alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Alfred J. BELNIAK and Marlene M. Belniak, Appellants, v. Raymond C. MCWILLIAMS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Linda A. McWilliams, and David A. Belniak, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-2171

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 1, 2019

Debra B. Tuomey, of Debra B. Tuomey, Attorney at Law, LLC, Spring Hill, for Appellants.

Maureen M. Deskins, of Knopik Deskins Law Group, Tampa, for Appellees.

EVANDER, C.J.

Appellants, Alfred Belniak and Marlene Belniak, were the prevailing parties at trial below. They appeal an order denying their motion to tax costs for an expert witness. The expert testified at trial and also testified at the costs hearing as to the reasonableness of his fees. The trial court found an expert witness fee of $ 3962.50 to be appropriate, but denied the motion on the ground that Appellants had failed to call "another expert qualified in the same field" to testify as to the reasonableness of the requested fee. We reverse. A prevailing party's burden at an evidentiary cost hearing to recover an expert witness fee is to present substantial competent evidence of the services performed and the reasonable value of those services. *Powell v. Barnes* , 629 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). That evidence can come from the individual experts whose charges are at issue *or* another qualified expert in the same field. *Id.* ; *see also**Oak Square Joint Venture v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n* , 143 So.3d 971, 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). There is no requirement that the prevailing party provide testimony from both the expert witness whose charges are at issue and a second expert. On remand, the trial court shall award costs for the expert witness fees to Appellants in the amount of $3962.50.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BERGER and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Matthew Aaron CRAWFORD-LYNCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0795

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gerald URBANEK, Appellant, v. ADSMP HOLDINGS, LLC, as Assignee of Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha, P.A. and Fowler, White Boggs, P.A., a Florida limited liability company, Kathleen A. Ragland and Jesse H. Diner, Appellees.

No. 4D17-3869

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Claude JOWERS, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0362

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lisa GEMS, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2476

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0644 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KAITLYN DAWN POLICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 22, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 15 2022

07/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0644
Anderson STARR, II, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0233

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of AEterna Laboratories Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Gilles Gagnon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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 results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Gilles Gagnon
------------------------------------------
Gilles Gagnon
President and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: May 17, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by SS. 906 has been
provided to AEterna Laboratories Inc. and will be retained by AEterna
Laboratories Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - (-)products_data(1)
              - products_publications(11)
              - multimedia_video(16)
              - multimedia_video-149194(13)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)

## By Location

              - california(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - south carolina(1)
              - (-)washington(1)

## By Year

Data Release        August 22, 2023        Extent of Pliocene hyaloclastic deposits and related lava flows in the Columbia Gorge, Oregon and Washington
Nail A. HARRY, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3976

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

Nail A. Harry, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

Lewis, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Jared ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2177

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Khaled ALMAWRI

NO. 2018-KK-1703

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 8, 2019

*592Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part.
OROZCO, Mariana Re: Filiberto Serna Dec'd v. FILSER CONSTRUCTION & Aries Building Systems, Inc.

NO. 2018-C-1803

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.
Darryl Bernard KING, Appellant, v. Sharita STARKS, Sailormen, Inc. d/b/a Popeyes Chicken and Biscuits, et al., Appellees.

No. 1D17-5052

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 25, 2019

Darryl Bernard King, pro se, Appellant.

Hinda Klein and Lara J. Edelstein of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for Appellee Sharita Starks.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe and Winsor, JJ., concur, Bilbrey, J., concurs with opinion.

Bilbrey, J., concurs.

I agree affirmance is appropriate. *See* § 440.11, Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 389 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 389

    Expressing support for the annual designation of October 1st as 
                  ``National Latino/a Physician Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 30 (legislative day, September 22), 2023

   Mr. Padilla (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
                          Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing support for the annual designation of October 1st as 
                  ``National Latino/a Physician Day''.

