alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 12, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 2195 Lower Tribunal No. 18

- 39111

________________ 

### Ramon Lasa Gonzalez, et al. ,

Appellant s ,
vs. 

### Safe P oint Insurance Company ,

Appellee.

An a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh , Judge. Font & Nelson, PLLC, Angel I. Rivera, and Jose P. Font (Fort Lauderdale) , for appellant s

. Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, Frieda C. Lindroth, and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa) , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa , 770 So. 2d 202, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Even though the trial court orally denied the motions for directed verdict during trial, [Rule 1. 4 80(b)] treats the denial as constituting a reservation of ruling.”); Carratelli v. State , 832 So. 2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ( finding challenge to defense counsel’s statement during jury selection was not preserved for appellate review because motion was not properly pursued and ruling not obtained based on “ [a] plethora of Florida

cases [that] support the notion t hat a party must obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review”); Roosevelt v. State , 42 So. 3d 293, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ( determining defendant failed to serve timely post

- verdict motion and preserve matter for appellate review because “ it was necessary that the defendant renew the motion [for directed verdict] at the conclusion of the case and make the appropriate post

- trial motion”); Murray v. State , 27 So. 3d 781, 78 1

– 8 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The defense made t imely motions for a directed verdict. However, [Rule] 1.480(b) has been interpreted as requiring a party to file, in addition, a post

verdict motion for entry of judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict.”); see also Olsen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , 343 So. 3d 172,
17 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) ( finding no reversible error as to secondary issue3

that could lead to reversal because jury answered “no” to threshold question on verdict form )

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elvis Eden CASTRO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41249 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

Elvis Eden Castro-Rodríguez, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elvis Eden Castro-Rodriguez 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Castro-Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 Blockbuster Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 4, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, Thomas M. Casey, 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:



| | 3. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 6, 2009

/s/ Thomas M. CaseyThomas M. Casey Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
Walter HICKS, Appellant, v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM and Tamisa Powell, Appellees.

No. 1D18-0651

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Certificate of Amendment to Restated Certificate of Incorporation of PostRock


 Exhibit 4.2 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 of 

RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 
 PostRock Energy Corporation (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”),
hereby adopts this Certificate of Amendment (this “Certificate of Amendment”), which amends its Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate of Incorporation”), as described below, and does hereby further certify that:

 FIRST: The Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted a resolution proposing and declaring advisable the amendment to
the Certificate of Incorporation described herein, and the Corporation’s stockholders duly adopted such amendment, all in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the DGCL. 

SECOND: The first sentence of Article Fourth of the Certificate of Incorporation is amended and restated to read in its entirety as
follows: 
 The total number of shares of all classes of capital stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is
105,000,000 shares, which shall be divided into (a) 100,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share (the “Common Stock”), and (b) 5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $.01 per share (the “Preferred
Stock”). 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment has been executed by an authorized officer of the Corporation
as of this 10th day of May, 2012. 
  

			
	POSTROCK ENERGY CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Stephen L. DeGiusti

		 	Name: Stephen L. DeGiusti
		 	 Title: Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-30612, 333-39068, 333-103198, 333-119764, 333-119772, 333-120303, 333-120304 and 333-160454) of Blockbuster Inc. of our report dated
March 12, 2010 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|Dallas, Texas                 
|March 12, 2010
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | May 6, 2011 | By:     | /s/Darron R. Ming                                              |   |
|--------|-------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |        |                        | Darron R. Ming                                                 |   |
|   |        |                        | Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |        |                        |                                                           |   |

----
#### Deandrea S. GRAY Petitioner v. UNITED STATES of America Respondent

No. 16-3187

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 12, 2017

Filed: June 16, 2017

Deandrea S. Gray, Pro Se

Justin G. Davids, Assistant U.S, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

*283PER CURIAM.

Deandrea Gray has filed in this court an application for leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The government has filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Gray’s application.

