alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Tammy J. JONES and Jeffrey A. Jones, Sr., Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee FOR the CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF MASTR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2007-NCW, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NCW, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1617

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 5, 2017 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Raymond Lavar WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5309

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133383 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133383 

 COA: 264991 

Eaton CC: 04-020431-FH 

CARRIE EVERETT COTTRELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Eaton County Prosecuting 

Attorney and invite the defendant to submit supplemental briefs within 28 days of the 

date of this order addressing the issues: (1) whether the prosecutor’s statements at the 

hearing on the defendant’s motion for a new trial, regarding the statements made by the 

jurors during the post-verdict colloquy between counsel and the jurors, constitute an 

admission by a party-opponent, MRE 801(d)(2)(B); and (2) if the prosecutor’s statements 

are an admission by a party-opponent, whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held 

that the defendant’s affidavits “are plainly hearsay” and that there is “no competent 

record evidence” to support the defendant’s motion for a new trial. 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending. 

p0626 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

June 29, 2007 

 Clerk
SAFE HARBOR RECOVERY, LLC, and Ascendant Commercial Ins. Inc., Appellants, v. Richard LANGWEIL, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2517

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-5141.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 6, 2004.

Richard S. Ewing, Principal Attorney, Donald E. Kinner, David M. Cohen, Of Counsel, Washington, DC, for DefendantAppellee.

Steven Fies Baicker-McKee, Principal Attorney, Babst Calland, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
James ANDERSON, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. PETE BEACH, a municipal government of the State of Florida; Beverly Garnett; Jim Parent ; Al Halpern; Marvin Shavlan; sued in their official capacity as Commissioners of the City of St. Pete Beach; and Michael Finnerty, sued in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of St. Pete Beach, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-5346

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Manila LAKMAITREE, Appellant, v. 21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1263

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 7, 2018]

Brian Korte of Korte & Wortman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Sonia Henriques McDowell of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

On the Court's own motion we recall our mandate issued on March 23, 2018, withdraw our prior opinion issued on March 7, 2018, and issue the following opinion in its place.

After the court entered an involuntary dismissal against the lender for failing to establish standing, the borrower requested an award of its attorney's fees. The court denied the motion, and the borrower appeals.

This Court answered the question raised in this appeal in our en banc opinion in *325*Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Glass* , 219 So.3d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). We subsequently addressed the issue in several cases, including *Christiana Tr., a Div. of Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB for Normandy Mortgage Loan Tr., Series 2013-18 v. Rushlow* , 231 So.3d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), and, more recently, *Sabido v. Bank of New York Mellon* , 4D16-2944, --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 735950 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 7, 2018). Furthermore, our sister districts have uniformly reached the same conclusion. *Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. v. Fitzgerald* , 215 So.3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; *HFC Collection Ctr., Inc. v. Alexander* , 190 So.3d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

We reject the borrower's argument that it is inequitable to apply these decisions; and, regardless, this Court's unanimous en banc decision is binding on this panel. Therefore, the circuit court's order is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40873

DONNA WEST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TYLER PERRY, Doing Business as Tyler Perry Company;

LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; TYLER PERRY COMPANY, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CV-200

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Donna West sued Tyler Perry and his distributor, alleging that his movie

copied elements of a play she had written and performed at a location where PerUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 23, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-40873 Document: 00511211465 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2010
No. 09-40873

ry later worked before becoming commercially successful. A jury found in favor

of defendants. On appeal, West claims the district court erred in (1) granting

summary judgment to defendants on some of her state-law claims; (2) denying

her motion for a new trial; and (3) awarding costs to defendants for expedited

trial transcripts.

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law, have consulted applicable

portions of the record, and have heard oral argument. There is no reversible

error.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on

West’s state-law claims of unfair competition and conversion, which are preempted by section 301(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). E.g., Daboub

v. Gibbons, 42 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1995). Even if they were not preempted,

they would be barred by the Texas two-year statute of limitations.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. The

district court’s memorandum opinion explaining its denial is persuasive in showing that there was no absence of evidence to support the verdict.

There also was no error, and surely no reversible error, in the jury charge.

There was no error in the conditional refusal to allow introduction of West’s

copyright registration without presentation of the entire registration to the jury.

