alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gladys CARBONELL, Appellant, v. WVUE 2015-1, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1580

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018.

American Justice, P.A., and Theresa B. Edwards and David F. Edwards (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Law Offices of Damian G. Waldman, P.A., and Farha Ahmed and Damian G. Waldman (Largo), for appellee.

Before SCALES, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court entered summary judgment in this residential foreclosure case in favor of the Appellee WVUE 2015-1. We reverse because the record reveals that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the amount that Appellant Gladys Carbonell owed under the promissory note, *Ottawa Properties 2 LLC v. Central Mortgage Co.*, 202 So.3d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; and because at the summary judgment hearing, the trial court was made aware that outstanding, pending discovery on this issue had not concluded. *Payne v. Cudjoe Gardens Prop. Owners Ass'n*, 837 So.2d 458, 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).1

Reversed and remanded.

1

Appellant also argues that outstanding discovery on the standing issue should have precluded summary judgment. We agree with Appellee, though, that Appellant's outstanding discovery requests on the standing issue would not create a disputed issue of material fact. *Estate of Herrera v. Berlo Indus. Inc.*, 840 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Our de novo review of the summary judgment record supports the trial court's finding that Appellee established standing from the inception of the lawsuit. *McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n*, 79 So.3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2310

MERLE T. RUTLEDGE, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER ROACH OF THE CHATHAM, VA POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

TOWN OF CHATHAM, VIRGINIA; CHATHAM, VA POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

CHIEF MARTIN WRIGHT OF THE CHATHAM, VA POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; GOVERNOR OF 

VIRGINIA BOB MCDONNELL; VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KENNETH T. 

CUCCINELLI, II; THE HONORABLE GOVERNOR OF ARIZONA JAN 

BREWER; ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL TERRY GODDARD; STATE OF 

VIRGINIA; CITY OF DANVILLE, VA; CITY OF DANVILLE, VA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:10-cv-00035-JLK-MFU)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Martha White Medley, 

Michael Anthony Nicholas, DANIEL, MEDLEY & KIRBY, PC, Danville, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Merle T. Rutledge, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and 

denying his motion to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See Rutledge v. 

Roach, No. 4:10-cv-00035-JLK-MFU (W.D. Va. Sept. 30 & Nov. 18, 

2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
Darrell Keith WILSON, Sr., Appellant, v. Mamie WILSON, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D16-2406

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Masakazu Kurushima,

1. I have reviewed this quarterly
report on Form 10-Q of California Steel Industries, Inc. (the Registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly 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)) for the Registrant
and we have:

(a) design such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary is, made known to us by others within that entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrants most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

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 person performing the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 2, 2007



By:

/s/ MASAKAZU KURUSHIMAMasakazu KurushimaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
STATE EX REL. Broderick BURTON v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0106

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 6, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

*277Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. Additionally, relator's sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; *see also* *State v. Cotton* , 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

Relator has now fully litigated at least two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Harens A. ERAZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4219

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

Toshiro Sagae
================================================================================

From:
Sent:                          Tuesday, October 13, 1998 4:56 PM
To:                            Toshiro Sagae
Subject:                       Quarter 1, 1999 slab business

Dear Toshiro,

This confirms our telephone agreement of October 9, 1998.

We sold to you and you purchased from us

Product:        Prime Concast Steel Slabs
Quantity:       70,000 metric tons, +/- 5%
Price:          US$163.00 per metric ton, base grades, CFR FO Long Beach, Ca.
Shipment        35,000 tons January 1999 from Port Kembla Australia
                35,000 tons February 1999 from Port Kembla Australia
Payment Terms:  Net cash 30 days from ocean B/L date

All other Terms and Conditions are as per previous orders and Supply
Agreement/Technical Protocol.

Again, thank you very much for placing this business with us.


Best Regards,
Manny Schultz


                                       1
<PAGE>

Toshiro Sagae
================================================================================

From:
Sent:           Thursday, October 15, 1998 3:00 PM
To:             Vicente Wright
Cc:             Laurenson, Jon JG; Schulz, Dieter D; Nancy Wilson; Toshiro Sagae
Subject:        Slab Sales Contract April through December 1999 shipment

Importance:     High

Dear Vicente,

This confirms our mutual agreement of October 14, 1998.

We sold to you and you purchased from us

Product:        Prime Concast Slabs
Quantity:       280,000 metric tons, +/- 5%,
                Plus 35,000 metric tons, at your option for quarter 4,
                1999 shipment
                Option validity is July 30, 1999.
Price:          US$165.00 per metric ton, base grades, CFR FO Los Angeles/Long
                Beach, Ca.
Shipments:      35,000 metric tons each month, April through November 1999,
                with option for December 1999
Payment Terms:  Net cash 30 days from ocean bill of lading date

All other Terms and Conditions are as per previous orders and Supply
Agreement/Technical Protocol.

We appreciate your business and as always will give it our fullest attention.


Best Regards,
Manny Schultz


                                       1
M. Lynn POPE f/k/a M. Lynn Bikowitz, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Paul W. BIKOWITZ, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Case No. 2D16-203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (No.
      333-137033, No. 333-149844) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-151256”) on Form S-3 of
      Innovative Card Technologies, Inc (the “Company”) of our report dated March 31,
      2008, except for Note 1A as to which the date is June 16, 2008, relating to
      our
      audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appears in Amendment
      No.1
      to this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December
      31, 2007. Our report dated March 31, 2008, except for Note 1A as to which the
      date is June 16, 2008, includes an emphasis paragraph relating to an uncertainty
      as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.





SINGER
      LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP





Los
      Angeles, Californica


June
      16,
      2008
Exhibit 1.2
 ADOPTED BY
Mechel OAOs Board of Directors
Unnumbered Board Minutes dated December 22, 2010
 Chairman of the Board
 Igor V. Zyuzin
 Company Secretary
 Irina N. Ipeeva
 AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER OF MECHEL OAO
   -
    
    Representative office in the Republic of Korea with its registered office at: No. 202,
146-5 LOFT Building, Samsung-Dong, Kangnam-Ku, Seoul, Korea, 135-878;-
    
    Representative office in Japan with its registered office at: No. 302 Atagoyama
Bengoshi Building 1-6-7 Atago Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0002;-
    
    Representative office in the Peoples Republic of China with its registered office at:
Jingguang Center bldg. 1 #3310A, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100020, China;-
    
    Representative office in Kemerovo (Russia) with its registered office at: 90/4, Lenin
Avenue, Kemerovo 650036, Russian Federation;-
    
    Representative office in Ukraine with its registered office at: 17 Lineynaya str., Kiev
03038, Ukraine;-
    
    Representative office in Blagoveschensk (Russia) with its registered office at: Office
102, 173 Krasnoarmeyskaya str., Blagoveschensk 675000, Amur Region, Russia;-
    
    Representative office in the Southern Federal District (Russia) with its registered
office at: 114 Semashko Lane, Rostov-on-Don 344010, Rostov Region, Russia.
 AIR QUALITY



# Chomping down on pollution

After complaints, The Habit looks to slash its emissions



COMMENT

0

0

 |Smoke bellows out an exhaust pipe from The Habit, a hamburger restaurant on west March Lane in Stockton. CALIXTRO ROMIAS/THE RECORD



 By Alex Breitler Record Staff Writer

Posted Jan. 1, 2016 at 3:19 PM
One of Stockton’s newest burger joints was so popular after it opened two years ago that the public complained about the thick fumes that periodically wafted from a rooftop vent into the surrounding neighborhood.
“Sometimes the place looks like it’s on fir e,” one observer told The Record last year.
The good news is that The Habit on March Lane is experimenting with new technology that could take a bite out of its rush

- hour pollution problem.
The restaurant was the first in the San Joaquin Valley to sign up for a new pilot program aimed at reducing emissions from restaurants with charbroil grills.
Cooking meat contributes to the Valley’s notoriously bad air. Microscopic specks of grease escape into the air while the meat sizzles away on the grill; those tiny specks add to dangerous particle pollution in nearby neighborhoods, just like chimney smoke does.
As of 2009, nearly 2,500 commercial charbroilers in the Valley were serving up more than 75,000 tons of meat each year, spewing more than 900 tons of pollutio n, according to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
More than a decade ago, Valley air regulators began requiring restaurants with chain

