alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 5 Filed 04/08/04 Page 1 of 7 PageID 23
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 5 Filed 04/08/04 Page 2 of 7 PageID 24
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 5 Filed 04/08/04 Page 3 of 7 PageID 25
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 5 Filed 04/08/04 Page 4 of 7 PageID 26
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 5 Filed 04/08/04 Page 5 of 7 PageID 27
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 5 Filed 04/08/04 Page 6 of 7 PageID 28
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00495-B Document 5 Filed 04/08/04 Page 7 of 7 PageID 29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RONALD COKER, JR., §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-005-M (BH)

 §

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendation (“FCR”)

of the United States Magistrate Judge on the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Dallas

County, Texas, Charles Prater, Anthony Porter, and Eleazar Chapa, filed September 2, 2008 and

Defendants UTMB, Bowers, and Moody’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 22, 2008.

Objections were filed (although those of the UTMB Defendants were untimely), and the District

Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed FCR to which objection was

made. The objections are overruled with one exception. The FCR states that the Dallas County

Defendants did not file a reply on their Motion for Summary Judgment. They did (docket #237).

The reply does not change the Court’s view on the merits of the FCR. The Court accepts the

Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

Defendant Dallas County’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the

handicapped accessible shower chair and van claims, on the basis of limitations. The Motions are

DENIED on all other grounds. The following claims against these Defendants remain for trial:

(1) Dallas County and UTMB, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities

Act and the Rehabilitation Act;

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00005-M Document 257 Filed 07/06/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID 3428
(2) Dallas County, Moody and Bowers in their individual capacities, and Prater,

Porter, and Chapa in their individual and official capacities, for violations of

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (a) unsanitary conditions, and (b) wheelchair

deprivation; and

(3) Dallas County, and Moody in her individual capacity, for violations of the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to provide adequate and prompt medical

treatment.

SIGNED this 6th day of July, 2009.

_________________________________

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00005-M Document 257 Filed 07/06/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID 3429
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Innovative Card
Technologies, 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(s) 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) 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; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant'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 over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):

(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; and

(b) 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.

Date: November __, 2005         By: /s/ Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky
                                 --------------------------------
                                 Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Cecil MATHEWS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1800

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 21, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 16, 2019

Cecil Mathews, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel; Gayla Grant and Eric Salvatore Giunta, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jamie Lin NELSON, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 16, 2019

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Robert Jackson Pearce, III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**State v. McCartney*, 1 So.3d 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

BERGER, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
B.R., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4537

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 14, 2018.

Affirmed.
II 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 35 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create an above the line 

deduction for certain homeowners insurance premiums. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 8, 2025 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create 

an above the line deduction for certain homeowners insurance premiums. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeowners Premium 

5 Tax Reduction Act of 2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PRE7 MIUMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VII of subchapter B of chap9 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 35 IS

1 by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by insert2 ing after section 223 the following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 224. HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PREMIUMS. 

4 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the case of an 

5 individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction an 

6 amount equal to so much of the qualified insurance pre7 miums paid or incurred during the taxable year as does 

8 not exceed $10,000. 

9 ‘‘(b) QUALIFIED INSURANCE PREMIUMS.—For pur10 poses of this section, with respect to an individual, the 

11 term ‘qualified insurance premiums’ means annual policy 

12 premiums paid or incurred for homeowners insurance with 

13 respect to the principal residence of the individual. 

14 ‘‘(c) PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.—For purposes of this 

15 section, the term ‘principal residence’ has the same mean16 ing as when used in section 121.’’. 

17 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN DETERMINING AD18 JUSTED GROSS INCOME.—Section 62(a) of the Internal 

19 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after para20 graph (21) the following new paragraph: 

21 ‘‘(22) HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PREMIUMS.— 

22 The deduction allowed by section 224.’’. 

23 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

24 for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal 

25 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the item 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 35 IS

1 relating to section 224 and by inserting after the item re2 lating to section 223 the following new items: 

‘‘Sec. 224. Homeowners insurance premiums. 

‘‘Sec. 225. Cross reference.’’. 

3 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Xavier THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4352

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 4, 2019

Affirmed.
Back to Contents

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Lawrence Feldman, Chief Executive Officer of Feldman Mall Properties, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of the Companyon Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|                 |   |                                 |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                 | By:    | /S/ Lawrence Feldman                 |
|                 |   |                                      |
|                 |   |                                 |
|                 | Name:  | Lawrence Feldman                     |
| Dated:  May 13, 2005 | Title: | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

I, Thomas Wirth, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|                 |   |                    |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 | By:    | /S/ Thomas Wirth        |
|                 |   |                         |
|                 |   |                    |
|                 | Name:  | Thomas Wirth            |
| Dated:  May 13, 2005 | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000051531-DEC-201208:36 AM
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer of**

**AdvanceAmerica, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.**

**Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(Adopted bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AdvanceAmerica, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,J. Patrick O’Shaughnessy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

2.             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                   | /s/  J. PATRICK O’SHAUGHNESSY                     |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | J.  Patrick O’Shaughnessy                         |
| * *               | *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |
|                   |                                                   |
| November 9,  2009 |                                                   |

 

----
IN RE: Julie A. FUSILIER

NO. 2019-OB-0375

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT

PER CURIAM

This proceeding arises out of an application for readmission to the practice of law filed by petitioner, Julie A. Fusilier, a suspended attorney.

**UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY**

On May 27, 2016, we suspended petitioner from the practice of law for eighteen months. *In re: Fusilier* , 16-0016 (La. 5/27/16), 193 So.3d 1150. The suspension stemmed from petitioner's arrest in 2014, after she broke into her ex-husband's home and stole a man's diamond ring (valued at approximately $ 13,000) and a woman's Rolex watch (valued at approximately $ 6,000). Petitioner then sold the ring and the watch to Diamond Distributors Inc. for approximately $ 2,700 and used the money to gamble. She was subsequently charged with felony theft and burglary of an inhabited dwelling.1

In January 2018, petitioner filed an application for reinstatement with the disciplinary board, alleging she has complied with the reinstatement criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") took no position regarding the application for reinstatement. Accordingly, the matter was referred for a formal hearing before a hearing committee.

Following the hearing, the hearing committee recommended that petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law, subject to the condition that she continue to comply with her Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program ("JLAP") recovery agreement. Among other findings, the committee noted *283that petitioner successfully completed a gambling addiction treatment program, actively participates in Alcoholics Anonymous and Gamblers Anonymous, and is fully compliant with her JLAP agreement.

Neither petitioner nor the ODC objected to the hearing committee's recommendation.

**DISCUSSION**

After considering the record in its entirety, we find petitioner has met her burden of proving that she is entitled to be reinstated to the practice of law on a conditional basis. Accordingly, we will order that petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law, subject to the condition that she comply with her JLAP recovery agreement.

**DECREE**

Upon review of the recommendation of the hearing committee, and considering the record, it is ordered that Julie A. Fusilier, Louisiana Bar Roll number 19583, be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the condition that she comply with her JLAP recovery agreement. Should petitioner fail to comply with this condition of reinstatement, her conditional right to practice may be terminated immediately, or she may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, as appropriate. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against petitioner.

1

In her petition for reinstatement, petitioner indicates that the criminal charges were dismissed after she made restitution to her ex-husband in late 2016 or early 2017.
NOTICE REGARDING BRIEFING DEADLINE – Page 1 

CORE/3524155.0002/182879188.1 

Deborah Deitsch-Perez 

Michael P. Aigen 

STINSON LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2900 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: (214) 560-2201 

Facsimile: (214) 560-2203 

Email: deborah.deitschperez@stinson.com 

Email: michael.aigen@stinson.com 

COUNSEL FOR THE DUGABOY INVESTMENT 

TRUST 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

In re 

HIGHLAND SELECT EQUITY FUND, 

L.P. 

 Debtor. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 Case No. 23-31039-mvl7 

 (Chapter 7) 

NOTICE REGARDING BRIEFING DEADLINE 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, at the request of creditor The Dugaboy Investment Trust, 

Highland Select Equity Fund, L.P. (“Highland Select” or “Debtor”) has agreed to extend the 

negative notice deadline for responses to Debtor’s Motion to Transfer/Reassign Case [Dkt 9] (the 

“Motion”). It is agreed that parties in interest will have until July 10, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. (Central 

Time) to file any objection to the Motion. 

Case 23-31039-mvl7 Doc 16 Filed 07/04/23 Entered 07/04/23 23:58:01 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
NOTICE REGARDING BRIEFING DEADLINE – Page 2 

CORE/3524155.0002/182879188.1 

Dated: July 4, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Deborah Deitsch-Perez 

Deborah Deitsch-Perez 

State Bar No. 24036072 

Michael P. Aigen 

State Bar No. 24012196 

STINSON LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2900 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 560-2201 telephone 

(214) 560-2203 facsimile 

Email: deborah.deitschperez@stinson.com 

Email: michael.aigen@stinson.com 

Counsel for The Dugaboy Investment Trust 

AGREED 

QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, 

WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C. 

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 871-2100 (Telephone) 

(214) 871-2111 (Facsimile) 

By: /s/ Hudson M. Jobe 

Hudson M. Jobe 

State Bar No. 24041189 

PROPOSED ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR 

Case 23-31039-mvl7 Doc 16 Filed 07/04/23 Entered 07/04/23 23:58:01 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
# C_2019187EN.01002102.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cogeco Communications Inc. v Sport TV Portugal SA, Controlinveste-SGPS SA, NOS-SGPS SA

(Case C-637/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 102 TFEU - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Directive 2014/104/EU - Article 9(1) - Article 10(2) to (4) - Articles 21 and 22 - Actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union - Effects of national decisions - Limitation periods - Transposition - Temporal application)

(2019/C 187/24)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cogeco Communications Inc.

Defendants: Sport TV Portugal SA, Controlinveste-SGPS SA, NOS-SGPS SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 22 of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 22 of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.

| 2. | Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, first, provides that the limitation period in respect of actions for damages is three years and starts to run from the date on which the injured party was aware of its right to compensation, even if unaware of the identity of the person liable and, secondly, does not include any possibility of suspending or interrupting that period during proceedings before the national competition authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 102 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, first, provides that the limitation period in respect of actions for damages is three years and starts to run from the date on which the injured party was aware of its right to compensation, even if unaware of the identity of the person liable and, secondly, does not include any possibility of suspending or interrupting that period during proceedings before the national competition authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---
Order entered May 31, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00141-CR

EX PARTE ROBERT J. CRIDER II

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005-84506-08

ORDER

We GRANT IN PART appellant’s May 26, 2016 motion to vacate and reconsider and 

order the following relief.

We VACATE the Court’s May 24, 2016 order, and we remove this case from 

submission. We extend the time to file appellant’s brief to June 14, 2016. The time to file the 

State’s brief is extended until June 28, 2016. If any party does not file its brief by the date 

specified, the appeal will be submitted without that party’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1. The 

appeal will be submitted in due course after the briefing deadlines have expired. All other 

requested relief is DENIED.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Robert J. Crider II and to the 

Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
Brad MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0588

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

Brad Miller, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*222Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the Court's order of February 20, 2019, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to Appellant filing a petition for belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

Lewis, Rowe, and Makar, JJ., concur.