alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The HONORABLE WILLIAM BREVARD HAND, United States District

*

Judge for the Southern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4203

___________

Jeff Winters, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Assistant Warden John Sissel, et al., *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 20, 1998

Filed: January 25, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, LOKEN, Circuit Judge, and HAND, District Judge. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

Section 803(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)

(“PLRA”), imposes limits on the hourly rate at which attorneys’ fees may be awarded

to inmates who prevail in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Iowa inmate Jeff

Winters commenced this § 1983 action before passage of the PLRA in April 1996.

Judgment was entered in his favor in April 1997, and Winters applied for an award of
The HONORABLE JOHN A. JARVEY, United States Magistrate Judge for the 1

Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

attorneys’ fees. He now appeals the district court’s fee award order and judgment,

1

arguing the court erred in limiting the award for fees incurred after the effective date

of the PLRA to the rates specified in that statute. 

This contention is foreclosed by our decision in Williams v. Brimeyer, 122 F.3d

1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 1997), in which we held that the PLRA “applies to all hours

worked in this case after the date of the passage of the Act.” Williams established the

law in this circuit, and we must follow it. Other circuits have adopted differing views

on this question. In Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 158 F.3d 1357, 1360 (D.C. Cir.

1998), the court followed our decision in Williams. On the other hand, Madrid v.

Gomez, 150 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1998), and Alexander S. v. Boyd, 113 F.3d

1373, 1386 (4th Cir. 1997), held that the PLRA limits all fees awarded after the date

of enactment, whether incurred before or after that date. And on the other extreme,

Hadix v. Johnson, 143 F.3d 246, 255-56 (6th Cir. 1998), held that the PLRA does not

apply to any fees awarded in § 1983 actions that were initially commenced before the

statute’s enactment. Finally, Blissett v. Casey, 147 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 1998), held that

the PLRA does not apply to fees incurred pre-enactment but awarded post-enactment,

but the court did not address the question of fees incurred post-enactment. 

Winters further argues that the PLRA as construed in Williams violates inmates’

fundamental right to access the courts. We conclude this contention was expressly

rejected in Williams when we held “that the PLRA, as applied in this manner, is within

the power of Congress.” 122 F.3d at 1094. In any event, the contention is without

merit. See Madrid, 150 F.3d at 1040-42. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Menahem ROTH and Ester Roth, Appellant, v. SYNOVUS BANK; Sterns Bank, N.A.; Jane/John Doe n/k/a Segal Roth; All Unknown Parties Claiming Interests by, Through, Under or Against a Named Defendant to this Action, or Having or Claiming to Have Any Right, Title, or Interest in the Property Herein Described, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-5580

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Claudia B. DENA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. PIQUET REALTY, LLC, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0455

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.

Denied as moot.

Granted. Remanded.

Denied.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-14T18:27:50Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-14T18:27:51Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-14T18:27:51Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="13259">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-14T18:27:50Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION I O-7405 WAS NEVER ISSUED OK 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Appellant, v. Robert GERMANY and Linda K. Plant-Germany, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-1059

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 23, 2018

David M. Snyder, of David M Snyder, PA, Tampa, Susan B. Morrison, of Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., Tampa, and Joshua D. Moore, of Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, for Appellant.

Douglas N. Burnett, and M. Aaron Dukes, St. Johns Law Group, St. Augustine, for Appellee Linda K. Carroll.

No appearance for other Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.

Dyck-O'Neal, Inc. ("DONI") appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee, Linda Carroll f/k/a Linda K. Plant-Germany. DONI correctly argues that the trial court erred in finding DONI's action time-barred. *See**Chrestensen v. Eurogest, Inc.* , 906 So.2d 343, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that the statute of limitations to seek a deficiency judgment does not begin to run until after the entry of foreclosure judgment and subsequent foreclosure sale). We also decline Appellee's suggestion that we affirm the final summary judgment based on a ground that she did not raise below. *See**Trainor v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n* , 211 So.3d 366, 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).1

*1195Therefore, we reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of Appellee and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We also deny Appellee's motion for attorney's fees.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PALMER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

*Kinney v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.* , 165 So.3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), is inapplicable to this case; thus, Appellee should not have offered it as a legal basis for summary judgment, and the trial court erred in relying upon it.
EX PARTE James Amar WOODS

CR-16-0036

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
Reginald Deshone ROGERS v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY

CR-15-0905

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 13, 2016 Reh. denied December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Montgomery Cir. Ct.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1201EA

_____________

Jasper Vick, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

John Martin, Judge, Brinkley * [UNPUBLISHED]

Municipal Court, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: March 5, 1997

 Filed: March 17, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Jasper Vick appeals the district court’s order dismissing

Vick’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Brinkley Municipal Judge

John Martin. Having reviewed Vick’s complaint, we agree with the

district court that Judge Martin was immune from this damages suit.

See Duty v. City of Springdale, Ark., 42 F.3d 460, 462 (8th Cir.

1994) (per curiam). We thus affirm the district court. See 8th

Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Eric R. PLUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5599

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

----

I Informácie

Rada

----

Akčný plán Rady a Komisie, ktorým sa vykonáva Haagsky program o posilňovaní slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti v Európskej únii

(2005/C 198/01)

1.   VŠEOBECNÉ USMERNENIA

Úmyslom Rady a Komisie je, aby tento akčný plán predstavoval referenčný rámec pre ich prácu v nasledujúcich piatich rokoch, pričom sa chápe, že:

1.1.   HODNOTENIE

1.2.   Rešpektovanie a aktívna podpora základných práv

1.3.   EURÓPSKY SÚDNY DVOR

1.4.   EURÓPSKA STRATÉGIA BOJA PROTI DROGÁM

1.5.   VONKAJŠIE VZŤAHY

2.   POSILŇOVANIE SLOBODY

2.1.   OBČIANSTVO ÚNIE

2.2.   Azyl, migrácia a hraničná politika

2.3.   Spoločný európsky azylový systém

2.4.   LEGÁLNA MIGRÁCIA VRÁTANE PRIJÍMACÍCH KONANÍ

2.5.   Integrácia štátnych príslušníkov tretích krajín

2.6.   BOJ PROTI NELEGÁLNEMU PRISŤAHOVALECTVU

2.7.   Vonkajší rozmer azylu a migrácie

2.8.   RIADENIE HRANÍC, BIOMETRIA, INFORMAČNÉ SYSTÉMY A VÍZOVÁ POLITIKA

2.9.   VÍZOVÁ POLITIKA VRÁTANE ROZVOJA VÍZOVÉHO INFORMAČNÉHO SYSTÉMU (VIS)

3.   POSILŇOVANIE BEZPEČNOSTI

3.1.   VÝMENA INFORMÁCIÍ MEDZI ORGÁNMI ČINNÝMI V TRESTNOM KONANÍ A SÚDNYMI ORGÁNMI, S DÔRAZOM NA SPRÁVNU ROVNOVÁHU MEDZI BEZPEČNOSŤOU A OCHRANOU SÚKROMIA

3.2.   TERORIZMUS

3.3.   Prevencia a boj proti organizovanej trestnej činnosti

3.4.   Policajná a colná spolupráca

3.5.   Riadenie krízového stavu v rámci Európskej únie

3.6.   VŠEOBECNÁ PREVENCIA TRESTNEJ ČINNOSTI

4.   POSILŇOVANIE BEZPEČNOSTI

4.1.   BUDOVANIE VZÁJOMNEJ DÔVERY

4.2.   SÚDNA SPOLUPRÁCA V TRESTNÝCH VECIACH

4.3.   SÚDNA SPOLUPRÁCA V OBČIANSKOPRÁVNYCH VECIACH

----

(1)  Okrem toho sa uskutočňujú doplnkové činnosti v rámci európskej stratégie zamestnanosti a procesu sociálneho začlenenia.

(2)  Zváži sa v kontexte rámca nových finančných perspektív.

(3)  Pri zohľadnení vývoja s ohľadom na overovanie, certifikáciu, digitálne podpisy a služby elektronickej správy (e-Government).

(4)  Kaliningradský fond nahradia osobitné prostriedky v rámci navrhovaného fondu pre vonkajšie hranice na obdobie rokov 2007 — 2013 ako súčasti rámcového programu „Solidarita a riadenie migračných tokov“.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         524,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,206,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                   643,018
<INVENTORY>                                 25,866,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,918,904
<PP&E>                                      14,307,307
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,494,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,084,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       64,790,898
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          136,641
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,250
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,341,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,084,936
<SALES>                                    113,053,741
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           113,053,741
<CGS>                                       94,194,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               94,194,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,174,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,080,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                735,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                   307,417
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (34,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (34,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.00)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6285

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARMEN BLANCO CRUZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-267, CA-98-714-9-8) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Gaston Fairey, FAIREY, PARISE & MILLS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew R. Hubbell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Carmen Cruz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, and the transcript of the hearing at which the court stated its reasons for denying Cruz’ motion and find no reversible error. We agree withthe district court that counsel’s alleged error was not a structural defect in Cruz’ trial and that Cruz failed to satisfy the standard for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as set forth in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
H. Res. 523 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 20, 2023. 

Resolved, That the Speaker, in concurrence with the Minority Leader, is authorized to direct the Chief Administrative Officer to record proceedings during a joint meeting of 

Congress on June 22, 2023, to provide a virtual reality experience for educational use by the public. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.2

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND 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 Smithtown Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2006, (the Report), I, Anita M. Florek, Executive Vice President and Treasurer of the Company, certify that in my capacity as
an officer of the Company, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                        
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Anita M.Florek                                     
|                      |  | Anita M. Florek, Executive Vice President and Treasurer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GREG ABBOTT, IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF EL PASO

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00149

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso , Texas

(TC# 2 021

- DCV

- 2805 )

O R D E R

The City of El Paso has filed a motion for emergency relief under Rule 29.3, seeking to

overturn an automatic stay and reinstate the temporary injunction issued by the trial court pending

interlocutory appeal. See Tex.R.App. P . 29.3; In re Tex. Educ. Agenc y , 619 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. 2021).

The Court has determined that it w ill take no action on this motion pending a response from

the Governor and a reply from the City. The parties are directed to specifically address what effect,

if any, the stay order issued by the Texas Supreme Court in In re Abbott (City of San Antonio )

, No.

21

- 0720 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2021) ( order ) , has on this matter

.

The response from the Governor is due T HURSDAY , SEPTEMBER 9

, 2021, AT NOON

MD T

.

The repl y from the City is due FRIDAY , SEPTEMBER 10 , 2021 by 5 P.M

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 th day of September , 202 1

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley JJ.
----

----

I Ανακοινώσεις

Επιτροπή

----

ΚΟΙΝΟΤΙΚΈΣ ΑΠΟΦΆΣΕΙΣ ΌΣΟΝ ΑΦΟΡΆ ΤΙΣ ΆΔΕΙΕΣ ΚΥΚΛΟΦΟΡΊΑΣ ΤΩΝ ΦΑΡΜΆΚΩΝ ΑΠΌ15.3.2005ΜΈΧΡΙ15.4.2005

[Δημοσίευση(-εις) δυνάμει του άρθρου 34 της οδηγίας 2001/83/ΕΚ (1) ή του άρθρου 38 της οδηγίας 2001/82/ΕΚ (2)]

(2005/C 118/01)

—   Χορήγηση, διατήρηση ή τροποποίηση εθνικής άδειας κυκλοφορίας στην αγορά

----

(1)ΕΕ L 311 της 28.11.2001 σ. 67

(2)ΕΕ L 311 της 28.11.2001 σ. 1

----

ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ Ι

ΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ ΜΕ ΤΙΣ ΕΠΙΝΟΗΘΕΙΣΕΣ ΟΝΟΜΑΣΙΕΣ, ΤΙΣ ΦΑΡΜΑΚΕΥΤΙΚΕΣ ΜΟΡΦΕΣ, ΤΙΣ ΠΕΡΙΕΚΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΕΣ ΤΩΝ ΦΑΡΜΑΚΕΥΤΙΚΩΝ ΠΡΟΪΟΝΤΩΝ, ΤΗΝ ΟΔΟ ΧΟΡΗΓΗΣΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΚΑΤΟΧΟΥΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΔΕΙΑΣ ΚΥΚΛΟΦΟΡΙΑΣ ΣΤΑ ΚΡΑΤΗ ΜΕΛΗ

----

ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ II

ΚΑΤΑΛΟΓΟΣ ΜΕ ΤΙΣ ΟΝΟΜΑΣΙΕΣ, ΤΙΣ ΦΑΡΜΑΚΟΤΕΧΝΙΚΕΣ ΜΟΡΦΕΣ, ΤΙΣ ΠΕΡΙΕΚΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΕΣ, ΤΗΝ ΟΔΟ ΧΟΡΗΓΗΣΗΣ, ΤΑ ΖΩΙΚΑ ΕΙΔΗ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΚΑΤΟΧΟΥΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΔΕΙΑΣ ΚΥΚΛΟΦΟΡΙΑΣ ΣΤΑ ΕΝΔΙΑΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΑ ΚΡΑΤΗ ΜΕΛΗ, ΤΗΝ ΙΣΛΑΝΔΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΗ ΝΟΡΒΗΓΙΑ

