alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Robert Earl SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3519

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Kristina BILLIAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1469

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-946017

NO. 2019-BA-0157

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 7, 2019

Granted. Petitioner is allowed to take the Louisiana State Bar Examination. Upon satisfactorily passing the examination, petitioner may apply to this court for the appointment of a commissioner in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9, to take evidence and report to this court as to whether petitioner has the appropriate character and fitness to be *431admitted to the bar and allowed to practice law in the State of Louisiana.
## 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

              - oregon(1)

## By Year

Methods, protocols, and procedures        June 26, 2020        Selecting and Conducting Evaluations of Hydrologic Instruments

Podcasts        August 16, 2011        A Study in Stream Ecology

Podcasts        August 8, 2011        2011: The Year of the Flood

Podcasts        October 26, 2008        Earthquakes? Don't Freak Out--ShakeOut!
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                              SOUND REVOLUTION INC.

                    BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT THINK TANK AGREEMENT

This agreement entered into:

Between:

                               Ryan J. Tunnicliffe
                                   ("Thinker")

And:

                    Sound Revolution Inc., a Delaware Company
                                   ("Company")

Thinker and Company agree that Thinker shall participate in the Business
Development Think Tank taking place on July 22, 2004 (the "Think Tank") on the
following terms and conditions:

         1.       Thinker agrees to keep confidential and not disclose to any
                  other party any item discussed at the Think Tank, unless first
                  obtaining the express written permission of Company.

         2.       Ownership for all ideas, information & copyright created at
                  the Think Tank shall be the exclusive property of Company.

         3.       Company will issue to Thinker $400 worth of Company common
                  stock at an agreed value of $0.20 per share for a total of
                  2000 shares as compensation for participation in the Think
                  Tank and the signing of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
22nd of July, 2004.


/s/ Ryan Tunnicliffe
---------------------
Thinker


SOUND REVOLUTION INC. per:

/s/ Heather Remillard
---------------------
Authorized Signatory
Tom BELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0016

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32 (b)

     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 Northland Cable Properties Seven
Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Form 10-K"), I, Gary Jones, President of Northland
Communications Corporation, the Managing General Partner, 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 Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13 (a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78(d)); and

            (2)   The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Partnership.

DATE: 3-30-06

/S/ GARY S. JONES
Gary S. Jones
President
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and will be
retained by Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

Exhibit No. 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

I, Huanxiang Cheng, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this report onForm 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of American LorainCorporation; 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4.     The registrant's other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; 

5.     The registrant's other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

b)     any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: February 20, 2008 

/s/ Jing Wu                  Jing Wu Chief Financial Officer

----
Eva Lana SILVER and Max Lana, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Nicolle ASSIMAKOPOULOS-PANUTHOS, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0521

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 339 

Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to conduct 

a blood donation drive on September 28, 2023. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. CARPER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the 

Senate to conduct a blood donation drive on September 

28, 2023. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SENATE BLOOD DONATION DRIVE ON SEP3 TEMBER 28, 2023. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—In addition to blood donation 

5 drives conducted under Senate Resolution 78 (118th Con6 gress), agreed to February 16, 2023, the Sergeant at 

7 Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, in conjunction with 

8 the Blood Bank of Delmarva, is authorized to conduct a 

9 blood donation drive, at a location in the Senate Office 

10 Buildings, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 28, 2023. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 339 ATS 

1 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

2 (1) LOCATION.—The Sergeant at Arms and 

3 Doorkeeper of the Senate shall select the location of 

4 the blood donation drive described in subsection (a) 

5 in consultation with the Committee on Rules and 

6 Administration of the Senate. 

7 (2) PREPARATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION.— 

8 Physical preparations for the conduct of, and the 

9 implementation of, the blood donation drive author10 ized under subsection (a) shall be carried out in ac11 cordance with such conditions as the Sergeant at 

12 Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, in consultation 

13 with the Committee on Rules and Administration of 

14 the Senate, may prescribe. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Earl BUTLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5055

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 01, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
William KEMPTON, Appellant, v. Lawrence MCCOMB, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3272

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 1, 2019

Matthew G. Struble and Christine Skubala, of Struble, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Angela C. Flowers, of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Ocala, for Appellee.

EISNAUGLE, J.

Appellant, William Kempton, appeals a final judgment entered against him and in favor of Appellee, Lawrence McComb, after a jury trial in Appellant's motorcycle-automobile negligence action. Based on the jury's verdict finding that Appellant was 55 percent negligent and Appellee was 45 percent negligent, the trial court applied section 768.36, Florida Statutes (2014), to completely bar recovery by Appellant.

Appellant argues, *inter alia* , that the trial court erred in applying section 768.36 because the jury's verdict did not indicate, as required by subsection (2)(b), whether Appellant was more than 50 percent at fault "[a]s a result of the influence of [an] alcoholic beverage." We agree with Appellant and reverse on this ground. We otherwise affirm without further discussion.

Section 768.36 creates an "alcohol or drug defense" that completely bars a plaintiff's recovery. To prove the defense, the trier of fact is required to find that "at the time the plaintiff was injured":

> (a) The plaintiff was under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to the extent that the plaintiff's normal faculties were impaired or the plaintiff had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher; and

> (b) As a result of the influence of such alcoholic beverage or drug the plaintiff was more than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm.

