alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a Connecticut for Profit Corporation, Coastal Elevator Service Corp., a Florida for Profit Corporation, Louis Carl Devincentis, Individually and as an Employee of Otis Elevator Company, James Duda, Individually and as an Employee of Otis Elevator Company, Daniel Hunter, Individually and as an Employee of Otis Elevator Company, and Robert Mowrey, Individually and as an Employee of Otis Elevator Company, Petitioners, v. Catherine CRAIG-MYERS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Myers, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2825

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 28, 2019

Kenneth B. Bell and Lauren V. Purdy of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioners.

Philip J. Padovano of Brannock & Humphries, Tallahassee, and Maegen Peek Luka of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; Sidney L. Matthew of Sidney L. Matthew, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DENIED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Roberts, J., concur; Osterhaus, J., concurs with opinion.

Osterhaus, J., concurring.

Petitioners mount a convincing argument that Respondent provided no evidence establishing a prima facie case for the application of the crime-fraud exception. They are correct that before a trial court reviews attorney-client communications in camera to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies, it must first determine that the party invoking the exception has presented evidence establishing such a prima facie case. *See**First Union Nat'l Bank v. Turney* , 824 So.2d 172, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), *reh'g denied* (Jan. 17, 2002); *see also**Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig, LLP v. Coral Reef of Key Biscayne Developers, Inc.* , 873 So.2d 339, 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ; *First Union Nat'l Bank of Fla. v. Whitener* , 715 So.2d 979, 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Here, there was no evidence of an attorney's advice being sought to aid the client's crime or fraud. And so, in camera review of the privileged documents should not have been ordered. *See**Fla. Mining & Materials Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.* , 556 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that a party "must allege and produce prima facie evidence that petitioners affirmatively sought the advice of counsel to procure a fraud" and declaring that a ruling that evidence of fraud itself suffices "would literally eliminate the attorney-client privilege in any suit where there was any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation").

In spite of this apparent error, however, certiorari relief is not available right now to fix it. Because the trial court has not ordered anything to be disclosed to Respondent, nor determined if Respondent or her counsel will ever see any of the privileged documents, certiorari relief is premature. *See**Poston v. Wiggins,*112 So.3d 783, 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing *Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Leal* , 917 So.2d 336, 339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (denying as premature a certiorari petition seeking review of an order requiring the submission *409of documents for an in camera inspection) ).
# C_2021182EN.01002402.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/24

---

Appeal brought on 26 November 2020 by CEDC International sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-796/16, CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg

(Case C-639/20 P)

(2021/C 182/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Fijałkowski, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Underberg AG

By order of 23 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that CEDC International sp. z o.o. should bear its own costs.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Lawrence A. Gyenes, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Acusphere, 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 officers 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)) and internal controls and procedures over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|                       | /s/ Lawrence A. GyenesLawrence A. Gyenes
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2007 |                                                                                                                         

---



QuickLinks
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 SINO ASSURANCE, INC.,  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the year ended March 31, 3009 (the "Report"), I, Guokang Tu, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.      By: /s/ Guokang Tu, CEO and Chairman  Date:May 18, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7558

JACK DOUGLAS MAYHEW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM SMITH, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA96-1847-DKC)

Submitted: March 31, 1998 Decided: May 5, 1998

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Douglas Mayhew, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Mayhew v. Smith, CA-96-1847-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 18,

1997). We deny Appellant's motions for assignment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2021217EN.01001801.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/18

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-53/19, SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ v EUIPO — Laboratorios Ern (apiheal)

(Case C-678/20 P)

(2021/C 217/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Laboratorios Ern, S.A. (represented by: T. González Martínez and R. Guerras Mazón, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ and the European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Laboratorios Ern bear its own costs.

---
Ronald ARMBRESTER v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-16-0094

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Interim Decision #1369 

MATTER OF Lux 

In SECTION 245 Proceedings 

A-12975895 

Decided by Regional Commissioner January 23,1968 

An alien who entered this country as a member of the United States Coast Guard 

is statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245, Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, because he was not inspected, admitted, 

or paroled into the United States. 

This ease has been certified to me by the District Director at Portland, Oregon, for review of his decision denying the application under 

section 245 of the I. & N. Act, as amended. 

The record relates to a 23-year-old male, native and citizen of the 

Philippines. He is presently married to a United States citizen and 

a petition according him nonquota status under section 101(a) (27) (A) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act was approved June 26, 1961 

Ho last arrived in the United States on February 18, 1959, as a 

member of the United States Coast Guard on the USNS "General 

Barret". On the occasion of this arrival, he was not inspected by an 

Immigration officer. The record does not disclose any prior entries 

where the applicant was inspected and admitted or paroled into the 

United States. On June 22, 1959, he appeared at the Service office 

in San Francisco, California, and was registered and fingerprinted as 

an alien and was issued Form 1-94 as evidence thereof. His enlistment 

in the United States Coast Guard expires on June 22, 1963. 

One of the requisites for adjustment of status to that of a permanent 

resident is that the applicant be inspected and admitted or paroled into 

the United States. The applicant has not met this requirement. Accordingly, the application must be denied and the decision of the District Director is proper. 

