alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Christopher JONES, DOC #T32985, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3971

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 27, 2018.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Alberto Francisco RUIZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1478

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 04, 2018

Following review of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the response and reply thereto, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and SCALES, JJ., concur.
Christopher MEREDITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Georgina MEREDITH, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3883

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 23, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

In response to this court's order to show cause why the petition for writ of prohibition should not be dismissed as moot, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. Accordingly, the order to show cause is discharged, the motion to dismiss the petition is treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal, and the petition is dismissed as moot. Petitioner's motion to strike respondent's response brief is denied as moot.

Petitioner's motion to strike respondent's appendix to the response is denied as moot.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IWO Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Jerry E.
Vaughn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Jerry E. Vaughn
-----------------------
Jerry E. Vaughn
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2003
Order entered July 17, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00815-CV 

IN RE KEITH COLEMAN AND CEDAR CANYON RANCH & VENUE, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. PR-13-00345-2 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges and Justice Brown 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relators to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2031** 

WILLIAM MCKELVY , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant

– Appellee, and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant
.

Ap peal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 000821

- JRS )

Submitted : April 4, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Wayne M. Scriven, SCRIVEN LAW OFFICES, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Rodney A. Satterwhite, Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Latoya C. Asia, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unp ublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: William McKelvy appeals the district court's order granting Capital One Services, LLC’s motion for summary judgment on his claims of discriminatory removal of supervisory duties

a nd termination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e

- 17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. A. §§ 621 to 634 ( West 2008 & Supp. 2010 ); discriminatory denial of promotion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981 a (2006); and state law claims for breach of contract, wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. McKelvy argues that the district court erred whe n it: (i) failed to afford McKelvy eleven days to oppose Capital One’s summary judgment motion; (ii) denied McKelvy’s motion to compel; (iii) determined that McKelvy failed to rebut the at

- will employment presumption; (iv) granted summary judgment on McKel vy’s retaliation claim based on Capital One’s alleged refusal to pay severance benefits if he did not withdraw his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge; and (v) improperly relied on hearsay evidence to find that Capital One established a legitima te, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. We have reviewed the record and have f ou nd no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final order. McKelvy v. Capital One Servs., LLC , No. 3:09

- cv -4 00821

- JRS ( E.D. Va. filed August 20, 2 010; entered August 25, 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
Tommy J. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-326

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - science_science(5)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_publications(42)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image(5)
              - multimedia_image-141771(5)
              - multimedia_slideshow(4)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149210(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(14)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(4)
              - arkansas(9)
              - california(25)
              - colorado(10)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(12)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(18)
              - georgia(7)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(4)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(17)
              - iowa(5)
              - (-)kansas(5)
              - louisiana(35)
              - maine(13)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(13)
              - michigan(2)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(2)
              - missouri(12)
              - montana(15)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(8)
              - new mexico(4)
              - new york(14)
              - north carolina(13)
              - north dakota(35)
              - ohio(20)
              - oklahoma(5)
              - oregon(4)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(6)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(30)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(42)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(37)
              - virginia(7)
              - washington(21)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(12)

## By Year

Photography        June 7, 2017        Easton Flood

Photography        September 15, 2016        River Flood

Photography        December 31, 2003        Unfinished Bridge at Lecompton

Photography        August 16, 2012        Chapman Creek

Photography        May 16, 2006        Otter Creek
***Certification      of the Principal Financial Officer***

***Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,***

***As      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes***
***-***

***Oxley      Act of 2002***

|  | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of                operations of the Company. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |                                                                                    |                                      |
|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| Dated:                May 16, 2008 |                                                                                    |
|                          |                                                                               |                                 |
|                               |                                                                                    | /s/ Graham              David Staley |
|                               |                                                                                         |
|                               | Name:                Graham David StaleyTitle:                  Chief Financial Officer |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: BERND SCHAEFERS, 

Debtor, 

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

BERND SCHAEFERS, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

BLIZZARD ENERGY, INC.; FRANZISKA 

SHEPARD, 

Appellees.

No. 20-60055 

BAP No. 20-1067 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Spraker, Gan, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted August 30, 2022**

Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 31 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Bernd Schaefers appeals pro se from the decision of the Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel that affirmed the denial by the bankruptcy court of his homestead 

exemption claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we dismiss 

the appeal as moot.

Schaefers claimed a homestead exemption in his interest in BKS Cambria, 

LLC. While this appeal was pending, the bankruptcy court granted the Chapter 7 

trustee’s motion to abandon all assets of the estate, including any interest in BKS 

Cambria, LLC. Because BKS Cambria, LLC is no longer part of the estate, 

Schaefers can no longer claim a homestead exemption in it in the bankruptcy case. 