§ 768.36(2), Fla. Stat. (2014).

Here, the jury's verdict found that Appellant was more than 50 percent at fault and that his blood alcohol level was 0.08 or higher at the time of the motor vehicle collision. It did not, however, find that Appellant's fault was "[a]s a result of ... [an] alcoholic beverage" as required by subsection (2)(b).1

*1182If a party intends to rely on section 768.36 as a defense, the jury must make all of the statute's required factual determinations. The verdict form in this case did not give the jury an opportunity to do so. As a result, the trial court erroneously applied section 768.36 to completely bar Appellant's recovery.

We therefore reverse the final judgment and instruct the trial court to render a final judgment that awards damages to Appellant in accordance with the jury's apportionment of fault.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

EVANDER, C.J., and LAMBERT, J., concur.

1

We note that Appellee introduced a host of evidence at trial, other than evidence of Appellant's intoxication, from which the jury could have determined that Appellant was negligent.
# C_2020061EN.01005101.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/51

---

Action brought on 18 December 2019 — Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-862/19)

(2020/C 61/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brasserie St Avold (Saint-Avold, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of a tridimensional sign (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 1 408 065

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 in Case R 466/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LAMARR PATE MURPHY, a/k/a Bandana Red,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00301-WO-1)

Submitted: November 4, 2013 Decided: December 3, 2013

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. 

Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, 

Stephen T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lamarr Pate Murphy pleaded no contest to possession of 

a firearm after sustaining a prior conviction for an offense 

punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court 

sentenced Murphy to 120 months of imprisonment, with twenty-four 

months to run concurrently with any sentence Murphy would 

receive for pending related state charges. Murphy now appeals. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

Murphy argues on appeal that the sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because the district court did not 

impose a sentence entirely concurrent to the anticipated state 

sentence. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 

335 (4th Cir. 2009). A district court has the discretion to 

impose a federal sentence concurrent with, consecutive to, or 

partially concurrent with any anticipated state sentence. See

Sester v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1468-69 (2012). In 

deciding whether to run a sentence concurrently or consecutively 

to another sentence, the court must consider the factors in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b). 

Here, the district court recognized its authority to 

sentence Murphy either consecutively to, concurrently, or 
3

partially concurrently with the anticipated state sentence, 

thoroughly considered and discussed the parties’ arguments and 

the § 3553(a) factors, and exhaustively explained the chosen 

sentence. Based on the factors discussed by the district court,

we conclude that the court’s within-Guidelines sentence imposed 

partially concurrent with the not-yet-imposed state sentence is 

substantively reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2020137EN.01003801.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 13 February 2020 — ‘Lifosa’ AB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-75/20)

(2020/C 137/52)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant:‘Lifosa’ AB

Defendant and respondent: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Question referred

Are Articles 29(1) and 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Articles 70(1) and 71(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the transaction (customs) value must be adjusted to include all the costs actually incurred by the seller (producer) in transporting the goods to the place where they were brought into the customs territory of the European Union (Community) when, as in the present case, (1) under the delivery conditions (‘Incoterms 2000’ — DAF) the obligation to cover those costs was borne by the seller (producer) and (2) those costs of transport exceeded the price that was agreed upon and was actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer), but (3) the price actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer) corresponded to the real value of the goods, even if that price was insufficient to cover all the costs of transport incurred by the seller (producer)?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

---
Lizette OLAECHEA, etc., Appellant, v. Grace OLAECHEA, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1117

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018.

Nancy C. Wear, Miami, for appellant.

Corona Law Firm, P.A., and Ricardo Corona and Ricardo M. Corona, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Lizette Olaechea, the defendant below, appeals entry of final judgment in favor of Grace Olaechea, the plaintiff below, after a bench trial on claims for conversion, forgery, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and a constructive trust. In the final judgment, the lower court awarded Grace Olaechea $419,750.43, plus interest, and imposed an equitable lien on the primary residence of Lizette Olaechea and her husband, Gabor Simmonds. We affirm entry of the final judgment and imposition of the equitable lien without discussion. *See**Palm Beach Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fishbein*, 619 So.2d 267, 270-71 (Fla. 1993) (confirming that an equitable lien may be imposed on homestead property where funds obtained through fraud were used to purchase the homestead, and even where one spouse was not a party to the fraud).1

Affirmed.

1

We note that because Mr. Simmonds was neither a party to the proceedings in the lower court, nor a participant in this appeal, our decision is without prejudice to - and we express no opinion regarding - any defense Mr. Simmonds might assert to any subsequent foreclosure proceedings on the subject equitable lien.
Melvin Eugene KENNEDY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3794

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, K/D/S Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

No. 2019-C-0080

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ASSUMPTION**

Writ denied.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons:

*1205For the reasons similarly assigned in my dissent in *Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC* , 18-0144 (La. 3/23/18), 238 So.3d 962, I would grant this writ application, as I find there are genuine issues of material fact relating to the duty to defend and whether there was liability during the coverage period.
Richard HESS, Meredith Hess and Lucre, Inc., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. John PATRICK, Ted Patrick, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4852

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.