----

ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ III

ΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ ΜΕ ΤΙΣ ΟΝΟΜΑΣΙΕΣ, ΤΗ ΦΑΡΜΑΚΟΤΕΧΝΙΚΗ ΜΟΡΦΗ, ΤΗΝ ΠΕΡΙΕΚΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ, ΤΗΝ ΟΔΟ ΧΟΡΗΓΗΣΗΣ, ΤΟΝ ΑΙΤΟΥΝΤΑ, ΤΟΝ ΚΑΤΟΧΟ ΤΗΣ ΑΔΕΙΑΣ ΚΥΚΛΟΦΟΡΙΑΣ ΣΤΑ ΚΡΑΤΗ ΜΕΛΗ

----
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-2489

PAUL A. GARGANO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RONALD ZIMMER, CELITA ZIMMER,

and ZIMMER & ASSOCIATES,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Howard, Circuit Judge,

and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge.

Scott McConchie with whom Griesinger Tighe & Maffei, LLP was

on brief for Defendants-Appellees.

Paul A. Gargano with whom Gargano & Associates and Timothy

Scannell were on brief for Appellant.

March 31, 2005
-2-

Per Curiam. This case arose from dealings that a Cayman

Islands construction firm had with a client, Paul Gargano, a

Massachusetts lawyer who is also a resident of the Cayman Islands

by grant of status, owns property there, and sought to build a home

there. The firm, Zimmer & Associates, is run by Celita and Ronald

Zimmer, both Caymanians by citizenship or grant of status. After

the business relationship broke down over payment issues, Gargano

filed suit in federal district court in Massachusetts, asserting

various contract, fraud, and unfair practices claims. 

The magistrate judge recommended granting a motion to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(2), assessing in detail the multi-faceted "minimum

contacts" and "gestalt" factors and finding that both sets of

considerations worked against the plaintiff. See Burger King Corp.

v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-78 (1985); Ticketmaster-New York,

Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 206-12 (1st Cir. 1994). The district

judge adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation,

dismissing the case.

If the plaintiff met the necessary showing of "minimum

contacts," and it is not at all clear that he did, he would have

done so at best by a small margin -- one that the "gestalt" factors

weighing against jurisdiction in this case easily overcome.

Accordingly, on this second ground, we readily affirm,

substantially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge.

It is so ordered.
#### City of Grafton *v.*Grafton Banking and Trust Company *et al.,*C. E. Lawhead, *Receiver, Appellant*

(No. 7708)

Submitted March 6, 1934.

Decided March 20, 1934.

*722
      *W. Merle Watkins,*for appellant.

*G. W. Ford,*for City of Grafton.

Maxwell, Judge:

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Taylor County declaring that the sum of $4,474.31 which was on deposit to the credit of the City of Grafton in the Grafton Banking and Trust Company when it ceased business October 10, 1931, is a trust fund now held by the receiver of the bank for the benefit of the city, under the principle applied in *County Court*v. *Bank,*112 W. Va. 476, 164 S. E. 659.

In pursuance of a requirement of the city’s charter, Acts 1913, ch. 79, sec. 9, the city authorities designated said bank as a depository for city funds for one year beginning December 1, 1929, and required of the bank a $10,000 bond which was promptly executed and approved. When the year expired there was on deposit to the city’s credit the sum of $13,060.34. The account was continued in active manner until the bank closed.

Preliminary to a determination of the city’s right to have the said balance of account declared a trust fund, there should be ascertainment of whether there is liability on the bond. The sureties should be before the court. *County Court of Greenbrier County*v. *Bank of Williamsburg,*114 W. Va. 703, 173 S. E. 784.

Therefore we reverse the .decree and remand the cause for further proceedings not at variance with this opinion.

*Reversed and remanded.*
Johanna Nathly Hidalgo DIAZ, Appellant, v. Jose Antonio DIAZ-AVILA, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1369

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 27, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Sidney GOODREAUX v. LAKEWOOD COUNTRY CLUB a/k/a Lakewood CDD, LLC, New Orleans Fire Fighters Pension Fund Investments a/k/a New Orleans Fire Fighters' Pension and Relief Funds, Lakewood Restoration Partners, Ltd., a Louisiana Limited Liability Partnership a/k/a Devonshire Properties, LLC and Henry Jerome Maumus, III

NO. 2017-CC-2042

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Latonya Calvinia HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1955

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.