alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED

SIXTY-FOUR DOLLARS IN

UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00312-CV

Appeal from

116th District Court

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # DC12-14720-F)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order that because Appellant is indigent, no order regarding costs 

is made. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice 

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 10.23**FIFTH AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT          THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT, dated as of December 23, 2005 (this “Amendment”), isbetween Origen Financial L.L.C. a Delaware limited liability company (together with its successorsand assigns, the “Borrower”), and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (successor by merger to Bank One, NA(Main Office Chicago) (together with its successors and assigns, the “Lender”),.RECITALS          A. The Borrower and the Lender are parties to a Credit Agreement dated as of July25, 2002, as amended by a First Amendment to Credit Agreement dated June 27, 2003, a waiverletter dated August 29, 2003, a Second Amendment to Credit Agreement dated October 23, 2003, a ThirdAmendment to Credit Agreement dated as of December 31, 2003 and a Fourth Amendment to CreditAgreement dated as of December 31, 2004 (the “CreditAgreement”).          B. The Borrower desires to extend and amend the Credit Agreement as set forthherein and the Lender has no obligation to do so but is willing to do so strictly inaccordance with the terms hereof.TERMS          In consideration of the premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, the partiesagree as follows:ARTICLE 1.
Jake Allen DAILEY, Appellant, v. Michael Jeffrey ROTH, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3449

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2019

Jason K. Hutchinson, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*269Florida law authorizes a "cause of action for an injunction for protection in cases of repeat violence." § 784.046(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Michael Roth pursued such an action against Jake Dailey, and the trial court entered a permanent injunction. Dailey now appeals, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the injunction.

The evidence presented below showed an acrimonious relationship between Dailey and Roth, whose ex-wife was engaged to Dailey. The two men exchanged uncivil text messages and had a tense exchange at a Little League game. The evidence proved the men behaved badly, but it was insufficient to support the injunction. *See* § 784.046(1)(b) (defining "repeat violence"); *cf.* *Russell v. Doughty* , 28 So.3d 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("Mere shouting and obscene hand gestures, without an overt act that places the victim in fear, does not constitute the type of violence required for an injunction." (quoting *Sorin v. Cole* , 929 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ); *cf. also* *Jones v. Jackson* , 67 So.3d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (Altenbernd, J., concurring) ("It might occasionally be helpful if the circuit courts had the power to enter an order requiring adults to act like grownups. But a permanent injunction for protection against repeat violence cannot be used simply to compel civility and common decency.").

REVERSED.

Roberts, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - (-)documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

## By Year

Technical Memos        April 5, 1996        TM96-05 Collection, processing, and analysis of carbon isotope samples
M.G. and T.J. Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4567

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Petition.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(16)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_maps(5)
              - products_publications(80)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(7)
              - multimedia_image-141771(7)
              - (-)multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - multimedia_webcam(7)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(5)
              - news_news-149245(3)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(4)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(5)
              - alaska(9)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(36)
              - arkansas(2)
              - california(60)
              - colorado(4)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(2)
              - connecticut(4)
              - delaware(9)
              - district of columbia(7)
              - florida(15)
              - (-)georgia(3)
              - guam(2)
              - hawaii(14)
              - idaho(2)
              - indiana(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(11)
              - maine(7)
              - maryland(15)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(9)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(16)
              - new hampshire(3)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(5)
              - ohio(2)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(5)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(7)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(5)
              - south dakota(10)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(17)
              - u.s. virgin islands(3)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(14)
              - west virginia(3)
              - wisconsin(10)
              - wyoming(5)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        September 30, 2017        USGS Hurricane Preparedness

Featured Films and Shorts        October 7, 2016        USGS Live Video on Hurricane Matthew

Presentations and Events        September 20, 2018        Habitat Connectivity: Assessing Threats and IDing Conservation Actions
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, John Vigouroux, Chief Executive Officer
of Valicert, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and



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

|                     |  |  |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                    
|Dated:  June 5, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT**

 

 

To the Board of Directors ofCNH Capital Receivables Inc.:

 

Wehave examined management’s assertion about Case Credit Corporation’s (the“Corporation”) compliance with its established minimum servicing standardsidentified and included in the accompanying management assertion as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2002, dated March 31, 2003, for theservicing of the receivables of CNH Equipment Trust 2000-B, CNH Equipment Trust2001-A, CNH Equipment Trust 2001-B, CNH Equipment Trust 2002-A and CNHEquipment Trust 2002-B.  Management isresponsible for the Corporation’s compliance with those minimum servicingstandards.  Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion about the Corporation’s compliancebased on our examination.