- driven charbroilers

— think most fast

- food restaurants

— to slash emissions.But restaurants such as The Habit, those with under

- fired charbroilers rather than the chain

- driven ones, were not subject to the same rules because the technology didn’t exist for those kinds of grills.
After a few more years of research, that’s starting to change. Earlier this year the air district agreed to set aside $750,000 to test some new control technologies for under

- fired charbroilers in Valley restaurants.
In September, the air district invested $171,044 in a new scrubber and filtration system at The Habit. For its part, the restaurant must evaluate how well the controls work and submit reports to the air district.
Officials hope to fund at least three to five of these test projects across the Valley. They may then expand the existing rules to the under

- fired charbroilers by 2017.
K.G. Suh of Stockton called The Record to express his concern about The Habit in 2014. He said at the time that he had to roll up his car window every time he drove by the business on March Lane, and expressed concern abo ut the environmental impacts of the exhaust from the restaurant.
This week, Suh said that he was glad improvements had been made.
"I've seen the difference," Suh said. "I think (the pollution) is quite a bit reduced. It's great."

— Contact reporter Alex Br eitler at (209) 546

- 8295 or abreitler@recordnet.com. Follow him at recordnet.com/breitlerblog and on Twitter @alexbreitler
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000751255
<NAME> DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1985-1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          31,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,620
<PP&E>                                      20,981,357
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,833,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 289,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     254,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   289,172
<SALES>                                        263,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               265,636
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                163,051
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            163,051
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   163,051
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    39.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 269/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.269.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 269 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5210 November 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.269.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 269

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5210 November 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2009/C 269/01 | Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2008, together with the institutions’ replies | 1 |
| 2009/C 269/02 | Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) concerning the financial year 2008, together with the Commission's replies | 257 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Auditors

2009/C 269/01

Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2008, together with the institutions’ replies

1

2009/C 269/02

Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) concerning the financial year 2008, together with the Commission's replies

257

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
----- Forwarded by Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US on 03/22/2011 09:40 AM

-----

From: "Timothy A. Blubaugh" <tblubaugh@emamail.org> To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/21/2011 03:54 PM Subject: RE: Composite N2O Data

Byron, Attached is the data used to generate the graph I sent last week.
Tim **From:** Timothy A. Blubaugh **Sent:** Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:03 PM **To:** Byron Bunker (bunker.byron@epa.gov) **Subject:** Composite N2O Data Byron, Attached please find composite (hot and cold FTP) N20 data from 13 2010 engine families.
Tim **Timothy A. Blubaugh** EMA ▪ TMA 333 West Wacker Drive ▪ Suite 810 Chicago, IL ▪ 60606 312.929.1972 direct ▪ 312.208.0948 mobile 312.929.1975 fax tblubaugh@emamail.org ▪ www.enginemanufacturers.org Please consider the environment before printing this email. Confidentiality

Notice : This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by reply

e -mail and immediately

delete it and any

attachments without copying or further transmitting the same.
Angel BARREIRO, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-2492

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 January 2007 – Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission**

**(Case C‐404/04 P)**

Appeal – State aid – Article 87(1) EC – Contractual promise of payment – Disappearance of an essential condition of the contract – New pleas and arguments – Substitution of reasons – Application for the hearing of witnesses –Private creditor test – Grounds of the judgment of the Court of First Instance – Determination of the amount of aid – Article 87(3)(c) EC – Right to be heard – Breach, in respect of the Member State concerned, of the rights of the defence

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) EC and 253 EC) (see para. 30)*

2.                     *State aid – Meaning (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 45-46)*

3.                     *Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law
pleaded not identified – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of procedure
of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c), first para.) (see paras 48-50)*

4.                     *Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (see para. 90)*

5.                     *Community law – Principles – Rights of the defense (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 125 and 131)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 July 2004 in Case T‐198/01 | Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau | v | Commission | dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Germany) (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 30) |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the appeal. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the total costs of the Commission of the European Communities related to the interlocutory proceedings and to these proceedings. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to pay the costs incurred by Schott AG in the interlocutory proceedings. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders Schott AG to pay its own costs in these proceedings. |