We note that in the case involving Mr. Gray’s first section 2255 motion, this court has affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. We now direct the clerk of this court to transfer to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Mr. Gray’s application for leave to file a second or successive section 2255 motion, to be filed in the district court as a motion to amend his first section 2255 motion. We further deny as moot the government’s pending motion to dismiss. We express no opinion on the merits or timeliness of any filing by Mr. Gray or the government.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 03, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 03, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24I0170. ROBERT K. MYERS, M.D. et al v. DEBORAH CAPRON et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: STCV1900293
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities

###### Institute of Museum and Library Services

# AGENCY:

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities (NFAH).

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The National Museum and Library Services Board, which advises the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services in awarding national awards and medals, will meet by teleconference on March 3, 2022, to review nominations for the 2022 National Medal for Museum and Library Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 3, 2022, from 3 p.m. Eastern Time until adjourned.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will convene virtually.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Katherine Maas, Chief of Staff and Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Suite 4000, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Washington, DC 20024; (202) 653-4798;                         *kmaas@imls.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The National Museum and Library Services Board is meeting pursuant to the National Museum and Library Service Act, 20 U.S.C., 9105a, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. to review nominations for the 2022 National Medal for Museum and Library Service.

The meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), (c)(6) and (c)(9) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, as amended. The closed meeting will consider information that may disclose: Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; and information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action.

Dated: February 10, 2022.

Brianna Ingram,

Paralegal Specialist.

[FR Doc. 2022-03283 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7036-01-P
Exhibit 32 (a) Section 906 CEO Certification

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------

In  connection  with  the  filing  of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter Ended October  5, 2003 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  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 results of operations
          of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


                                       /s/ David B. Pomeroy
                                       -----------------------
                                       David B. Pomeroy, II
                                       Chief Executive Officer


A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Pomeroy  IT  Solutions,  Inc.  and  will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions,  Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.


<PAGE>
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1500 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 18 ) ll-C-4 4 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 8/5/20081:51:2 7

PM Sheet 18of 343...it o sr« ,

o / P. 2 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y NATIONA L RIS KMANAGEMEN T RESEARC H LABORATOR Y AI R POLLUTIO N PREVENTIO N AN D CONTRO L DIVISIO N RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK , N C 2771 1 

## A-94-52

OFFIC E O F RESEARC H AN D DEVELOPMEN T Septembe r

9 , 199 6 Mr . Robert

Lacovar a Directo r o f Technical Service s Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n 173 5 Nort h Lyn n Street , Suit e 95 0 Arlington , V A 22209-202 2 Dea r Mr . Lacovara : Afte r readin g tw o recent

report s fromyou r

ope n moldin g styren e emission s tes t project , I hav e acontinuin g concern that statement s suc h a s "th e EP A Categor y I I Qualit y Assuranc e Projec t Pla n qualificatio n provide s alevel o f recognitio n andconfidenc e i n thi s work... " giv e a fals e impressio n t o CF A member s that thi s projec t

i s recognize db y EP A regulatory bodie s du e t o it s QA category level . Th e Q A categor y doe s no t

provid e recognitio n o r

confidenc e i

n th e work . It onl y provide s aspecifi c level o f scrutiny . You r

statement s als o giv e th e fals e impressio n tha t th e optimizatio n stud y was conducte dunde r EPA' s Categor y I I Q A requirements . W e d o no t hav e aQ A plan for

th e optimizatio n study . Ther e wer e n o audit s conducted , an dauditin g i s a requiremen t

for Categor y II projects . Further , I understan dfromEP A personne l wh o attende dameetin g with yo u las t wee k that yo u ar e wel l int o Phas e II . EP A ha s receive dn o Phas e I I Q A plan , tes t plan , o r amendmen t t o th e original pla

n (Phas e I , date dAugus t

1995) . W e ar e no t

overseein g th e experiments , hav e no t bee n kep t

informed , an dhav e n o plan s t o audit . Therefor e pleas e refrain frommentionin g EPA Categor y I I Q A requirement s i n you r report s o r

an y writin g regardin g any phase s o f thi s projec t othe r tha n Phas e I . Pleas e contac t

m e at 919-541-143 9 if

yo u requir e an

y further clarification . Sincerely ,

cc : Carlo s Nunez , EP A Gedde s Ramsey , EP A Madelin e Strum , EP A Stev e McNally , CFA Larry Craigie , Do w Chemica l Shirle y Wasso n