There is no reversible error, and surely no harmful error, occasioned by defense

counsel’s statements.” Finally, there is no merit to West’s assertion that Perry’s

expert was not qualified.

West’s challenge to the cost of expedited transcripts is similarly unjustified. The district court is in the best position to judge the need for such transcripts.

The judgment, well grounded in the verdict, is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-40873 Document: 00511211465 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2010
A.R., The Mother, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0322

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Larry James BARBER, Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 3D17-154

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
James FORNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3854

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 28, 2018]

James Forney, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant's successive rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We write only to address appellant's claim that the orders entered after he filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge were void. This claim is meritless because appellant failed to serve the motion on the judge. *See* Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(c), (j) ; *Braddy v. State* , 111 So.3d 810, 833 (Fla. 2012) ; *Hedrick v. State* , 6 So.3d 688, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

*Affirmed* .

Warner, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation

# Time and Date:

9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2009. 

# Place:

The University of Arizona Foundation's Vine Street Annex, Room 102, 1125 N. Vine Street, Tucson, AZ 85719. 

# Status:

This meeting will be open to the public, unless it is necessary for the Board to consider items in executive session. 

# Matters to be Considered:

(1) A report on the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution; (2) A report from the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy; (3) A report on the Native Nations Institute; (4) Program Reports; and (5) A Report from the Management Committee. 

# Portions Open to the Public:

All sessions with the exception of the session listed below. 

# Portions Closed to The Public:

Executive session. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Ellen K. Wheeler, Executive Director, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 901-8500. 

Dated: March 31, 2009. 

Ellen K. Wheeler, 

Executive Director, Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation, and Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-7602 Filed 4-6-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820-FN-M
Exhibit 10.13
 SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTE
  $9,754,465
    
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 18, 2008
 Maker Payee
 Agreement
   Maturity Date
    Lampe II Facility inter alia Agent




---



##### 



Insolvency Events
    Change of Control




---



##### 



Person Beneficial Owner
    Event of Default




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



TRM CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Richard SternName:
    Richard SternTitle:
    President & Chief Executive OfficerFor the purposes of Section 1.3 only:/s/ Douglas FalconeDouglas Falcone
****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. Allopinions are subjecttomodificationandtechnical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or ConnecticutAppellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears onthe Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service andinthe ConnecticutLawJournal andboundvolumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State ofConnecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************ROBERT CHIULLI, JR. v. CHRIS CHIULLI ET AL. (AC 37136)
Lavine, Alvord and Bishop, Js. Argued October 27—officially released December 8, 2015 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Hartford, Peck, J.) George W. Kramer, for the appellant (plaintiff).
EricH. Rothauser, withwhom, onthe brief, wasLee B. Ross, for the appellees (defendants).Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Robert Chiulli, Jr., appeals from the trial court’sjudgment in favor of the defendants, Chris Chiulli and his business, Double ‘‘C’’ Construction Company, LLC. The plaintiff claims that (1) the facts do not support the trial court’s judgment

as to his breach of contract claim, and (2) the court erredinitsapplicationofthe lawinregardtohis claims of conversion and statutory theft. We disagree.
Our examination of the record on appeal and the arguments ofthe partiespersuade us thatthejudgment ofthe trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial court’s memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt its concise and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts and the applicable law concerning the issues raised by the plaintiff. See Chiulli

v. Chiulli, 161 Conn. App. 639, A.3d (2014) (appendix). It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Discover Bankv. Hill, 150 Conn. App. 164, 174, 93A.3d 159, cert. denied, 312 Conn. 924, 94 A.3d 1203 (2014).
The judgment is affirmed.
CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of R.G. Barry Corporation for the
quarterly period ended January 1, 2011;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: February 9, 2011
    /s/ José G. IbarraPrinted Name:   José G. IbarraTitle:  Senior Vice President  Finance and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
FORM OF  PUT OPTION AGREEMENT
 This
PUT OPTION AGREEMENT Agreement  Company
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE
 Certain Definitions
  Affiliate
 Agreement
 Anniversary Date
 Business Day
 Change in Control