Whereas the Hispanic or Latino/a population in the United States is estimated to 
        rise from 57,470,000 in 2016 to 111,216,000 by 2060;
Whereas it is estimated that 66 percent of the population growth of the United 
        States from 2016 to 2060 will be comprised of Latino/as;
Whereas, by 2060, Latino/as are estimated to account for more than 1 in 4 
        persons in the United States and 1 in 3 children in the United States;
Whereas only 6 percent of physicians in the United States are Latino/a;
Whereas the Latino/a population faces significant barriers to medical care, 
        including high poverty, fewer facilities in their communities, and 
        language and cultural barriers;
Whereas research shows that when physicians are of the same ethnicity, culture, 
        and language as their patients, care and outcomes improve;
Whereas Latino/a physicians are integral to the health of the people of the 
        United States;
Whereas the first National Latino/a Physician Day occurred on October 1, 2022, 
        across the United States, supported by multiple national organizations 
        and the Latino/a community, including premedical students, medical 
        students, resident physicians, and attending physicians; and
Whereas the annual designation of October 1st as National Latino/a Physician Day 
        will bring awareness to the benefits that Latino/a physicians bring to 
        the growing Latino/a population and the health of the people of the 
        United States as a whole: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports the goal to increase the number of Latino/a 
        physicians in the United States and increase diversity in 
        medicine; and
            (2) supports the annual designation of October 1st as 
        ``National Latino/a Physician Day''.
                                 <all>
```
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 552 

To authorize testimony and representation in People of the State of Michigan 

v. Berden, et al. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 7), 2024 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony and representation in People of the 

State of Michigan v. Berden, et al. 

Whereas, in the case of People of the State of Michigan v. 

Berden, et al., Case Nos. 23–02209–FY et seq, pending 

in the 54–A District Court in the City of Lansing, Michigan, the prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the 

Office of the Secretary of the Senate; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and employees of the 

Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 

for evidence relating to their official responsibilities; 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 552 ATS 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee 

2 of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized 

3 to provide relevant testimony in the case of People of the 

4 State of Michigan v. Berden, et al., except concerning mat5 ters for which a privilege should be asserted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent Mr. Schwager, and any current or former or em8 ployee of the Secretary’s office, in connection with the pro9 duction of evidence authorized in section one of this reso10 lution. 

Æ 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
Curtis GORDON v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, et al.

NO. 2017-CI-1300

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Reconsideration denied.
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 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1121 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-901, K2025-902.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31004 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 10.3



|                 |                               |                                                                                                                                                            
|---------------- | ----------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO             |                               | Groton Laboratories Pfizer
Inc Eastern Point Road    MS 8200-30 Groton, CT 06340 Tel 860 441 1991 Fax 860 441 1738 Email mark_della_porta@groton.pfizer.com
|                 | Global Research & Development
|                 |                              
|December 7, 2004 |                               | Mark P. DellaPorta Senior Director Site Head,
Groton Strategic Alliances                                                                                   



Dr. Stephen J. McAndrew

Xenogen Biosciences

5 Cedar Brook Drive

Cranbury, New Jersey 08512



Dear
Dr. McAndrew,



Pursuant to Section 3.1(c) of the Collaborative
Research Agreement dated September 30, 2001 (2001 Agreement) and the Amending Letter dated December 26, 2003 (Amending Letter) between Pfizer Inc (Pfizer) and Xenogen Biosciences (Xenogen
Cranbury), Pfizer hereby exercises its option to extend the 2001 Agreement for one additional year. This Letter serves as notice of Pfizers exercise of the first extension while noting that there are two additional extension
options available to Pfizer to exercise in subsequent years.



All other terms and conditions of the 2001 Agreement and the Amending Letter shall remain unchanged and in full force.



Please have the appropriate official of Xenogen Cranbury sign both copies of this Agreement and return one original to Kelly P. Longo at the above address.



Sincerely,



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Mark P. DellaPorta
|Mark P. DellaPorta    
|Site Director         
|Strategic Alliances   



Agreed:



Xenogen Biosciences, Inc.



|      |  |                         |  |      |  | 
|----- |  | ----------------------- |  | ---- |  | 
|By:   |  | /s/ Stephen J. McAndrew |  | LOGO |  | 
|Date: |  | 12/10/04                |  |     
|      |  |                         |  |     
|      |  |                         |  |
2058.

#### Anthony v. The State.

Indictment for burglarjr, from Irwin superior court — Judge Whipple. July 8, 1909.

Argued October 5, —

Decided October 13, 1909.

*II. D. Oxford, W. M. Rogers, II. J. Quincey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter F. George, solicitor-general,*contra.

Russell, J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no-error in refusing a new trial.

2. Tt is not error to instruct the jury that after having arrived at the truth of the case so far as the facts are concerned, they shall apply to these facts the law as given in charge by the court.

3. In the absence of a timely written request asking explicit instructions, the fact that a proposition which might properly have been stated to the jury more lucidly and more fully is not thus presented affords no ground for new trial, where the general principles of law involved in the case are fairly presented. *Judgment affirmed.*
Lewis L. HAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2865

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Buddy SMITH, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0502

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
L.H. v. STATE

CR-16-0368

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 10.1

 

EXECUTION VERSION

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO
 NUMBER HOLDINGS, INC.
 2012 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 

WHEREAS, Number Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Number Holdings, Inc. 2012 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended, the “Plan”);

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI of the Plan, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company may at any time amend the Plan to increase the aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company that may be issued under the Plan, provided such increase is approved by the shareholders of the Company; and

 

WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein to increase the number of shares of common stock of the Company that may be issued under the Plan.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article XI of the Plan, effective as of July 26, 2016, the first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following sentences:

 

“The aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued or used for reference purposes under the Plan or with respect to which Awards may be granted under the Plan, including with respect to Incentive Stock Options, shall not exceed 87,500 shares of Class A Common Stock and 87,500 shares of Class B Common Stock (subject, in each case, to any increase or decrease pursuant to Section 4.2), which may be either authorized and unissued Common Stock or Common Stock held in or acquired for the treasury of the Company or both.”

 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee and a majority of the stockholders of the Company have approved the amendment to the Plan as set forth herein, the Committee has authorized the undersigned officer of the Company to execute this amendment, and the undersigned has caused this amendment to be as of the date first written above.

 

	
 
    	
NUMBER HOLDINGS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name: 
    	
Felicia Thornton
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title: 
    	
Chief Financial Officer
    


 

[Signature Page to Second Amendment to Number Holdings 2012 Stock Incentive Plan]
State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant, v. Tammy PATE, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4562

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 10, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 18, 2019

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Glen A. Bassett, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Marie A. Mattox, Marie A. Mattox P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Corrections appeals the final judgment in favor of Appellee in this retaliatory discharge case. The Department argues that the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict because Appellee failed to prove a causal link between her firing and a prior discrimination suit she filed against the Department. We agree because the "cat's paw" theory of liability advanced by Appellee at trial is largely foreclosed by this court's decision in *State v. Bracewell* , 220 So.3d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017),1 and was not otherwise supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the Department.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions

Wolf, Lewis, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.

1

The trial court did not have the benefit of the *Bracewell* opinion at the time of the trial.
# C_2020329EN.01001203.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/12

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA) v PC, RE

(Case C-44/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/25)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---