Q A Staf f



## I Recycled/Recyclabl e • Printe d wit h Vegetabl e Oi l Base d Ink s o n 1(10 % Recycle d Pape r(40 % Postconsumer )
Exhibit 32.01




STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF MOVE, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the report on Form 10-K of Move, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Steven H. Berkowitz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ STEVEN H. BERKOWITZSteven H. BerkowitzChief Executive OfficerMove, Inc.Date: February 18, 2011


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 Move, Inc. and will be retained by Move, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




---
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of MDU Communications International, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-45982)
of our report dated November 18, 2001 on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of MDU Communications International, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2001, appearing in
the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of MDU Communications International, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2001.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chartered
Accountants
Vancouver, British Columbia

December
20, 2001

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.1
    

    

    

    
      AMENDMENNT #1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
    

    
      THIS AMENDMENT #1 to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”), is
      made and effective May 11 2012 between CALGON CARBON CORPORATION (the “Company”),
      a Delaware corporation, and ___________ (“Employee”),
      presently residing in or near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
    

    
      WITNESSETH:
    

    
      WHEREAS, Employee is presently employed as ___________________of the
      Company, in which capacity [he/she] has contributed materially to the
      Company’s success pursuant to the terms of an employment agreement,
      dated as of _________ (the “Original Agreement”);
    

    
      WHEREAS, the Company wishes to extend the term of the Original Agreement
      to ensure the continued availability of Employee’s services to the
      Company;
    

    
      WHERAS, the Employee likewise wishes to extend the term of the Original
      Agreement to assure the continued protections of the Original Agreement.
    

    
      NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and
      the Employee hereby agree as follows:
    

    
      1.        Expiration Date.
    

    
      The “Expiration Date”, as that term is defined in the Original
      Agreement, shall be changed from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2015.
    

    
      2.        All Other Terms and
      Provisions.
    

    
      All other terms and provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain as
      written with no changes or amendments and such terms and provisions
      shall remain binding and in full force and effect.
    

    
      WITNESS the due execution hereof as of the date first above written.
    


    	
          Attest:
        	
           
        	
          CALGON CARBON CORPORATION
        
	

        	

        	

        	
           
        
	
           
        	

        	
          By:
        	
           
        
	

        	

        	

        	
           
        
	

        	

        	

        	
           
        
	

        	

        	

        	
           
        
	
          Witness:
        	

        	

        	

        
	
           
        	

        	
          By:
#### John POULLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Burl CAIN, In his individual capacity; Donald Barr, In his individual capacity; Johnathan Roundtree, In his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-30122 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 26, 2017

John Poullard, Pro Se

Christopher Neal Walters, Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Poullard, Louisiana prisoner # 98999, pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging cruel and unusual punishment. Poullard asserted that he had glaucoma for which he was prescribed eye drops and that the defendants denied his eye drops and treatment for several months. The jury found the defendants not liable. Poullard appeals the denial of his post-judgment motions seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and the defendants’ alleged fraudulent conduct.

Poullard argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) based on the defendants’ counsel urging Drs. Coullard and Gerdes to lie at trial and the doctors’ misrepresentation of Poullard’s medical records at trial. Poullard fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(3) relief because Poullard failed to present evidence of fraud, false testimony, or improper conduct by defense counsel. *Montgomery v. Hall,*592 F.2d 278, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1979) (“[Tjhe party making the rule 60(b)(3) motion must establish by clear and convincing evidence ... that the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct....”).

Poullard also argues that he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of Dr. Paul Toce’s affidavit attesting that Poullard has a history of glaucoma and purported November 2015 diagnoses by two surgeons that he has damage to his optic nerves and open angle glaucoma. Poullard fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief because he has not demonstrated that the purported newly discovered evidence would have produced a different result had the jury viewed it. *See Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom,*340 F.3d 238, 257 (5th Cir. 2003); *Diaz v. Methodist Hosp.,*46 F.3d 492, 497 (5th Cir. 1995); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), 60(b)(2).

Finally, Poullard’s claim that the district court failed to rule on his claim that he was entitled to a new trial because the defendants breached their agreement to admit all of their discovery into evidence is not supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.