alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A99A1213.

#### ALI v. WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORPORATION.

(522 SE2d 525)

Phipps, Judge.

Mohammad Ali purchased a car and obtained financing through World Omni Financial Corporation. World Omni repossessed the car after Ali defaulted on payments. Ali sued World Omni. He claimed that its sale of the repossessed vehicle was wrong because he was not given notice of the sale as required by the parties’ contract. Ali sought as actual damages the car’s market value. The trial court granted summary judgment to World Omni based on absence of evidence to support Ali’s damage claim. Ali appeals.

“ ‘The market value of the plaintiff’s property right would be determined by taking the market value of the automobile itself and subtracting therefrom the balance due on the purchase price of the automobile.’ ” *Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hitchcock,*116 Ga. App. 563, 564-565 (3) (158 SE2d 468) (1967); see *Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milline,*137 Ga. App. 585, 589 (2) (224 SE2d 437) (1976). The sum produced by this calculation is commonly referred to as plaintiff’s “equity” in his property. One of the grounds of World Omni’s motion for summary judgment was that the evidence shows without dispute that Ali suffered no actual damages because he had no equity in the car. Although the evidence indisputably shows that the balance due on the vehicle’s purchase price exceeded the proceeds of World Omni’s sale of the vehicle, it does not show the car’s value. In response to World Omni’s motion for summary judgment, Ali presented no evidence of value and, therefore, did not show that he had any equity in the car. For this reason, if no other, World Omni was entitled to summary judgment. See *Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,*261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991).

World Omni’s failure to give Ali proper notice of the sale bars it *10from recovering a deficiency judgment. See *Brack Rowe Chevrolet Co. v. Walls,*201 Ga. App. 822, 824 (2) (412 SE2d 603) (1991). Although World Omni sought to recover the deficiency in a counterclaim, World Omni did not seek and the court did not grant summary judgment to it on this issue. In fact, the court found that World Omni failed to give Ali the contractually required notice of the sale, and World Omni did not cross-appeal this ruling.

Decided September 13, 1999.

*Ian M. Falcone,*for appellant.

Mohammad H. Ali, *pro se.*

*Levine & Block, Stephen H. Block,*for appellee.

Other issues are moot.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
EX PARTE M.M.

1170068 (2150961)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Elizabeth Plaza,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Manuel O. Morera, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/
                  Elizabeth Plaza
              /s/
                  Manuel O. MoreraElizabeth
                  Plaza
              Manuel
                  O. MoreraChief
                  Executive Officer
              Chief
                  Financial Officer





November
      29, 2006
Jose Hernaldo ESTRADA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 15, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and J. Rafael Rodríguez, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linsey Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 53 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 53

    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
    military sale to the Government of Australia of certain defense 
                         articles and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 23, 2022

  Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign 
    military sale to the Government of Australia of certain defense 
                         articles and services.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following proposed 
foreign military sale to the Government of Australia is prohibited:
            (1) The sale of the following defense articles and 
        services, described in Transmittal No. 22-27, submitted to 
        Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export 
        Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1)), and published in the 
        Congressional Record on June 21, 2022: Up to fifteen (15) AGM-
        88E2 Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) Guidance 
        Sections; up to fifteen (15) AARGM Control Sections; up to 
        fifteen (15) High Speed Anti Radiation Missiles (HARM) Rocket 
        Motors; up to fifteen (15) HARM Warheads; and up to fifteen 
        (15) HARM Control Sections. Also included are AGM-88E2 AARGM 
        All Up Round (AUR) tactical missiles; AGM-88E2 AARGM Captive 
        Air Training Missile (CATM); HARM G-Code AUR; HARM G-Code CATM; 
        M-Code GPS receivers; containers; support and test equipment; 
        EA-18G Growler test support; spare and repair parts; software 
        (Classified and Unclassified); U.S. Government and contractor 
        engineering support; and other related elements of logistical 
        and program support.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Antonio Martinez, certifies that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc.
("Pharma-Bio Serv");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
Pharma-Bio Serv as of and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. Pharma-Bio Serv's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e) for Pharma-Bio Serv 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 Pharma-Bio Serv, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b. Evaluated the effectiveness of Pharma-Bio Serv'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 Pharma-Bio Serv's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during its most recent fiscal
quarter (Pharma-Bio Serv's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, Pharma-Bio Serv's internal control over financial reporting.

5. Pharma-Bio Serv's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reportings to
Pharma-Bio Serv's auditors and the audit committee of Pharma-Bio Serv'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 Pharma-Bio Serv'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 Pharma-Bio Serv's internal controls
over financial reporting.

                         /s/ Antonio Martinez
                         --------------------
                         Antonio Martinez
                         Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  March 22, 2006
Djakarta BURTON, DOC #140889, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4330

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Carol J. Y. Wilson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Irving J. Thomas Company, a Florida Corporation, as Agents, Appellant, v. Wallace Erwin, Coco Plum Development Company, a Florida Corporation, and Miami Bank and Trust Company, a Florida Corporation, as Trustee, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed December 2, 1927.