---



##### 



Common Stock
 Company
 Excluded Members
 Indemnity Escrow Agreement
 MPA
 Net Payment
 Notice of Objection
 Person
 Purchase Agreement
 Put
 Put Eligible Shares
 2




---



##### 



Put Failure
 Put Failure Escrow
 Put Notice
 Put Obligation
 Put Purchase Price
 Put Right Escrow Agreement
 Redemption
 Registration Statement
 Rights Agreement
 SEC
 Shares
 Threshold Insider Sale Amount
 Top 20 Members Schedule 1
 3




---



##### 



1933 Act
 1934 Act
 Put Rights
 Grant of Right Put Put
Obligation Put Purchase
Price Put Notice
 Shares Ineligible for Put Indemnity Escrow Agreement
 Satisfaction of Put Obligation Redemption
 4




---



##### 



Net Payment
 Conditions Precedent to Put Obligation
 Management Owner
 Cooperative Excluded Member
  5




---



##### 



Dispute Resolution Notice of Objection th
 Put Failure Put Failure
   6




---



##### 



Funding of Put Right Escrow Agreement
 Transfer Restrictions
 Volume Limitations
  Threshold
Insider Sale Amount
 7




---



##### 



Vesting
  and
 Miscellaneous
 Notices
  ,Attention:Telephone:Telecopier:Email:
 8




---



##### 



Construction
 Successors and Assigns
 9




---



##### 



provided
 Amendment and Waiver
 Governing Law; Consent to Jurisdiction
 Section Headings and Defined Terms
 Severability
 10




---



##### 



Counterparts
 Entire Agreement
 Remainder of the page is intentionally left blank.
 11




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS S.A.By:Name:Title:THE MANAGEMENT TRUST:REVOCABLE TRUST________________, Trustee 12
Exhibit 95.1





DODD-FRANK ACT DISCLOSURE OF MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION SAFETY DATA





The following disclosures are provided pursuant to Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) and Item 104 of Regulation S-K, which requires certain disclosures by companies required to file periodic reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that operate mines regulated under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the “Mine Act”).





Mine Safety Information





The operation of our limestone quarry in Carthage, Missouri is inspected by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) on an ongoing basis.  Whenever MSHA believes a violation of the Mine Act, any health or safety standard or any regulation has occurred, it may issue a citation which describes the alleged violation and fixes a time within which the U.S. mining operator must abate the alleged violation. In some situations, such as when MSHA believes that conditions pose a hazard to miners, MSHA may issue an order removing miners from the area of the mine affected by the condition until the alleged hazards are corrected. When MSHA issues a citation or order, it generally proposes a civil penalty, or fine, as a result of the alleged violation, that the operator is ordered to pay. Citations and orders can be contested and appealed, and as part of that process, may be reduced in severity and amount, and are sometimes dismissed. The number of citations, orders and proposed assessments vary depending on the size and type (underground or surface) of the mine as well as by the MSHA inspector(s) assigned.





The following table includes information required by the Act for the twelve months ended December 31, 2017.





Mine or Operating Name (MSHA Identification Number)Section 104 S&S CitationsSection 104(b) OrdersSection 104(d) Citations and OrdersSection 110(b)(2) ViolationsSection 107(a) OrdersTotal Dollar Value of MSHA Assessments ProposedTotal Number of Mining Related FatalitiesReceived Notice of Pattern of Violations Under Section 104(e)Received Notice of Potential to Have Pattern Under Section 104(e)Legal Actions Pending as of Last Day of PeriodLegal Actions Initiated During PeriodLegal Actions Resolved During PeriodCarthage Crushed Limestone(23-00028)40000$3,459,0000NoNo000
Nathan Calloway IVEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-970

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 of Hyperera, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Hyperera, Inc.Dated: April 14, 2014
By:
/s/ Zhi Yong LiZhi Yong LiChief Executive Officer




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 Hyperera, Inc. and will be retained by Hyperera, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

THUY VAN VO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 445 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of January, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-178283) pertaining to the 2011 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the 2009 Equity Incentive Plan of Clovis Oncology, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2012,with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Clovis Oncology, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2011. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Denver, CO 

March 14, 2012
Jose Ismael Velasquez RAMOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2233

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 14, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*