 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards establishedby the American Institue of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly,included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Corporation’scompliance with its minimum servicing standards and performing such otherprocedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion.  Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on the Corporation’scompliance with its minimum servicing standards.

 

Inour opinion, management’s assertion that the Corporation complied with theaforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2002, is fairly stated in all material respects.

 

 
| DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
| Milwaukee, Wisconsin      |
| March 31, 2003            |

 

1

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Fluid Dynamics

Filters

              - science_science(2)
              - products_data(4)
              - products_publications(73)
              - multimedia_audio(2)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(2)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(2)
              - multimedia_video(25)
              - multimedia_video-149194(15)
              - multimedia_video-149195(7)
              - multimedia_video-149197(1)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(3)
              - other_basic-42(2)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)
              - california(2)

## By Year

              - 2024(2)
              - 2023(1)

staff profileKyle R. Anderson, Ph.D.

staff profileKaj Williams, Ph.D.

staff profileJoshua A. Crozier
Connie Ray ISRAEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-79

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022148EN.01000301.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — LM v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

(Case C-219/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 3(1)(c) - Terms and conditions of employment - Remuneration - Article 5 - Penalties - Limitation period - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Right to good administration - Article 47 - Effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 148/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LM

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

Intervener: Österreichische Gesundheitskasse

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to good administration, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing for a five-year limitation period for failure to comply with obligations relating to the remuneration of posted workers.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Stephen G. Kasnet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “report”) of Harbor Global Company Ltd.; 

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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor 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, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

c) Evaluated the effectivenessof 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal 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 function): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 controls over financial reporting. 

Date: May 5, 2006
# C_2022011EN.01000601.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — LW v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-91/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Articles 3 and 23 - More favourable standards capable of being retained or introduced by the Member States for the purposes of extending the refugee or subsidiary protection status of a beneficiary of international protection to family members - Grant of a parent’s refugee status to his or her minor child as a derived right - Maintaining family unity - Best interests of the child)

(2022/C 11/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LW

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 and Article 23(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from granting, under more favourable national provisions, as a derived right and for the purpose of maintaining family unity, refugee status to the minor child of a third-country national who has been recognised as having that status under the system established by that directive, including in the case where that child was born in the territory of that Member State and, through that child’s other parent, has the nationality of another third country in which he or she would not be at risk of persecution, provided that the child is not caught by a ground for exclusion referred to in Article 12(2) of that directive and that the child is not, through his or her nationality or any other element characterising his or her personal legal status, entitled to better treatment in that Member State than that resulting from the grant of refugee status. It is not relevant in that regard to ascertain whether it is possible and reasonably acceptable for the child and the child’s parents to move to that other third country.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---
**Exhibit 23.01**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-121618, 333-121078,333-119027 and 333-123854 on Form S-3 of our reportdated March 16, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements ofAcusphere, Inc. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofAcusphere, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Boston, Massachusetts         |
| March 16, 2006           |

 

----
Rebecca M. GAY, Appellant, v. Christopher M. GAY, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1098

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 31, 2018

Kim Anthony Skievaski of Kim Anthony Skievaski, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

Christopher M. Gay, pro se, Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Rebecca M. Gay appeals a final judgment of marriage dissolution's imputation of income, which affected the child support calculations. The lower court imputed two thousand dollars of monthly income to Ms. Gay without finding that her unemployment was voluntary. We reverse.

Our standard for reviewing decisions imputing income under section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes, is whether the trial court's decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence. *Leonard v. Leonard* , 971 So.2d 263, 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). According to the statute, monthly income can be imputed to an unemployed parent only if such unemployment "is found ... to be voluntary." § 61.30(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2017). *See, e.g.* , *Marlowe v. Marlowe* , 123 So.3d 1194, 1195-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing where the trial court failed to "provide any factual basis for its conclusion that the former wife was voluntarily underemployed"). Here, the judgment imputes income to Ms. Gay without a finding that she was voluntarily unemployed. The trial court's order noted that Ms. Gay had been dismissed from prior employment in 2010 due to work performance issues and refusing to take a drug test. It did not find, however, that this termination was voluntary. The order also noted that Ms. Gay was employed more recently by family members. This work also came to an end, but again there was no indication that this *260work ended voluntarily. Other record evidence indicates that Ms. Gay was applying for jobs on a weekly basis and intended to take classes and become registered to work as an echocardiogram and ultrasound technician. On this record, and without key findings supporting the imputation of income, we must reverse and remand for reconsideration of the decision to impute income and of the child support calculation.

REVERSED and REMANDED .

Rowe, Osterhaus, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
James Brandon SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3047

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 27, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 16, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1081 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-849, K2025-850.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30830 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
William Paul MOSELEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-2674

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.