alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PARAGON FIELD SERVICES, INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. KNIGHT CAPITAL FUNDING III, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2061

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 22, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal of appeal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
#### Clayton VINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Inder Jeet Singh GUJRAL, Prison Physician, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6349

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Clayton Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Marie Dwyer, Ramon Rodriguez, III, RAWLS, MCNELIS *&*MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clayton Vines appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.**Vines v. Gujral,*No. 2:15-cv-00516-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 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.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 To the extent that Vines seeks to raise new claims on appeal, he fails to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances warrant consideration of those claims. *See Pomomo v. United States,*814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016) ("Absent exceptional circumstances we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (ellipsis omitted)).
Draft Agenda 9/22 & 23/2014

U.S. Department of Energy

Manufactured Housing Working Group

September 22 - 23, 2014

Agenda

Day 1: September 22, 2014**

9:00 – 9:15 Introductions (including remote), housekeeping

9:15 – 9:30 Opening remarks by the WG members

9:30 – 10:00 Introduction of Cost Data (Emanuel Levy)

10:00 – 12:00 DOE (Navigant): LCC with Updated Cost Data and Annual Energy 

Runs Presentation

12:00 – 1:00 LUNCH BREAK

1:00 – 2:00 Continuation of Cost Data Discussion (if necessary)

2:00 – 4:00 Subcommittee Reports 

Affordability Report (Rob Roy)

Financial (Stacey Epperson)

Manufacturing (David Tompos)

2015 IECC Scope (Manny Santana)

4:00 – 5:00 Public Comment, other DOE administrative items, next steps, 

conclude

Day 2: September 10, 2014**

9:00 – 9:30 WG Comment

9:30 – 12:00 Continue Subcommittee Reports

12:00 – 1:00 LUNCH BREAK

1:00 – 3:30 Action Items:

 Climate Zones

 Multiple Product Types

 Compliance Paths

3:30 – 4:00 Review Road Map for additional action items and adjustments

4:00 – 5:00 Public Comment, Recap/Review, Next Steps, Homework, Review 

Schedule and Wrap-up Comments

** Breaks at the request of the group
Draft Agenda 9/22 & 23/2014

DATE Location Room Webinar Link

September 22, 2014 DOE Forrestal GH-019 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/915091240

September 23, 2014 DOE Forrestal GH-019 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/278235472

October 1, 2014 DOE Forrestal GH-019 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/585091001

October 2, 2014 DOE Forrestal GH-019 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/726540504

October 23, 2014 Denver (Golden)

October 24, 2014 Denver (Golden)
Deny and Opinion Filed August 7, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00968-CV No. 05-14-00969-CV No. 05-14-00970-CV No. 05-14-00971-CV No. 05-14-00972-CV IN RE WILLIE OTIS HARRIS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 304th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F91-45092; F91-45093; F91-45123; F91-70666; F91-70667 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGera ld, Francis, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Francis Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial court to rule on his motion for new trial. The fact s and issues are well know n to the parties so we do not recount them here. To demonstrate entitleme nt to a writ of mandamus in a criminal case, a relator must establish that (1) the trial court fa iled to perform a purely ministerial duty, and (2) relator has no other adequate legal remedy. State ex rel. Hill v. Cour t of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2001). A trial court has no obligation to rule on a motion for new trial because it is overruled by operation of law if the trial court fails to rule within seventy-five days. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 21.8; In re Boykin, No. 09-12-00361-CR, 2012 WL 4033333, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Se pt. 12, 2012, orig. proceeding); In re Bullock, No. 12-–2– 11-00258-CR, 2011 WL 5420842, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyl er Nov. 9, 2011, ori g. proceeding). Accordingly, relator has not demonstrated that th e trial court has failed to perform a ministerial duty. We DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

140968F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          146,858
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,090
<OTHER-SE>                                   (148,948)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,358)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,358)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,358)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)



</TABLE>
#### Mirna RODRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric K. FANNING, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1083

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 12, 2017

Decided: September 21, 2017

Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM *&*JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Kimere J. Kimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mirna Rodriquez appeals the district court’s orders deeming the Appellee’s statement of undisputed facts as admitted and denying reconsideration, and granting summary judgment in favor of the Appel-lee on Rodriquez’s claims of discrimination and retaliation. We have reviewed the rec*226ord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Rodriquez v. Fanning,*No. 1:15-cv-01654-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 22 & Dec. 16, 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*
CUSTOM MARINE SALES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. BOYWIC FARMS, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, and Broward Realty Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 25, 2018]

Louis C. Arslanian, Hollywood, for appellant.

