alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T. Richard TIPPY, Ekaterina Tippy, and Tippy Contracting, LLC v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

2160118

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION,

Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;

THE PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES AND JOANNA E. MCCLINTON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ITS SPEAKER; THE

PENNSYLVANIA SENATE AND KIM WARD, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

THE SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE; AND JOSH SHAPIRO, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellees :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 111 MAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court at No. 447
MD 2021 dated November 8, 2022

O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: November 22, 2023

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November , 2023

, the order of the Commonwealth

Court is AFFIRMED

.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*SUZANNE M. GORDON, CONSERVATRIX (ESTATE AND PERSON OF ESTHER RICHARDS)

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 490 (AC 16154), is granted, limited to the following issue:

*912The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15570.

*Robert A. Nagy,*assistant attorney general, in support of the petition.

*James P. Connolly,*in opposition.

Decided September 18, 1997

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s order of remand for a new hearing and decision on the defendant’s accounting?”
Michael R. GIBBS, Appellant, v. GEORGE APARTMENTS, INC., and Gorge Giannetti, Sr., Appellees.

No. 4D17-1343

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.


Date: January 6, 2003                         By: /s/ James R. Lavelle
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              James R. Lavelle
                                              Chairman of the Board and
                                              Chief Executive Officer
#### Eleazer Tracy, Respondent, *v.*Edwin W. Prink et al., Appellants.

(Argued May 11, 1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

*J. G. EewTcwh*for the appellants.

*R. E. Andrews*for the respondent.

Decided upon the facts in the case.

Leonabd and Eabl, CO., read for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]


## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 24

- 11686
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
ALAINA TROCANO, an individual,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MICHAEL VIVALDI, an individual,

Defendant

- Appellant, USCA11 Case: 24-11686 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 24

- 11686

AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC, a foreign profit corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:23

- cv

- 00645

- JES

- KCD

____________________ Before J ILL P RYOR , N EWSOM , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant Michael Vivaldi appeals the district court’s May 16, 2024 order . That order den ied Vivaldi’s motion for sanctions and his request that the claims against him , which were previously dismissed without prejudice, be dismissed with prejudice or that he be awarded attorney’s fees. That order is not final because claims against defend ant American Airlines, Inc. remain pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant , 689 F.3d 1244,
1245

- 46 (11th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, the order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because the request for sanctions and dismissal with prejudice was connected to the merits of the case, and Vivaldi’s request for attorney’s fees is effectively reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See USCA11 Case: 24-11686 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Page: 2 of 324

- 11686 Opinion of the Court 3
Johnson v. Jones , 515 U.S. 304, 311 (1995); Richardson

- Merrell, Inc.

v. Koller , 472 U.S. 424, 430

- 31 (1985). No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 24-11686 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 07/02/2024 Page: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 10.69
 Move, Inc.
Performance  Based Restricted Stock
Unit Agreement
 2011 Performance Period
 Non-transferable
  Robert J. Krolik  (Grantee)
  Exhibit A
   MOVE, INC.
    
    Grant Date: July 20, 2009By: /s/ James S. Caulfield

Its: Authorized Officer




---



##### 



TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 Defined Terms
     Vesting of Units
 Completion of Performance Period.
 Upon Change of Control
  Conversion to Shares
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



Dividend Equivalent Rights
 Restrictions on Transfer and Pledge
 Limitation of Rights
 Payment of Taxes
 Arbitration
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Changes in Capital Structure
 Miscellaneous
 Successors of the Company
 Amendment and Modification
 Governing Law
 Notice
 Severability
 - 4 -
Brent Matthew BARRETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4823

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 By:
    
    /s/ Mark R. Newburg
    
    Dated: August 14, 2007Mark R. NewburgTitle:
    
    President, Chief Executive
Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Executive
Officer)By:
    
    /s/ Arnaldo F. Galassi
    
    Dated: August 14, 2007Arnaldo F. GalassiTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary (Principal
Financial Officer)
#### Nathan Brown, Appellant and Respondent, *v.*Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Respondent and Appellant.

Argued April 13, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*820
      *Harry M. Begun*for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

*James D. Ewing*and *William B. McDermott*for defendant, respondent and appellant.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Too, Inc. (the "Company"), on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent A.
Kleeberger, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby 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 respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

Dated: April 7, 2004

                                    /s/ Kent A. Kleeberger
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Kent A. Kleeberger
                                    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
                                    Officer

                                      187
| 1. | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) 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 operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/ DAVID SCOGLIO            |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | David Scoglio                                                                       |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                                                             |   |
|   |   | May 17, 2010                                                                        |   |
#### Mary Kennedy, Appellant, *v.*Margaret L. Taaffee, Respondent.

