alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jason T. WITHERSPOON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D17-3531

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                      0000748055
<NAME>                     WasteMasters, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>                 US DOLLARS
             
<S>                           <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      108,251
<SECURITIES>                                7,853,352
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,107,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 2,450,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,839,597
<PP&E>                                      2,254,218
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,325,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,101,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,858,155
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 50,000
<COMMON>                                    1,144,715
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,061,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,101,063
<SALES>                                     6,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            6,538
<CGS>                                       92,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               791,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            241,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          23,971
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,050,324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,050,324)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,050,324)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.01)

        



</TABLE>
Marie B. MILLSAPS, Respondent, v. William M. MILLSAPS, Appellant.

No. ED 106385

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: June 11, 2019

Bruce M. Easley, 7750 Clayton Road, Suite 102, St. Louis, MO. 63117, for appellant.

Alisse C. Camazine, Lisa Moore, Co-Counsel, Alan E. Freed, Co-Counsel, 165 N. Mereamec, Suite 110, Clayton, MO. 63105, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

The husband, William Millsaps, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dissolving his marriage to the wife, Marie Millsaps. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the trial court's judgment. Rule 84.16(b)(1).1

1

The wife has filed a motion to strike the husband's exhibits V-1, V-2, V-3, and V-4. Because the husband did not offer these exhibits into evidence at trial and accordingly the trial court did not admit them, we grant the wife's motion to strike the exhibits. An exhibit is not part of the record and normally cannot be considered on appeal if it was not introduced into evidence at trial. *City of Kansas City v. Cosic* , 540 S.W.3d 461, 464 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018).
2008-000065i
 PHYSICAL HEALTH INSURANCE
CONTRACT
 AGREEMENT BETWEEN
 Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration (PRHIA) ADMINISTRATION Executive Director, Domingo
Nevárez Ramírez, MHSA;
  TRIPLE-S SALUD, INC., ###-##-#### INSURER Ms. Socorro
Rivas
  For the Provision of Health Insurance
 coverage to eligible population under the
 Government Health Insurance Plan




---



##### 



WITNESSETH
  WHEREAS:
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS ADMINISTRATION
 HENCEFORTH:
 Article I:
 ADMINISTRATION
 Article II: Article XXIX Effective Date and Term
 1.
    
    This contract amendment shall be in effect from July 1st, 2010 until
September 30, 2010.2.
    
    .......3.
    
    .......
 2




---



##### 



Article III:
  /s/ Domingo Nevárez RamírezDomingo Nevárez Ramírez, MHSAExecutive Director

Puerto Rico Health Insurance Administration/s/ Socorro RivasSOCORRO RIVASChief Executive Officer

TRIPLE-S SALUD INC./s/ Luis A. MariniLUIS A. MARINI, DMDChief Executive Officer  3




---



##### 



Appendix C
 TRIPLE-S SALUD, INC./ TRIPLE C, INC.
 pmpm st
 Monthly Premiums Rates
 SSS
 Fixed AdministrativeRegion or Area
    
    Premiums
    
    
    Cost
    
    
    ProfitNorth
    
    $
    87.99
    
    
    $
    6.30
    
    
    $
    2.20Southwest
    
    $
    87.71
    
    
    $
    6.30
    
    
    $
    2.19
  pmpm
 SSS
 Fixed AdministrativeRegion or Area
    
    Premiums
    
    
    Cost
    
    
    ProfitNorth
    
    $
    93.54
    
    
    $
    6.08
    
    
    $
    0.94Southwest
    
    $
    91.43
    
    
    $
    5.94
    
    
    $
    0.91
 4
EXHIBIT 32.01



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 Quarterly Report of UHF Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald C.
Schmeiser, President and Chief Executive Officer of UHF Incorporated, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: October 8, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald C. Schmeiser
|                      |  |     |  | Ronald C. Schmeiser    
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief    
|                      |  |     |  | Executive Officer
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 364 

Expressing support for the goals of Sports Eye Safety Month by promoting 

the importance of playing sports with the proper protective eyewear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2023 

Mr. HUDSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the goals of Sports Eye Safety Month 

by promoting the importance of playing sports with the 

proper protective eyewear. 

Whereas about 30,000 sports-related eye injuries, serious 

enough to end in a visit to the emergency room, occur 

each year in the United States, and the majority happen 

to those under the age of 18; 

Whereas sports and recreation activities are associated with 

approximately one-fourth of all pediatric eye injuries; 

Whereas eye injuries can lead to long-term vision impairment 

and can affect learning, work, and relationships; 

Whereas everyday dresswear eyeglasses, sunglasses, and contact lenses do not offer adequate protection to guard 

against potential sports-related eye injuries, and wearing 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 364 IH 

protective sports eyewear, such as safety goggles and special protective eyewear designed for specific sports, is as 

important as putting on other protective gear; 

Whereas sports-related eye injuries can be mitigated by use 

of technology in protective eyewear for specific sports 

when appropriate; 

Whereas individuals who participate in sports, especially 

school-aged athletes, should ensure their protective 

eyewear products have undergone the proper testing by 

an accredited laboratory and meets the current American 

Society for Testing and Materials safety standard for the 

selected sport; 

Whereas before purchasing prescription protective eyewear, 

one should consult with an eye care professional to ensure their prescription is up to date; 

Whereas more than 90 percent of sports- and recreation-related eye injuries can be prevented by using appropriate 

eye and facial protection; and 

Whereas April is recognized as Sports Eye Safety Month: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of Sports Eye 

3 Safety Month; 

4 (2) recognizes the importance of healthy vision; 

5 and 

6 (3) encourages all Americans, especially our 

7 youth, to play sports with the proper prescription or 

8 nonprescription protective eyewear. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tracy James BLACK, Appellant.

WD 80580

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: November 6, 2018

Attorneys: Steven Willibey, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Attorneys: Gregory Barnes, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Alok Ahuja, P.J., Thomas H. Newton, and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Tracy J. Black appeals his convictions by a Lafayette County jury for first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, stemming from a liquor-store robbery in September 2014 in Lexington, Missouri. The trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to two consecutive terms of twenty-five years' imprisonment. For reasons stated in the memorandum *28provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
Melvin RAY v. STATE

CR-15-1118

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jose Jorge GARCIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 30, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 58 (Friday, March 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 13452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6514]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5280-N-11]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: March 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: March 19, 2009.
Mark R. Johnston
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. E9-6514 Filed 3-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 Quarterly Report of BonusAmerica Worldwide Corp on
Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Mak, acting in the
capacity of Chief Financial Officer of BonusAmerica Worldwide Corp, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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.    To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
            presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
            results of operations of the Company as of and for the period
            covered by the Report.


August 22, 2005                     By: /s/ Michael Mak
                                        -----------------------
                                        Michael Mak
                                        Chief Financial Officer
IN RE Change of Name. Lats AROHA, Appellant.

Case No. 2D17-2199

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 5, 2014

t0825 

# Order

Clerk September 5, 2014

148453

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148453

COA: 315200

Bay CC: 10

- 010850

- FH

MARK ALLEN BENNETT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions — Flood risk management — Flood prevention, protection and mitigation’

(2005/C 164/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions — Flood risk management — Flood prevention, protection and mitigation (COM(2004) 472 final);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 12 July 2004 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to its President's decision of 26 May 2004 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Council Conclusions on Flood risk management adopted on 14 October 2004;

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission Proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(1997) 49 final — CdR 171/97 fin (1));

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission Communication on the sixth environment action programme of the European Community ‘Environment 2010: our future, our choice — the Sixth Environment Action Programme’, and the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community Environment Action Programme 2001–2010 (COM(2001) 31 final — CdR 36/2001 fin (2));

Having regard to its resolution on the recent flood disasters in Europe and the establishment of the European Union Solidarity Fund (CdR 294/2002 fin (3));

Having regard to its own-initiative opinion on Management and consequences of natural disasters: the role of European structural policy (CdR 104/2003 fin (4));

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission proposal for a regulation establishing a European grouping of cross-border cooperation (COM(2004)496 final — CdR 62/2004 fin);

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the European Commission ‘Building our common Future — Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013’ (COM(2004) 101 final — CdR 162/2004 fin);

Having regard to its opinion (CdR 299/2004 rev.1) adopted on 9 December 2004 by its Commission for sustainable development (rapporteur: Mr Aalderink, Member of the Executive Board of the Province of Gelderland (NL/ALDE));

WHEREAS

adopted the following opinion at its 58th plenary session of 23 and 24 February 2005 (meeting of 23 February):

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2.   Committee of the Regions' recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Brussels, 23 February 2005.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 180, 11.6.1998, p. 38

(2)OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 44

(3)OJ C 66, 19.3.2003, p. 26

(4)OJ C 256, 24.10.2003, p. 74

----
CHARLESTON.