*Benson, McGarry & Sullivan,*for Appellant;

*Snecligar, Miller, McKay & Baya,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order-; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is. hereby affirmed.

Whiteield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Kevin ROJAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5436

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 31, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Maria Ines Suber, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Roberts, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1929-N

§

SCOTT B. FRENKEL, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

Pursuant to the District Court’s Order of Reference, entered October 14, 2005, this case has

been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation. The Court held

a show cause hearing on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, to determine whether an IRS summons

directing Respondent Scott B. Frenkel to produce an opinion letter from his attorney should be

enforced. Respondent Scott B. Frenkel produced the opinion letter at issue to the Court for in

camera review, and the Court finds that the letter is privileged because it is an attorney-client

communication. The Court, therefore, recommends that the petition to enforce the IRS summons

be denied.

December 14, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01929-N Document 13 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 83
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these conclusions and

recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any

party who desires to object to these conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written

objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must

specifically identify those conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's

failure to file such written objections to these proposed conclusions and recommendation shall

bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

140, 150 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed conclusions

and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party

from appealing the legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District

Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d

1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01929-N Document 13 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 84
Lisa COSTANTINI, Appellant, v. Lyndley W. RADIX and Arlene Radix, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-3765

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Luis A. BENITES, Appellant, v. David BARRERA III, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0008

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

Luis A. Benites, in proper person.

David Barrera III, in proper person.

Before SALTER, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1980) (holding that, in the absence of an adequate record of the proceedings below, an appellate court must affirm the trial court's judgment).
Bernard GYDEN, II, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2230

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

Bernard Gyden, II, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

***ON CONFESSION OF ERROR***

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Gyden, II appeals the trial court's order dismissing his amended motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because Gyden's petition for writ of habeas corpus (alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel) was pending before this Court at the same time, the trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate Gyden's motion for postconviction relief, and dismissed the motion.

As the State properly and commendably concedes, the trial court erred because it did have jurisdiction to consider Gyden's motion for postconviction relief even while there remained pending before this Court an original proceeding asserting a claim of *1095ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As the Florida Supreme Court said:

> In *Knight v. State*, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981), we recognized that allegations of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel are not cognizable under a Rule 3.850 motion because they do not relate to anything done by or transpiring before the trial court. Such allegations, we held, should be addressed to the appellate court by means of a petition for habeas corpus. On the other hand, allegations of ineffectiveness of legal counsel at one's trial are properly presented to the trial court by a Rule 3.850 motion. Since the two judicial attacks on petitioner's convictions and sentences ... were thus separate and distinct, there was no danger ... of conflicting and confusing rulings by different courts on the same issues .... *We do not perceive so substantial a problem of confusion as to require us to hold that the pendency of one kind of proceeding deprives the other court of jurisdiction to proceed.*

*Francois v. Klein*, 431 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 1983) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). *See also**Reidy v. State*, 30 So.3d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) ; *Evans v. State*, 962 So.2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ; *White v. State*, 855 So.2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ; *Gawronski v. State*, 801 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

We reverse and remand for the trial court to address and, as appropriate, to adjudicate Gyden's amended motion for postconviction relief.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with thequarterly report of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel C. Sibley, ChiefFinancial Officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the managing generalpartner of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)           The information contained in theReport on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.
| Date: May 15, 2007 | /s/ Dan Sibley                    |   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|               | Daniel C. Sibley                  |
|               | Chief Financial Officer           |
|               | Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P. |

 

Thiscertification is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of thatsection.  This certification is notdeemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Optionable, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,  Matthew Katzeff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:







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





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.










August 20, 2010




/s/ Matthew Katzeff





(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Novelis Inc. (the Company),hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.       /s/ Edward A. Blechschmidt     Edward A. Blechschmidt    Acting Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: May10, 2007     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andis not being filed as part of this report.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of 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 Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Waters, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) 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, to 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 Company.

Date: August 8, 2007



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ John Waters
|Name:           |  | John Waters            
|Title:          |  | Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

             SCHEDULE OF OMITTED MANAGEMENT SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS

      The following documents have been omitted as Exhibits to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K because they are on substantially identical terms as Exhibit 10.23
in all material respects other than with respect to the numbers and purchase
prices of shares purchased by each of the executives under the agreements.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               #     Price Per
                                     Agreement                            of Shares    Share
-----------------------------------------------------------------------   ---------  ---------
<S>                                                                       <C>        <C>
1. Management Subscription Agreement between the company and Edwin P.
     Kuhn                                                                   15,452   $   10.00

2. Management Subscription Agreement between the company and James W.
     George                                                                 11,590   $   10.00

3. Management Subscription Agreement between the company and Michael H.
     Hinderliter                                                            11,590   $   10.00

4. Management Subscription Agreement between the company and Timothy L.
     Doane                                                                   7,727   $   15.00

5. Management Subscription Agreement between the company and Joseph A.
     Szima                                                                   4,484   $   20.00
</TABLE>