alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rosalina LINAM, Appellant, v. Daniel LINAM, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4911

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Jade BERRY

NO. 2019-KK-0448

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.a.4    
    


 
 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT    
    


        We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-12398 and No. 333-101797 of Xcelera, Inc. each on Form S-8 of
our report dated July 24, 2002, relating to Xcelera, Inc.'s consolidated financial statements as of January 31, 2002 and for the years ended January 31, 2002 and 2001, appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Xcelera, Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2003. 


/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 


Stamford,
Connecticut

July 29, 2003 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.a.4


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
EX PARTE Manzeroski LOGAN

CR-16-1149

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Kenel RENARD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D19-774

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2019

Kenel Renard, Milton, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and, Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the October 17, 2018 order denying Petitioner's pro se motion for postconviction relief, filed in Case No. 2012-CF-012460-B-O, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

BERGER, LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 3 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state 

of the remains of the last Medal of Honor recipient of World War 

II, in order to honor the Greatest Generation and the more than 

16,000,000 men and women who served in the Armed Forces of the 

United States from 1941 to 1945. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2021 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mr. ROMNEY) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the 

lying in state of the remains of the last Medal of Honor 

recipient of World War II, in order to honor the Greatest 

Generation and the more than 16,000,000 men and 

women who served in the Armed Forces of the United 

States from 1941 to 1945. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 3 IS 

1 SECTION 1. HONORING THE LAST SURVIVING MEDAL OF 

2 HONOR RECIPIENT OF WORLD WAR II. 

3 (a) USE OF ROTUNDA.—The individual who is the 

4 last surviving recipient of the Medal of Honor for acts per5 formed during World War II shall be permitted to lie in 

6 state in the rotunda of the Capitol upon death, if the indi7 vidual (or the next of kin of the individual) so elects. 

8 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Architect of the Capitol, 

9 under the direction of the President pro tempore of the 

10 Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

11 shall take the necessary steps to implement subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EX PARTE Henry MARSHALL

CR-16-1336

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 15, 2017 Reh. denied November 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
**Exhibit 21**

 

Subsidiaries of Registrant

 

The following subsidiaries aredirect or indirect subsidiaries of the Company:

 

VBI Inc., a Delawarecorporation

Golf Card International Corp.,a Delaware corporation

Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., aDelaware corporation

Coast Marketing Group, Inc., aDelaware corporation

Golf Card Resort Services,Inc., a Delaware corporation

TL Enterprises, Inc., aDelaware corporation

Golf Card Holding Corporation,a Delaware corporation

GSS Enterprises, Inc., aDelaware corporation

Woodall PublicationsCorporation, a Delaware corporation

AGI Properties of Colorado,Inc., a Delaware corporation

Affinity Group Thrift HoldingCorporation, a Delaware corporation

Affinity Road and Travel Club,Inc., a Texas corporation

Affinity Brokerage, Inc., aDelaware corporation

Camping Realty, Inc., aKentucky corporation

Camping World, Inc., a Kentuckycorporation

Camping World InsuranceServices of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada corporation

CWI, Inc., a Kentuckycorporation

CW Michigan, Inc., a Delawarecorporation

CW Texas, LP, a Minnesotalimited partnership

Ehlert Publishing Group, Inc.,a Minnesota corporation

Exposition Group, Inc., aMinnesota corporation

AGI Real Estate Holding, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

Thunder Press, a Californiacorporation

Camping World RV Sales, Inc., aDelaware corporation

AdventureMall, Inc., a Delaware corporation

PowerSports Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation

AffinityAdvertising, LP, a Minnesota limited partnership

 

127

----
Case 3:05-cv-02202-L Document 36 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 106
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02202-L Document 36 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 107
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02202-L Document 36 Filed 04/28/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 108
EX PARTE TTR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al.

(In re Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. TTR Construction, LLC, and Carolyn Robinson)

2160678

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
<PAGE>   1








                                                                      Exhibit 21
                         CONTINENTAL GLOBAL GROUP, INC.

                SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AT MARCH 15, 1998


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  JURISDICTION
                                                OF INCORPORATION
      SUBSIDIARIES(1)                            OR ORGANIZATION                        PARENT COMPANY

<S>                                                  <C>                        <C>
Continental Conveyor &                               Delaware                   Continental Global Group, Inc.
  Equipment Company

Continental Conveyor &                               Australia                  Continental Conveyor &
  Equipment Pty. Ltd.                                                           Equipment Company

BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.                               Australia                  Continental Conveyor &
                                                                                Equipment Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Pty. Ltd.                            Australia                  BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Services Pty. Ltd.                   Australia                  BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Conveyor                             Australia                  BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.
  Components Pty. Ltd.

A. Crane Pty. Ltd.                                   Australia                  BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.                Australia                  BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd. - 60%
                                                                                Continental Conveyor &
                                                                                Equipment Pty. Ltd. - 40%

Continental Conveyor                                 Delaware                   Continental Conveyor &
  International Inc.                                                            Equipment Company

Continental FSW Ltd.                                 United Kingdom             Continental Conveyor
                                                                                International Inc.

Continental MECO (Proprietary) Ltd.                  South Africa               Continental Conveyor
                                                                                International Inc.

MECO McCallum Pty. Ltd.                              Australia                  Continental Conveyor &
                                                                                Equipment Pty. Ltd.

Goodman Conveyor Company                             Delaware                   Continental Global Group, Inc.


<FN>
(1) Each of the subsidiaries listed is 100% owned by its parent company, except
    for Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.
</TABLE>
Tyrell Deshawn SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3231

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Nathan DYGART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D13-4977

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 13, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Per Curiam.

This court earlier affirmed Dygart's convictions, concluding that there was no double-jeopardy violation. *See* *Dygart v. State* , 247 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). The Florida Supreme Court has now quashed that decision, remanding for reconsideration based on the intervening decision in *Lee v. State* , 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018). *See* *Dygart v. State* , 247 So.3d 655 (Fla. 2019).

In *Lee* , the Florida Supreme Court held "that to determine whether multiple convictions of solicitation of a minor, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling after solicitation of a minor are based upon the same conduct for purposes of double jeopardy, the reviewing court may consider only the charging document." *Lee* , 258 So. 3d at 1304. Looking only at the information in this case, we cannot conclude one way or the other whether the State based the two charged counts (one for solicitation and one for travel following solicitation) on the same solicitation. In this circumstance, *Lee* requires that we reverse the lesser conviction.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

Winokur and Winsor, JJ., concur; Makar, J., concurs in result only.
**Exhibit 10.53**

 

Amendment to Employment Agreement dated August 1, 1993 between StephenAdams and the Company.

 

[TYPED ON AFFINITY GROUP, INC.LETTERHEAD]

 

 

September 1, 2002

 

 

Stephen Adams

Affinity Group, Inc.

2575 Vista Del Mar Drive

Ventura, CA  93001

 

**Re:          EmploymentAgreement dated as of August 1, 1993 between Affinity Group, Inc. (the“Company”) and Stephen Adams, as amended (the “Employment Agreement”)**

 

 

Dear Steve:

 

The term of the EmploymentAgreement continues until September 1, 2002. The Company desires to continue your employment in accordance with theterms of the Employment Agreement and you have acknowledged that you arewilling to continue such employment. Therefore, the terms of the Employment Agreement shall be extended foran additional one (1) year period beginning on the date hereof and continuinguntil September 1, 2003.

 

If the foregoing properly setsforth our understanding, I would appreciate your so acknowledging by executingthe counterpart of this letter in the space provided below.

 

 
|   |   | AFFINITY GROUP, INC. |      |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------|-----------|--------|
|   |   |                 |      |   |
|   |   | By:                  | /s/       |   |   |
|   |   | Its:                 | President |   |   |
|        |        |                      |           |        |  |  |

 

Accepted and agreed to as of the 1st day ofSeptember, 2002.