Gale Ciceric Payne of Gale Payne & Associates, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Kuntz, J.

Custom Marine Sales, Inc. ("Custom Marine") appeals a non-final order requiring it to deposit rent payments into the court registry. It argues that the trial court erred in ordering it to deposit rent pursuant to section 83.232, Florida Statutes (2017), because there is no rent due under the applicable lease. The commercial *792lease agreement at issue included a provision waiving rent payments until the completion of certain improvements. Because those improvements were not completed, we reverse.

Boywic Farms, LTD ("Boywic Farms") agreed to lease a commercial property to Custom Marine. Under paragraph 8 of the lease, Boywic Farms needed to complete improvements to the property before delivering possession. The lease included the following in its definition of "delivery": "Landlord shall be deemed to have delivered possession of the Premises to Tenant when Landlord has given Tenant ten (10) days' written notice that Landlord has substantially completed ..." the required improvements. Paragraph 8 also provides that "rent shall be waived for the period between the Effective Date and the date on which Landlord delivers possession of the Premises to Tenant."

The language of the lease agreement is clear. When the language of a contract is unambiguous, it must be enforced based on its plain language. *Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch* , 174 So.3d 983, 986 (Fla. 2015). It is undisputed that Boywic Farms waived required rent payments until it completed the improvements provided for in paragraph 8 of the lease. Further, it is undisputed that it did not complete those improvements. Thus, there were no rent payments due under the lease agreement and the court erred in ordering Custom Marine to deposit payments into the court registry.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Ciklin and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
# Eiropas Savienības C 164A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 164A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 57. sējums2014. gada 29. maijs |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 164A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

57. sējums2014. gada 29. maijs

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Atzinumi |
| | ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS |
| | Eiropas Centrālā banka |
| 2014/C 164A/01 | Termiņa pagarinājums pieteikumiem par iecelšanu Administratīvās pārskatīšanas padomes locekļu amatā | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

V   Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas Centrālā banka

2014/C 164A/01

Termiņa pagarinājums pieteikumiem par iecelšanu Administratīvās pārskatīšanas padomes locekļu amatā

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 164A/02 | Atskaite par Oficiālā vēstneša C A Sēriju Konkursi | 2 |

2014/C 164A/02

Atskaite par Oficiālā vēstneša C A Sēriju Konkursi

Oficiālā vēstneša

2

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

V Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eiropas Centrālā banka

| 29.5.2014 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 164/1

---

Termiņa pagarinājums pieteikumiem par iecelšanu Administratīvās pārskatīšanas padomes locekļu amatā

2014/C 164 A/01

ECB ar šo paziņo, ka līdz 2014. gada 2. jūnijam tiek pagarināts termiņš pieteikumu iesniegšanai, atbildot uz uzaicinājumu ārējiem ekspertiem iesniegt pieteikumus iecelšanai Eiropas Centrālās bankas Administratīvās pārskatīšanas padomes locekļu un to aizstājēju amatā (Frankfurtē pie Mainas Vācijā), kas publicēts Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī2014. gada 1. maijā (1).

Frankfurtē pie Mainas, 2014. gada 23. maijā

---

(1)  OV C 133 A, 1.5.2014., 1. lpp.

---

29.5.2014

| 29.5.2014 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 164/2

---

ATSKAITE PAR OFICIĀLĀ VĒSTNEŠA C A SĒRIJU KONKURSI

2014/C 164 A/02

Lūdzu, skatīt sarakstu ar C A sērijas izdevumiem, kas publicēti šā gada laikā.