#### Buskirk *v.*Chafin.

Decided December *21,*1900.

*Res-Judicata*— Dismissal *of Bill*— Reservation.

A decree dismissing the hill generally, without any reservation to the plaintiff to sue thereafter, is conclusive between the parties' and it is error to dismiss an injunction bill on motion for failure to prosecute alone, without adding without prejudice to sueh other suit as the plaintiff may see proper to institute. (p. 631).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County.

Bill by U. B. Buskirk against E. M. Chaim and others. From an order dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.

*Amended.*

*631J. B. WILKINSON., for appellant.

SiieppaRd & GoodykooNtz, fox appellees.

English, Judge:

IT. B. Buskirk obtained an injunction from the judge of the circuit court of Logan County to restrain F. M. Chafin, Moses Mounts, and C.. H. Gore, sheriff, from proceeding to collect a certain execution or the judgment upon which the same issued; which judgment was described m the bill presented to said judge.

On the 26th of January, 1898, Moses Mounts gave notice to dissolve said injunction in chambers at the town of Williamson, Mingo County, which notice was' supported by the affidavit of. counsel that the bill in said cause had been lost or .misplaced, and that he had given notice to counsel, for plaintiff that he was willing he should supply the bill, but the bill had not been substituted or found.

On the 10th of February, 1898, the motion to dissolve was heard in vacation; the injunction was dissolved and the bill dismissed, although the plaintiff asked until the next term of the circuit court of Logan County to supply the bill. The plaintiff obtained this appeal, assigning as error that there was no evidence or pleadings before the court to authorize the decree.

While it was not error in the case presented by the record to dissolve the injunction awarded, it was error to dismiss the cause without adding “without prejudice to such other suit as the plaintiff might see proper to institute." See *Watson*v. *Watson,*45 W. Va. 290, where it is held that, “A bill in equity dismissed generally without any reservation to the plaintiff to sue thereafter is conclusive between the parties, and those claiming under them of all the issues made up in the cause, even though there was no jurisdiction in equity because of adequate remedy at law."

See also *Carberry et al.*v. *W. Va. & P. R. R. Co.,*44 W. Va. 260, point 5 of syllabus.

The decree complained of is therefore amended by adding the words above indicated and is affirmed with costs to the appellant.

*Amended.*
Exhibit 10.11.2







Exhibit 10.11.2




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTANGIBLE ASSET LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

MS REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND MARTHA STEWART LIVING

OMNIMEDIA, INC. DATED AS OF JUNE 13, 2008, AS AMENDED




This SECOND AMENDMENT (the “Second Amendment”) to the agreement between MS Real Estate
Management Company (“Licensor”) and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (“Company”) dated
June 13, 2008, as such agreement was amended in December, 2008 (as amended, the “Agreement”),
is dated as of February 8, 2010.



WHEREAS, the Agreement provided for payment by Company to Licensor of an annual
licensing fee each year during the Agreement term; and



WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the payment terms of the annual licensing fee
otherwise due to Licensor on or about September 15, 2010, as more fully set forth below.



NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants set forth
below, the parties hereby agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	Section 3 of the Agreement is amended to provide that the Annual License
Fee payment of $2 million that would otherwise be due Licensor on September 15,
2010 will now be $1.95 million and will be paid as follows:







	 	a.	 	$950,000 will be paid to Licensor on February 8, 2010; and







	 	b.	 	$1 million will be paid to Licensor on or about September 15, 2010.







	 	2.	 	Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined will have the
meanings assigned those terms in the Agreement.







	 	3.	 	Except as otherwise set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the
Agreement will remain in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly caused this Second Amendment to be
executed in its names on its behalf, all as of the day and year first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	MS REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Martha Stewart
 

MARTHA STEWART
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	MARTHA STEWART LIVING OMNIMEDIA, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Kelli Turner
 

Kelli Turner 

EVP & CFO
Brandon L. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106308

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 19, 2019

Kristina S. Olson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.

Richard A. Starnes, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

*306***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Brandon L. Wilson ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the motion court, denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for introducing evidence that the victim identified Movant from a photographic lineup, and for eliciting evidence of Movant's prior arrests. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).