rajiv Malik
EXHIBIT 32.2


                             CERTIFICATE 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  Compuprint,   Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
David R. Allison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

         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.



/s/ David R. Allison
------------------------
Chief Financial Officer

April 14, 2004
Edward J. FRANK, Appellant, v. FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2210

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Ann T. Frank of Ann T. Frank, P.A., Naples, for Appellant.

Shaib Y. Rios of Brock & Scott, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
BOVE GRAND, INC. d/b/a Westshore Pizza Village Center, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Angeline DIAMOND, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1691

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
FLORIDA INVESTIGATIVE NETWORK, INC. f/b/o British American Homes, LLC, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0255

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EX PARTE Anthony HARRIS

CR-16-0420

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1495 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide coverage under 

the Medicaid program for services for the treatment of psychiatric or 

substance use disorders furnished to certain individuals in an institution 

for mental diseases, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

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

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide 

coverage under the Medicaid program for services for 

the treatment of psychiatric or substance use disorders 

furnished to certain individuals in an institution for mental diseases, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jim Ramstad Legacy 

5 of Recovery Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1495 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR SERVICES FOR THE 

2 TREATMENT OF PSYCHIATRIC OR SUB3 STANCE USE DISORDERS FURNISHED TO 

4 CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS IN AN INSTITUTION 

5 FOR MENTAL DISEASES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(a) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (29), by striking ‘‘; and’’ at 

9 the end; 

10 (2) by redesignating paragraph (30) as para11 graph (31); 

12 (3) by inserting after paragraph (29) the fol13 lowing new paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(30) services for the treatment of psychiatric 

15 or substance use disorders furnished to any indi16 vidual who is eligible for medical assistance under 

17 the State plan (or a waiver of such plan), enrolled 

18 with a medicaid managed care organization (as de19 fined in section 1903(m)(1)(A)) or a prepaid inpa20 tient health plan described in section 

21 1903(m)(9)(D)(iii)(I), and is a patient in an institu22 tion for mental diseases; and’’; and 

23 (4) in the matter preceding the subdivision (A) 

24 following paragraph (31), as redesignated by para25 graph (2), by striking ‘‘as otherwise provided in 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1495 IH

1 paragraph (16)’’ and inserting ‘‘as otherwise pro2 vided in paragraphs (16) and (30)’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

4 1903(m)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 1396b(m)(7)) is amended by inserting before the period 

6 at the end the following: ‘‘, and made with respect to serv7 ices described in such section provided before the date of 

8 enactment of the Jim Ramstad Legacy of Recovery Act’’. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to medical assist11 ance provided on or after the date of the enactment of 

12 this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17334 and #17335; Tennessee Disaster Number TN-00133]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4637-DR), dated 02/03/2022. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         12/10/2021 through 12/11/2021.
 DATES: Issued on 02/03/2022. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/04/2022. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/03/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/03/2022, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Cheatham, Davidson, Decatur, Dickson, Dyer, Gibson, Henderson, Henry, Lake, Obion, Stewart, Sumner, Weakley The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17334 C and for economic injury is 17335 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Barbara Carson, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2022-02828 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### Iva ROBBINS; Ivan Robbins, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEXANDRIA REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-1329

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 15, 2016

Decided: December 19, 2016

*872Iva Robbins, Ivan Robbins, Appellants Pro Se. David Drake Hudgins, Amanda Murray Schwartz, Hudgins Law Firm, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Iva and Ivan Robbins appeal the district court’s orders granting the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action, and denying Plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Robbins v. Alexandria Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., No. 1:15-cv-00839-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2016; Mar, 18, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Vidal, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 895]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered June 26, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). The court permitted the prosecutor to elicit only a portion of defendant’s very extensive prior record, along with defendant’s use of various aliases and conflicting pedigree information. All these matters particularly relate to defendant’s credibility.

Counsel having withdrawn his objection, defendant’s challenge to testimony regarding street-level narcotics transactions is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that this testimony was properly admitted *(see People v Brown,*97 NY2d 500, 504-507 [2002]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

2002 HONDA ACCORD, $26,612.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, (1) DELL LAPTOP, (6) CELL PHONES, (2) GUN CASES, (8) VARIOUS RIFLES, (5) VARIOUS SHOTGUNS, (5) VARIOUS PISTOLS, (2) MISCELLANEOUS MAGAZINES, PROPERTY OF GARY

PAUL KUEHNER

PETITION OF: GARY PAUL KUEHNER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 160 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# STATE OF 

# CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Inthe matter of The State ofConnecticut and Devon Power LLC ) ) ) ) ) Trading Agreement and Order 8181A ModificationNo.3

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Devon Power LLC ('Respondent)having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and Order 8181 A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows: I. All references to May I, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to comply with the emissions limits ofSubsections 22a-174-22(d)(l) through 22a-174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ('Regulations) are hereby replaced with May I, 2010. 2. Any references to October 151 with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCS) and/or allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009. 3. Any references to May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and retirement ofnon-ozone season DERCs, shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31, 2010. 4. All references to September I, 2008 with respect to the submission ofFuture Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009. 5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading Agreement and Order 8181A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall comply with the requirements ofSections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174-22(d)(2)(A) of the Regulations. 6. All other terms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order 8181A, as modified, shall remain in effect.

( Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street· Hartford. CT 06106-5127 http://www.CLgovIdep All Equal Opporlllllity EmployerDevon Power LLC 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8181A ModificationNo.3 The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Order without further notice.

Date: 

## ------------'----- Devon PowerLLC --, 

# L
Signature:

## -----:."h/--£-p'-'''--'''~------ . ;:J1
. Narne:

__

## ",(,...::~,--:>_,-_,_<?' __

## t_~_._ ...... 14----'5==----5

__ Title:

__

### -'f<----'L/ll-J

__ 

### '_/J1,_'.4;-J_;?-_G-'C_7-

_ 

# L./-/:s

_ 2-c

# 01

Issued as amodification ofaTrading Agreement and Order. 

# 9;;0 ,4

- 

# 'R-- 04-

- 2.(

- 

## .J..u'i Gar ose Date Director Engineering and Enforcement Division Bureau ofAir Management