Ja nav norādīts citādi, Oficiālo Vēstnesi izdod visās valodu versijās.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 333-129021) pertaining to the Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Nexity Financial Corporation of our report dated March 14, 2007, with a dual date of September 17, 2007 for Note 22, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Nexity Financial Corporation included in the amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 3) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Mauldin & Jenkins LLC 

Birmingham, Alabama 

September 26, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Porter, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 631]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered April 3, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defense counsel’s failure to request, indeed, his waiver of a *Sandoval*ruling *(People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]), with the defendant’s consent on the record, did not deny the defendant the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Henderson,*265 AD2d 573 [1999]; *People v Knox,*134 AD2d 704, 705 [1987]; *People v Durham,*225 AD2d 960, 961 [1996]). Where, as here, “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation,” the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel is satisfied *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.
ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015-305

DECEMBER TERM, 2015

Shawn Foster } APPEALED FROM:

}

 v. } Superior Court, Chittenden Unit,

} Civil Division

Andrew Pallito, Commissioner, Vermont 

Department of Corrections

}

} DOCKET NO. 65-1-15

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Considering the parties’ memoranda of law filed in response to this Court’s show cause 

order, we dismiss as moot the above appeal, currently scheduled for the January 6, 2016 term 

before a three-justice panel. In the above appeal, the incarcerated plaintiff challenged a 

programming decision that required him to complete a special program before being eligible for 

furlough. He alleged that the decision was based on false facts. The Department of Corrections 

(DOC) agreed that the decision indicated it was based on certain facts and that those facts were 

indeed inaccurate, but argued that the decision was actually based on other, accurate facts. The 

superior court ruled that there was a more than sufficient basis for the decision, putting aside the 

false facts. Defendant appealed this ruling. On August 5, 2015, however, defendant was 

furloughed back into the community. Because he was re-incarcerated on October 16, 2015, he 

argues that his claims are not moot because they are “capable of repetition yet evading review.” 

State v. Rooney, 2008 VT 102, ¶ 11, 184 Vt. 620 (mem.). We disagree. This narrow exception 

to the mootness doctrine applies only when the challenged action is too short in duration to be 

fully litigated before its expiration and there is “a reasonable chance that the same complaining 

party would be subjected to the same action again.” Id. (quotation omitted). Here, the notion 

that DOC would rely on the same false facts again in making a program decision is highly 

speculative at best and not reasonably possible, given that DOC acknowledged that the facts in 

question were false.

BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

Beth Robinson, Associate Justice
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Reymond Josue LOPEZ-FREGOSO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41560 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 31, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Reymond Josué Lopez-Fregoso, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Reymond Josué Lopez-Frego-so has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). *184Lopez-Fregoso has filed a response. To the extent Lopez-Fregoso seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his guilty plea, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of such a claim; we therefore decline to consider any such claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lopez-Fregoso’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *184published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41604

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS ALBERTO HAGEN-PORRAS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-576-2

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Luis Alberto Hagen-Porras appeals his guilty-plea

conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Hagen-Porras

contends that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing him to

withdraw his plea and that his conviction should be reversed because his plea

was not knowing and voluntary. Hagen-Porras insists that he is innocent and

that he pleaded guilty under pressure from his trial attorney in the mistaken

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-41604

2

belief that he was certain to be convicted and certain to receive the ten-year

mandatory minimum sentence if he proceeded to trial. 

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.

2003). When determining whether to allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty

plea, the district court should consider if: (1) the defendant asserted his

innocence, (2) withdrawal would prejudice the government, (3) the defendant

delayed in filing his withdrawal motion, (4) withdrawal would substantially

inconvenience the court, (5) close assistance of counsel was available, (6) the

original plea was knowing and voluntary, and (7) withdrawal would waste

judicial resources. See United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-34 (5th Cir.

1984). The defendant has the burden of establishing a fair and just reason for

withdrawing his plea. See United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir.

1996). The decision whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea is based

on the totality of the circumstances. See Powell, 354 F.3d at 370.

In this case, the district court denied Hagen-Porras’s motion to withdraw

his plea after finding that his plea was knowing and voluntary and that his

attorney represented him zealously. Hagen-Porras has not shown that these

findings are incorrect. See Still, 102 F.3d at 124. The district court’s judgment

is, in all respects, 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The following Financial Data Schedule contains standard data for the Nine Months
Ended  October  5,  1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            OCT-05-1999
<CASH>                                        5386
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               209106
<ALLOWANCES>                                  2350
<INVENTORY>                                  23837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            241855
<PP&E>                                       25223
<DEPRECIATION>                               12229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              299769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       162087
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       118
<OTHER-SE>                                  132109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                299769
<SALES>                                     547862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            547862
<CGS>                                       474240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               474240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                46
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              28861
<INCOME-TAX>                                 11581
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          17280
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 17280
<EPS-BASIC>                                 1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.46


</TABLE>