 

 
| /s/ Stephen Adams |   |   |
|-------------------|--------|--------|
| Stephen Adams     |   |   |

 

126

----
Fernando SAMUDIO, Appellant, v. Glenn PEARSON, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2480

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 2, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2019148EN.01000401.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Suez II Water Technologies & Solutions Portugal, Unipessoal Lda, formerly GE Power Controls Portugal Unipessoal, Lda v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-643/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 37 - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 313 - Customs status of goods - Presumption of the Community status of goods)

(2019/C 148/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Suez II Water Technologies & Solutions Portugal, Unipessoal Lda, formerly GE Power Controls Portugal Unipessoal, Lda

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Operative part of the judgment

Article 313 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 75/98 of 12 January 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, supplied and invoiced by companies established in third countries to a company established in the customs territory of the European Union in order to be used there, must be regarded as having been brought into that territory within the meaning of Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and to be covered, in that regard, by the exception provided for in Article 313(2)(a) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 75/98, as only goods in respect of which it has been proven that a procedure for releasing them for free circulation in the customs territory of the European Union has been carried out are to be recognised as having Community status.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---
Dejuan BELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1313

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Johnny DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1677

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 17, 2019]

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.* *See* *Chavis v. State* , 247 So.3d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Gerber, C.J., Conner, J., and Metzger, Elizabeth A., Associate Judge, concur.
EX PARTE Marc Wayne HOLLIDAY

CR-16-1295

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017 Reh. denied November 29, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Steven BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 MHI Hospitality Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew M. Sims, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 7, 2009



By:

/s/    Andrew M. SimsName:

Andrew M. SimsTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1313

In re: MICHAEL RANKINS , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 2:14

- cr - 00003

- FL

- 1 ; 2:20

- cv - 00017

- FL )

Submitted : July 20, 2021 Decided: July 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Rankins , Petitioner Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Rankins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undu e delay in
the district court. A ccordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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 the decisional proces s.
PETITION DENIED
Order entered July 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01384-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.V.K., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-19679

ORDER

In an order dated April 30, 2015, the Court granted appellant’s motion to file 

supplemental reporter’s records and ordered Glenda Johnson, Official Court Reporter for the 

256th Judicial District Court, to file reporter’s records from six hearings. In an order dated May 

5, 2015, the Court granted appellee’s motion to file previously requested reporter’s records and 

ordered Ms. Johnson to file reporter’s records from an additional six hearings. The requested 

reporter’s records are past due. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Johnson to file, by JULY 20, 2015, the reporter’s records 

with exhibits from the hearings held on the following dates:

1. February 20, 2014;

2. February 28, 2014;

3. March 20, 2014;

4. October 7, 2014;
5. October 22, 2014; and

6. January 9, 2015.

If any of the above-listed hearings were not recorded, Ms. Johnson shall file written verification 

that such hearings were not recorded. 

We further ORDER Ms. Johnson to file, by JULY 20, 2015, either the reporter’s records 

with exhibits from the hearings held on the following dates:

1. November 15, 2013;

2. December 19, 2013;

3. September 9, 2014;

4. October 2, 2014;

5. October 3, 2014; and

6. November 17, 2014

or written verification that any of the hearings were not recorded or that appellee has not paid or 

made arrangements to pay for these records.

Appellant’s brief will be due THIRTY DAYS after the reporter’s record is complete or 

written verification that any of the above listed hearings were not recorded or that appellee has 

not paid for the records appellee requested.

We expressly CAUTION Ms. Johnson that failure to comply with this order may result 

in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to the Honorable David Lopez, Judge of the 256th Judicial District Court, Ms. 

Johnson, and counsel for all parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2017424EN.01001901.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/19

---

Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-524/17 P)

(2017/C 424/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

Appellant:

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

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16, EU:T:2017:448; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-182/16, EU:T:2017:448;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

| — | reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

VINCENT L. BAKER, §

Petitioner, §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-646-Y

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, DIRECTOR, §

T.D.C.J., Correctional §

Institutions Div., §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Vincent L. Baker under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of the following

matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation

of the United States magistrate judge filed on March 3,

2006; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on March 16, 2006.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Petitioner’s

objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus should be dismissed for the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge's findings and conclusions.

Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

Petitioner Vincent Baker’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to file a motion in the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to file

a successive petition.

SIGNED March 17, 2006.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00646-Y Document 15 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 63
Case 3:05-cv-01328-L Document 240 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1915
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01328-L Document 240 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1916
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01328-L Document 240 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1917
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01328-L Document 240 Filed 12/06/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1918
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01328-L Document 240 Filed 12/06/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1919