ORDER : It is ordered that the application be and the same is hereby 

denied. 

653
AMERICAN WEB DESIGNERS, LLC, Appellant, v. Kate SPENCER a/k/a Yomaira Tamayo, Appellee.

No. 4D18-916

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

Allison L. Friedman of Allison L. Friedman, P.A., Aventura, for appellant.

Jonathan Korin of Korin Law, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.
# C_2021182EN.01002501.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 December 2020 — W.G. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej in L.

(Case C-697/20)

(2021/C 182/35)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: W.G.

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej in L.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended), (1) in particular Articles 9, 295 and 296, be interpreted as precluding a national practice laid down in Article 15(4) and (5) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on the tax on goods and services) (Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended), which excludes the option of treating as separate VAT taxable persons spouses who engage in agricultural activity within an agricultural holding using their marital joint property? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended), (1) in particular Articles 9, 295 and 296, be interpreted as precluding a national practice laid down in Article 15(4) and (5) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on the tax on goods and services) (Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended), which excludes the option of treating as separate VAT taxable persons spouses who engage in agricultural activity within an agricultural holding using their marital joint property?

| 2. | Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that, according to national practice, if one spouse opts to tax his or her business on the basis of general VAT rules, the other spouse ceases to be a flat-rate farmer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that, according to national practice, if one spouse opts to tax his or her business on the basis of general VAT rules, the other spouse ceases to be a flat-rate farmer?

| 3. | Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that it is possible to clearly distinguish between the assets used independently and autonomously by each spouse for the purposes of the business activity concerned? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it relevant to the answer to the first question that it is possible to clearly distinguish between the assets used independently and autonomously by each spouse for the purposes of the business activity concerned?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Joe Nathan TUBBS

No. 18-KH-0479

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated numerous applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas *1200relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or 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. Applicant'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, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Christopher Mack CHARLES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-5254

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 8, 2019

Christopher Mack Charles, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*358The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

Bilbrey, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: GIS

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(151)

## By Location

              - alaska(6)
              - arizona(2)
              - california(6)
              - colorado(14)
              - connecticut(3)
              - delaware(5)
              - district of columbia(5)
              - florida(3)
              - hawaii(2)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(7)
              - massachusetts(8)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(2)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - south dakota(1)
              - texas(3)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(3)
              - washington(4)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(8)

## By Year

              - (-)2024(152)
              - 2023(60)
              - 2022(12)
              - 2021(14)
              - 2020(1)

staff profileWilliam Sands

staff profileHelen T Davis

staff profileRobert G Schmitt

staff profileRoy Sando 

staff profileJohn A Young

staff profileJeff Peters

staff profileMartyn J Smith

staff profileLauren Holzman

staff profileMichael  H Zoeller

staff profileVeeAnn Atnipp Cross

staff profileJulia L Heslin

staff profileCarson A Baughman

staff profileEmilia L Bristow

staff profileAndre Ritchie

staff profileMatthew T Barbour

staff profileDiana E Pedraza

staff profileMatthew Conlon

staff profileMichael E Wieczorek

staff profileJoJo Mangano

staff profileKelly R McPherson

staff profileJason Rohweder

staff profileSaira Haider

staff profileKimberly (Kim) A Jones

staff profileJames Rowland

staff profileChristy-Ann M.  Archuleta

staff profileJohn Kelly

staff profileJin-Si R Over

staff profileKenneth J. Bagstad, Ph.D.

staff profileThomas M Gushue

staff profileKenzie Turner

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Page            4 
-                Page            5 
-                Page            6 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast »
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     I, Richard P. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Casino & EntertainmentProperties LLC (the “Registrant”), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review ofthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 of the Registrant (the“Report”): (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.     By: /s/ Richard P. Brown Richard P. Brown    President and Chief Executive Officer of    American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC       Date: August 9, 2007  
24
# Sheet2

# Sheet3
Presidential Documents

104857 

Federal Register 

Vol. 89, No. 247 

Thursday, December 26, 2024 

Title 3— 

The President 

Executive Order 14129 of December 18, 2024 

Providing for the Closing of Executive Departments and 

Agencies of the Federal Government on December 24, 2024 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government 

shall be closed and their employees excused from duty on Tuesday, December 

24, 2024, the day before Christmas Day. 

Sec. 2. The heads of executive departments and agencies may determine 

that certain offices and installations of their organizations, or parts thereof, 

must remain open and that certain employees must report for duty on 

December 24, 2024, for reasons of national security, defense, or other public 

need. 

Sec. 3. December 24, 2024, shall be considered as falling within the scope 

of Executive Order 11582 of February 11, 1971, and of 5 U.S.C. 5546 and 

6103(b) and other similar statutes insofar as they relate to the pay and 

leave of employees of the United States. 

Sec. 4. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall take 

such actions as may be necessary to implement this order. 

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed 

to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, 

or the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and 

subject to the availability of appropriations. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-E0
104858 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Presidential Documents 

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party 

against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, 

employees, or agents, or any other person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

December 18, 2024. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31143 

Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3395–F4–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-E0BIDEN.EPS</GPH>