alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 33 

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Nelson Miranda,

 Appellant.

Frances A. Gallagher, for appellant.

Andrew E. Seewald, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Term should be affirmed.

Defendant made a motion to suppress physical evidence

"seized from his person" on the basis that the property seized

was the fruit of an unlawful arrest. At the conclusion of the

suppression hearing, the court found probable cause for the

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 33

arrest based on the officers' "observations over a nearly 30-

minute period," during which defendant attempted to damage the

locks on three different bicycles using a tool in a "sawing"

motion. As one officer stopped defendant, defendant dropped a

hacksaw. The officer put defendant's hands on a car, handcuffed

him, and performed an initial pat down for the safety of the

officers and felt a bag on his person underneath his coat. The

officers searched the satchel and found pliers, screwdrivers and

rubber gloves. The hearing court concluded that the search was

incident to a lawful arrest.

"CPL 470.05 (2) provides that a question of

law regarding a ruling is presented in a

criminal proceeding 'when a protest thereto

was registered, by the party claiming error,

at [a] time . . . when the court had an

opportunity of effectively changing the same

. . . or if in response to a protest by a

party, the court expressly decided the

question raised on appeal'" 

(People v Graham, 25 NY3d 994, 996 [2015]). 

The issue argued on this appeal is whether the

warrantless search of defendant's satchel was unlawful as beyond

the scope of a search incident to arrest. In particular,

defendant contends that the exigencies that existed at the time

of the arrest no longer existed at the time of the search because

he was handcuffed and the seizure of the satchel was outside of a

permissible full search of his person incident to arrest.

Here, the hearing court did not expressly decide, in

response to protest, the issues now raised on appeal. The issue

- 2 -
- 3 - No. 33

at the suppression hearing was whether the officers had probable

cause to arrest defendant. The hearing court's mere reference to

"search incident to a lawful arrest" is insufficient to preserve

defendant's current arguments for this Court's review.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges

Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

Decided March 24, 2016

- 3 -
Vincent P. DINARDO and Maria Olarte Dinardo, Appellants, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-5731

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 21, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ronald J. OLNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.; Cooper Tools Division, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. LAGRAND TIRE CHAINS; Lagrand Companies; Lagrand Industrial Chain Supply; Lagrand Traction Products; Lagrand Shoe Chains; Lagrand Skidder Tire Chains; Lagrand Steel Company; Lagrand Steel Corp.; Brian Lagrand; John H. Hart; Lagrand Protection Chains; Diane Lagrand, husband and wife; Diane Lagrand, individually; Richard Hagerty, individually; Jane Doe Hagerty, husband and wife; aka Allwest Transport, aka Allwest Transport and Chain, All West Transport, Inc., All-West Transport II, LLC.; Clarise Janet Kahl Trust; Deborah Kahl; Sutton and Johnson, Inc., dba Sutton’s Tire and Chain; Ronald Sutton; Quality Chain Corporation; Richard Schmunk, individually, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-36148.

D.C. No. CV-00-00800-ALH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 4, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

John P. Crowell, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thomas A. Larkin, Stewart, Sokol *&*Gray, LLC, Portland, OR, Dennis W. Per-cell, Arnold, Gallagher, Saydack, Percell, Roberts, *&*Potter PC, Eugene, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before HUG, McKEOWN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The district court judgment in this matter is affirmed for the reasons set forth in its opinion.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Document

Exhibit 10.27.15



AMENDMENT NUMBER THIRTEEN TO THE
METLIFE PLAN FOR TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR GRADES 14 AND ABOVE
(Amended and Restated Effective April 1, 2014)
THE METLIFE PLAN FOR TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR GRADES 14 AND ABOVE (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as April 12, 2021 to change the Plan Administrator from Andrew Bernstein to Judith Eidenberg Rubinstein:
Effective April 12, 2021, Section 3.2 of the Plan is hereby amended, by adding the following new sentence at the end of the section read as follows:
“Effective April 12, 2021, Andrew Bernstein, the Employee Benefits Committee designate as Plan Administrator for the MetLife Welfare Benefits Plan, the parent plan, of which this Plan is a Constituent Plan, designates Judith Eidenberg Rubinstein as the Plan Administrator of the Plan.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be adopted this 30th day of April 2021.


METLIFE GROUP, INC.


/s/ Andrew Bernstein_____________
Andrew Bernstein, Plan Administrator


Witness: /s/ Danielle Hodorowski_____
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Lynn BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4639

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                        1,894
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,894
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                8,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         134,946
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      17,310
<OTHER-SE>                    (143,452)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  8,804
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              126,763
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (126,763)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (126,763)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (126,763)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.073)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 13.2**

**** 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**UNDER THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of CPFL Energia S.A. (the “**Company**”) does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2017 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: April 23, 2018
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 07, 2022.