See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1) (stating that “an individual debtor may exempt from 

property of the estate...”) (emphasis added).

Thus, this appeal is moot. See In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc., 

152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that a case is moot when “an event 

occurs while a case is pending appeal that makes it impossible for the court to 

grant ‘any effectual relief’”), quoting Church of Scientology of California v. United 

States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992).

Because the appeal is moot due to reasons outside of Schaefers’ control, 

vacatur of the decisions below is warranted. See In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 902 

(9th Cir. 2001) (vacating district court and bankruptcy court orders where 

bankruptcy appeal was mooted by dismissal of Chapter 13 proceeding). 
3 

Accordingly, the published decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, In re 

Schaefers, 623 B.R. 777 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2020), and the order of the bankruptcy 

court sustaining the objection to the claimed homestead exemption, In re Bernd 

Schaefers, Dkt. No. 143, Case No. 9:19-bk-11163-MB (Bank. C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 

2020), are VACATED.

Schaefers’ requests for judicial notice (Dkt. Nos. 15 and 24) are GRANTED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Justin Alexander BRADLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2938

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied December 31, 2018

Justin Alexander Bradley, Monticello, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.33

LOGO

October 18, 2007

Dear John,

This letter confirms our contingent offer of employment with The Princeton Review, as Executive Vice President of Strategy and Business Development. This
position will report to Steve Richards.

You will be compensated bi-weekly, or on such other basis as the company compensates its senior executives, at the
rate of $12,115.38 (based on an annual salary of $315,000.00). You will also be eligible for a bonus of up to 50% of your annualized base salary.

As a
senior executive, you will be granted a stock option to purchase 100,000 shares of the companys common stock that will vest based on the achievement of a combination of corporate and personal goals to be agreed upon by you and Michael Perik.
Additionally, you will be granted a stock option to purchase 300,000 shares of the companys common stock that will vest in equal installments quarterly over four years. Both option grants will be awarded at the stocks fair market value
as of the close of market on the date of grant by the Compensation Committee of The Princeton Review. The grants will be governed by the companys 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the Stock Plan) and will be evidenced by one or more stock
option agreements. The company will review your equity compensation as part of its annual review of all of Princeton Reviews senior officers.

We
currently offer a benefits package which includes 22 Days of Paid Time Off per year, a 401(k) retirement plan, medical and life insurance, short-term and long-term disability, and an education assistance program. We also provide a cafeteria plan for
transit expenses, as well as medical and dependent care reimbursement as set forth in the Employee Handbook and governing Benefits plan documents. You will be entitled to all benefits made available generally to the companys senior executives.

This offer controls and supersedes any verbal representations made to you by anyone regarding wages, bonuses, benefits, job duties or terms of employment
at The Princeton Review. You will be an at will employee of The Princeton Review throughout your employment and subject to an arbitration provision requiring the arbitration of any disputes you may have with the company.

Again, congratulations, and we hope to welcome you soon to The Princeton Review. Im sure this position will provide you with a unique challenge and learning
opportunity. Please confirm your acceptance of our offer under the above terms by signing and returning this letter as promptly as practicable.

If you
have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at (212) 874-8282 ext. 1668.

Sincerely,

/s/ Linda Nessim

Linda Nessim

Executive Vice President, Human Resources



|          |  |                   |  |              
|--------- |  | ----------------- |  | -------------
|          |  |                  
|Accepted: |  | /s/ John Marshall |  | Oct. 22, 2007
|          |  | (Your signature)  |  | (Date)
Exhibit
      32.1


Chief
      Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18U.S.C.,SECTION
      1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Patrick Herda, the undersigned President and
      Chief Executive Officer of Nuclear Solutions, Inc., (the “Company”), herby
      certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      of
      the Company for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies
      with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
      has
      been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Dated
                August 20, 2007
            /s/
                Patrick HerdaPresident
                and CEO
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATIONSI, James R. Simpson, being the Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1.     I have reviewed the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of Silvergraph International, Inc.;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)) for the registrant and have:a)designed 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 subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)not applicablec)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; andd)disclosed in the report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's first quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and5.     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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):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; andb)     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.November 19, 2007/s/ James R. SimpsonDateJames R. Simpson, Chief Executive Officer
STATE EX REL. Bernard Franklin VERRETT v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1809

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 8, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TERREBONNE**

PER CURIAM:

*584Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated his application 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.

Weimer, J., recused.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129759 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: 129759 

 COA: 265075 

Oakland CC: 95-142973-FH 

MOHAMED A. MUSLEH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 30, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

p1219 

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. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk