alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL B. BREHNE, P.A., Appellant, v. PORTER LAW FIRM, LLC, Southern-Owners Insurance Company, and State Farm Mutual Automobile and Sheila Jackman, Appellees.

Case Nos. 5D17-3850 5D17-3855

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 16, 2019

Chad A. Barr, of Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

William J. McFarlane and Matthew T. Jones, of McFarlane Law, McFarlane Dolan & Prince, Coral Springs, for Appellee Southern-Owners Insurance Company.

Warren B. Kwavnick, of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile.

No Appearance for Other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The Law Office of Michael B. Brehne, P.A. ("Law Office"), appeals a final *855summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Southern-Owners Insurance Company (collectively, "the Insurers"), finding that the Insurers had not impaired Law Office's charging lien on the settlement proceeds paid to its former client and her newly retained counsel. The Insurers concede that Law Office properly perfected its charging lien before they disbursed the settlement proceeds to the former client's newly retained counsel. They contend that because the charging lien attaches only to the disputed funds, which are held in the newly retained counsel's trust account, Law Office's lien has not been impaired. We agree and affirm the trial court's judgment.

An attorney's charging lien attaches to the tangible fruits of the services. *Correa v. Christensen*, 780 So.2d 220, 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing *Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom*, 428 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 1983) ). Once a charging lien has been perfected, it is enforceable against "any person who, at the time notice of intent to claim a lien is given, holds monies or property which become proceeds of a judgment to be entered in the future." *Hutchins v. Hutchins*, 522 So.2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Here, although the Insurers had notice of Law Office's charging lien, they paid the settlement proceeds to the newly retained counsel who agreed to hold, and has continued to hold, the disputed funds in trust.1 Because the funds are in trust, Law Office's lien has not been impaired. However, should that situation change in the future, the Insurers cannot avoid liability for the attorney's fees subject to Law Office's lien simply because it transferred the funds to a third party. *See**Hall, Lamb & Hall, P.A. v. Sherlon Invs. Corp.*, 7 So.3d 639, 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

1

The action between Law Office and the newly retained counsel concerning the division of the fee is still pending.
STATE of Louisiana v. Dirk Douglas THOMAS aka Dirk Thomas

NO. 2018-KO-1757

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.
B.L.V. v. K.H. and J.H.

2160522

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(a), created by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Shahid S. Asghar,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ECC Capital Corporation; 

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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols 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 otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 suchevaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred 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 internalcontrol over financial 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 functions): 

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 control over financial reporting. 

Dated: November 14, 2006
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*  In connection with the Quarterly Report of JMG Exploration, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Justin Yorke, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: November 10, 2010  /s/ Justin YorkeName:Justin YorkeTitle:Chief Executive and Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JMG Exploration, Inc.   and will be retained by JMG Exploration, Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   *This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**CERTIFICATION        OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION        1350**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF        2002**

| ·   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended                March                31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the                “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ·   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                               |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                Cary M.                Grossman                                                                                 |   |   |   |
| Cary                M. Grossman                                                                                                    |   |   |        |
| Chief                  Executive Officer(Principal                  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)   |   |

----
STATE of Louisiana v. Dale BROWN

No. 2018-KH-0855

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claim, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *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.

Guidry, Justice, recused
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 20(b)

                    ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


                          Officer's Certificate
                          ---------------------

     I, George E. Borst, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Toyota 
Motor Credit Corporation ("TMCC"), hereby certify as follows:

     (a)  a review of the activities of TMCC as Servicer under the 1997-A SUBI 
Servicing Supplement (the "Agreement") dated September 1, 1997 among TMTT, 
Inc., as Titling Trustee, TMCC, as Servicer, and U.S. Bank National 
Association, as Trust Agent, for the year ended September 30, 1998, and of the 
performance of the Servicer under the Agreement has been made under my 
supervision;

     (b)  to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, no default has 
occurred by the Servicer under the Agreement throughout such period; and

     (c)  throughout such period the Servicer has maintained in full force and 
effect the Contingent and Excess Liability Insurance Policies required 
pursuant to Section 4.12 of the Agreement.



Date:  December 15, 1998                         /S/ GEORGE E. BORST
                                        ------------------------------------
                                                     George E. Borst
                                                  Senior Vice President
                                                   and General Manager
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 08, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 08, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16A2173. DAN MIHAIL CUTZU v. THOMAS WITKOWSKI.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
EXHIBIT
32.2











CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Elena Pochapski, certify, 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 Siberian Energy Group Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Siberian Energy Group Inc.





Date: May
19, 2009





By: /s/ Elena
Pochapski


Elena
Pochapski


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Accounting Officer)
# C_2016462EN.01003001.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/30

---

Action brought on 4 October 2016 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)

(Case T-718/16)

(2016/C 462/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Venice, California, United States of America) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aerospinning Master Franchising Ltd. s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SPINNING’ — EU trade mark No 175 117

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2375/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked EU work mark No 000175117 ‘SPINNING’ for the goods ‘exercise equipment’ in Class 28 and the services ‘exercise training’ in Class 41; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked EU work mark No 000175117 ‘SPINNING’ for the goods ‘exercise equipment’ in Class 28 and the services ‘exercise training’ in Class 41;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---
EX PARTE Nicholas MCCARY

CR-16-1133

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 26, 2024, FR Doc. 2024-30728, the notice “Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities” by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,                     *Marathon MHC, Wausau, Wisconsin;*                     is corrected to read “Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies”, and that the company listed applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations, to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company. In addition, the notice is corrected to read that the entities listed as savings and loan holding companies are bank holding companies. The comment period continues to end on January 27, 2025. Interested persons may continue to view the notice and submit comments as provided in 89 FR 105048 (December 26, 2024) no later than January 27, 2025.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2025-00832 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 118
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 25 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 119
# C_2019054EN.01001701.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2018 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-678/17) (1)

(2019/C 54/23)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VWR International, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jack L. Wyszomierski, asExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. 
|                                                               |     |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Name: Jack L. Wyszomierski                                    |     |
| Title:*Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer* | * * |
| Date: May 16, 2005                                       |     |

 

----
### NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3032 IRENE M. MOORE,

Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in DC0752080462-I-1. ON MOTION Before PROST, Circuit Judge. ORDER Irene M. Moore moves for reconsideration of the court's January 16, 2009 order revising the official caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:The motion is denied. FOR THE COURT



### MAR 13 2009
Date
cc: Irene M. Moore Joyce Friedman, Esq. Tara J. Kilfoyle, Esq. s20 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbal4 Clerk thStlidasejrci

PrecLur—li
MAR 1 3 2009 JAN HORbsAY CLERK

2009-3032 2
Tamikia Monshay AMERICA v. STATE

CR-16-0953

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Todd Howard NESSA, Appellant, v. Alexandra D. NESSA, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-951

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
ENTERPRISE JOINT ALABAMA VENTURE, INC. v. Lister H. REEVES, Jr.

2160734

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Office of Inspector General

Investigation #19-01

Closing Memorandum

January 24, 2019

On November 19, 2018, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

initiated an investigation concerning allegations that an employee’s first- and second-line 

supervisors, the latter of whom was a senior government employee, tried to coerce the employee 

into signing the employee’s 2018 performance evaluation.

The OIG completed its investigative fieldwork on December 21, 2018. The OIG issued Report of 

Investigation (ROI) #19-01 to Agency management on December 31, 2018. Agency management 

responded on January 15, 2019, and informed OIG that the office director would speak with both 

supervisors regarding appropriate responses when an employee chooses not to sign his/her 

performance evaluation. The OIG closed investigation #19-01 on January 24, 2019.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.12
Promissory Note

Lender: Corporacion Pipasa, S.A.
Borrower: Atisbos de Belen., S.A.
Amount: $242,319
Currency: U.S. Dollars
Interest Rate: 8.00% fixed rate
Date of issuance: March 1, 2002
Due date: Due on demand
STATE of Louisiana v. Keith DEJEAN

NO. 2019-KK-C453

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.