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, March 07, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22I0133. THE KROGER CO. v. CHAUNCIAL CANNON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2021CV00001
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                    
<MULTIPLIER>                  1                
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars                
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998         
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998   
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1   
<CASH>                                12,709  
<SECURITIES>                               0   
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,868,787  
<ALLOWANCES>                           5,002            
<INVENTORY>                        4,522,727  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   6,526,496  
<PP&E>                             6,619,261
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,460,006 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    11,709,762  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              4,624,528  
<BONDS>                            1,988,278  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0  
<PREFERRED>                                0  
<COMMON>                              28,386
<OTHER-SE>                         3,264,326  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      11,709,762  
<SALES>                            8,693,075  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   8,788,726  
<CGS>                              6,943,135  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      8,094,070  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     124,176  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   120,543  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      570,480  
<INCOME-TAX>                         199,668  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  370,812  
<DISCONTINUED>                             0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0  
<CHANGES>                                  0  
<NET-INCOME>                         370,812   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.131  
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.129  
        


</TABLE>
| Exhibit 99.3 **EMC**Mortgage Corporation Officer's Certificate BSABS 2004-FR1 I, Mark D. Ehrenreich, Senior Vice President of EMC Mortgage Corporation, do hereby certify to the designated Trustee that in respect to the period ending November 30, 2004, a review of the activities of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") during the preceding fiscal year or applicable portion thereof and it's performance under the above referenced Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision. To the best of  my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has performed and fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a default in the fulfillment of any such obligation, specifying each such default known to such officer and the nature and status thereofexcept for such defaults as such officer in its good faith judgment believe to be immaterial. ***/s/ Mark D. Ehrenreich*Mark D. Ehrenreich, Senior Vice President *2/28/05*Date** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,389]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 26, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by UNITE-HERE Locals 224-T, 2375, and 323 on behalf of workers of IAC Fremont, LLC, New Production Introduction Assembly, Fremont, Ohio.

Additionally, workers' wages were also reported under another corporate name: Lear Corporation—Fremont.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of March 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-8288 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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 on the Arts and the Humanities

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that two meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (ending times are approximate):

*AccessAbility  (Application Review):*                     May 7, 2009 by teleconference. This meeting, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., will be closed.                

*Literature (Application Review):*                     May 14-15, 2009, in Room 714. This meeting, from 9 p.m. to 6 p.m. on May 14th and from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 15th, will be closed.                

The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 28, 2008, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

                    Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506,                     *plowitzk@arts.endow.gov,*                     or call 202/682-5691.                

      ( print page 16430)    
Dated: April 7, 2009.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. E9-8196 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ROBERT JACKSON, III, DOC #S42032, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-5097

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed January 2, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Brian A. Iten, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Adrian HINES and Klautrelle Long, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. NEW URBAN PINE ROAD LLC, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 3D16-1168

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018. Rehearing Denied April 18, 2018

The AJM Law Group, P.A. and Alix J. Montes ; James Jean-Francois (Hollywood), for appellants/cross-appellees.

Waldman Barnett P.L., Eleanor T. Barnett, and Jason Gordon, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Before SUAREZ, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Adrian Hines and Klautrelle Long appeal the trial court's judgment in favor of New Urban Pine Road LLC foreclosing on their North Miami home. Hines and Long contend that we should reverse the judgment because: (1) New Urban did not have standing to foreclosure on their home; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to reestablish the lost note under Florida Statutes section 673.3091. We disagree, and affirm.1

*751*Standing*. At the bench trial, New Urban presented competent substantial evidence that there was an unbroken chain of assignments from Wells Fargo, to RWPO VI, LLC, to Goshen Mortgage, to GDBT I Trust 2011-1, back to Goshen Mortgage, and finally to New Urban. This unbroken chain was sufficient evidence to establish New Urban's standing to foreclose on the home. *See**Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Marquez*, 180 So.3d 219, 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("To establish standing to foreclose on a mortgage and note, a plaintiff must demonstrate it is the owner of the note and mortgage and that it acquired such ownership prior to filing the action. Ownership may be proven by an uncontradicted chain of self-authenticating assignments." (citation and quotation omitted) ).

*Re-establishment of lost note*. "Where the plaintiff is not in possession of the original documents, it is still entitled to enforce the instrument if: '(a) [it] was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred ....; (b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by [it] or a lawful seizure; and (c) [it] cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found....' " *Id.* (quoting § 673.3091, Fla. Stat.). Here, the unbroken chain of assignments and Mr. Corral's testimony were competent and substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings that the lost note requirements of section 673.3091 had been met.

Affirmed; cross-appeal dismissed as moot.

1

New Urban cross-appeals one of the trial court's evidentiary rulings but because we are affirming the foreclosure judgment, the cross-appeal is dismissed as moot. *See**Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Miami-Dade Cty.*, 790 So.2d 555, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("We conclude that the appellees lack standing to pursue this action and, accordingly, reverse the two temporary injunctions. As a result, the issue raised on the cross-appeal is moot.").
Exhibit 21.1 Subsidiaries of the Registrant Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of FormationSPT CA Fundings, LLC
    
    DelawareSPT Operations, LLC
    
    DelawareSPT Real Estate Sub I, LLC
    
    DelawareSPT TALF Sub I, LLC
    
    DelawareSPT TALF Sub II, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareSPT-HII-VIII CA Fundings, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareSPT-HII-VIII Partners, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareSPT-HII-VIII-TALF, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareSPT-VIII Partners, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareSPT-VIII CA Fundings, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareSPT-VIII-TALF, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareStarwood Mortgage WD, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareStarwood Property Mortgage Sub-1, L.L.C.
    
    DelawareStarwood Property Mortgage, L.L.C.
    
    Delaware
Hannah GASTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1506

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 10, 2018

**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.

January 31, 2014

t0127 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2014

148040

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148040

COA: 313874

Dickinson CC: 10

- 004513

- FC

RONNEE LEE PIETRANTONIO,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 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.
Exhibit
      31.2





**CERTIFICATION****OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**





I,
      Bennet
      P. Tchaikovsky, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB/A of Innovative Card Technologies, Inc.;
      and





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.







*Dated:
                April 30, 2007*
            *By:*
            */s/
                Bennet P. Tchaikovsky**Bennet
                P. Tchaikovsky**Chief
                Financial Officer*





19