Argued April 14, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*833
      *John F. X. Browne*for appellant.

*Walter L. Glenney*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
[Civ. No. 2503.

Second Appellate District, Division One.

January 28, 1920.]

#### CHARLES F. ZIEGLER, Appellant, v. A. COLKINS et al., Respondents.

EH Appeal—Failure to File Brief or Appear for Oral Argument —Affirmance of Judgment.—Where an appeal is taken under the alternative method but the appellant does not file a brief or appear at the time set for oral argument, no reason being presented to the appellate court to show that the judgment as entered by the trial court was in anywise defective, erroneous, or improper, the judgment will be affirmed.

*583APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a motion to vacate and set aside the same. Fred H. Taft, Judge. Appeal from order dismissed; judgment affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Charles H. Mattingly for Appellant.

James Brunken for Respondents.

JAMES, J.

[1] From an examination of the clerk’s transcript, prepared in accordance with the alternative method of appeal, we learn that the plaintiff in this action gave notice of appeal from an adverse judgment and from an order made after judgment denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate and set aside the same. The latter motion appears to have been, in effect, a motion for a new trial, and, so considered, the order denying the same is not appealable. The clerk’s transcript and reporter’s transcript were filed in this court on November 7, 1917, and thereafter stipulations were made between the parties extending time to appellant to file his brief to August 15, 1918. Appellant filed no brief and did not appear at the time set for oral argument. No reason is presented to us, therefore, to show that the judgment as entered by the trial court was in anywise defective, erroneous, or improper.

The appeal from the order is dismissed; the judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rosario DIVINS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51203 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 2, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, • for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rosario Divins, Pro Se

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rosario Divins, federal prisoner # 30034-280, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of her motion for modification of sentence. By moving to proceed IFP, Divins is challenging the district court’s certification decision that her appeal was , not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. *207
      *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Divins does -not address the district court’s reasons for denying her IFP motion. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. *Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); *see also*Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). Thus, Divins’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and her appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                CERTIFICATION 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 Echo Resources,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  each  of the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     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
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date:  April 14, 2005


                              By: /s/ PIETER DURAND
                             ---------------------------------
                             Pieter DuRand
                             Chief Executive Officer
                             and Chief Financial Officer
                             (Or Equivelant Thereof)





-------------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damon Perine, Also Known as Damon Perne, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 654]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), rendered September 8, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A criminal defendant has a constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of the trial *(see*CPL 260.20; *People v Mitchell,*80 NY2d 519 [1992]; *People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992]; *People v Underwood,*201 AD2d 597 [1994]), and questioning during the impaneling of the jury may constitute a material stage of the trial *(see People v Antommarchi, supra*at 250; *People v Sloan,*79 NY2d 386 [1992]). A *587defendant, however, may waive the right to be present *(see People v Velasquez,*298 AD2d 608 [2002], *affd*1 NY3d 44 [2003]), provided that the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently *(see People v Underwood, supra).*The fact that the defendant expresses his or her choice through counsel does not render the waiver invalid *(see People v Womack,*292 AD2d 402, 403 [2002]; *People v Broadwater,*248 AD2d 719, 720 [1998]; *People v Smallwood,*225 AD2d 713 [1996]).

Under the facts of this case, where the defense counsel represented to the Supreme Court that he discussed the *Antommarchi*rules *(see People v Antommarchi, supra)*with the defendant, and that the defendant indicated to counsel that “[h]e doesn’t wish to be present,” the waiver was valid *(see People v Underwood, supra*at 597-598). Altman, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Charles R. CORDA, Appellant, v. Barbara KEELEY, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2337

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER**Section 302 CertificationI, Arnaldo F. Galassi, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of VendingData Corporation;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 included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fiscal quarterpresented in this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial datainformation; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: May 15, 2007 By:  /s/ Arnaldo F. Galassi    Arnaldo F. Galassi    Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kashun WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6195

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

*292Kashun Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kashun Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watson’s motion for 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*
Exhibit 24

                       CUTHILL & EDDY, LLP
                   Certified Public Accountants
                   1031 W. Morse Blvd., Suite #200
                   Winter Park, Florida 32789-3750

                INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

As independent auditors of Corpas Investments, Inc. ("Corpas"), we
hereby consent to the incorporation in the Form 10-KSB to be filed
on or about January 17, 2002 of our report dated September 19, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Corpas as of December 31,
2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31,
2000 and 1999.

/s/ Cuthill & Eddy, LLP
------------------------------
Cuthill & Eddy, LLP
Winter Park, Florida
January 16, 2002