alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appellee ’ s Motion to Di smiss G ranted ; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion

filed June 29 , 2021 .

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 21
- 00027
- CV
JDH PACIFIC, INC. , Appellant

V. PRECISION
- HAYES INTERNATIONAL, INC. , Appellee On Appeal from the 400t h District Court Fort Bend County, Tex a s Trial Court Cause No. 19
- DCV
- 261720

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appe al from an O c tober 16, 2020 order vacating two writs of g ar nishm ent

. Appellant t imely perfected its appeal from that order ; however, this

cour t mu st dismiss the appeal because the O ctober 16, 2020 order was v oid. On June 17, 2021, appellee filed a motion to di smiss this ap peal because the underlying or der is void . We gr ant ap pellee ’ s motion. The recor d reflects th e underlying case was removed t o federal court in May2

2019 . It is undisputed that the case has not been r em anded to state court. “ Any order entered by a state court aft er the case is remo ved is void f or want of jurisdiction

. ” Hilton v. NBC Bank

- Heights, No. 01

- 96

- 01366

- CV, 1998 WL 13510 5, at *2

- 3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 19, 1998, p et. denied). T he

o rder underlying this appeal is void a nd , accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of juris diction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
Brenda J. PERSONS and David J. Persons, Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1923

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 24, 2019.

Mark P. Stopa of Stopa Law Firm, LLC, Tampa (withdrew after briefing); Latasha Scott of Lord Scott, PLLC, Tampa (withdrew after briefing), and Brenda J. Persons, pro se, and David J. Persons, pro se, for Appellants.

Mary J. Walter of Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 27, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1567 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-01892 -CV -JTC -1 JEANNE BROWN, MASON BROWN, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us CHE VY CH AS E B AN K, FSB , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 27, 200 5)
Be fo re D U BI N A , H U L L a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T his is anappe al f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of Ch ev y Ch as e Bank o n pl ai nti ff

s’ s c om pla int se ek ing T ru th and L en din g Ac t rescission un der 15 U. S. C. § 163 5. S pecifically , the plaintiffs sought judicial enforcem ent of their alleged cancellation of a loan transaction, claim ing th at they delivered the notice of rescission to th e person who served as w itness and n otary publ ic on the loan do cum ents at the sam e tim e they signed anddelivered the loan doc um en ts the m se lve s. T he c as e w as r ef er re d to am ag istra te j udge und er 28 U
. S. C. § 63 6 et

se q. T he m ag istra te j udge f ile d ar ep ort and r ec om

m en da tio n
recom m ending that the bank’s m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent be granted. Af ter conductin g a de novo r ev ie w , the dis tr ic t c ourt, in a se pa ra te opi nio n, a dopt ed the
m ag istra te j udge ’ s r ep ort and r ec om m en da tio n and e nte re d su m m ar y j udgm en t f

or the bank. W e rev ie w de novo the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t, ap pl y in g t he same leg al st an da rd s t ha t g ov ern edth e d is tri ctco ur t. In fo. Sy s. and Ne tw ork s C orp. v . Ci tyof A tla nta , 281 F. 3d 12 20, 1224 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). Af ter re viewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t f

or the bank f

or the fo llo w ing r ea sons : ( 1) the bank o bj ec te d to se rv ic e of pr oc es s init s answ er

a nd thu s di d no t w ai ve it s ob

j ec tio ns t o in suf

fi ci en t se rv ic e of

pr oc es s and j ur isd ic tio n;3

(2) the plaintiffs are estopped from seeking judicial enforce m ent of an alleged
canc el la tio n, w he re , a t the ir be he st, ac ourt of

c om pe te nt j ur isd ic tio n ne ce ssari ly fo und tha t the sub

j ec t transa ct ionha d no t be enr es ci nde d and w as in fu ll fo rc e an d effe ct; and (3) even if the f ully executed notice of cance llation was delivered as alleged, the delivery

wa s defective and cannot serve as the basis for j udicial
en fo rc em en t. AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur TOLEDANO

NO. 2019-K-0300

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

Denied.
Todd D. MINNIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0502

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: TELETRAC, INC.,

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00063-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCCEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Relator’s motion to dismiss its petition for writ of mandamus. 

Relator represents that it has conferred with the Real Party in Interest on the merits of the motion to 

dismiss, the Real Party in Interest agrees with the relief requested, and that the motion to dismiss is 

presented as an agreed motion. Relator states that the parties have reached a settlement in the 

underlying case and requests this Court enter an order dismissing the petition for writ of 

mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2).

Having considered Relator’s motion to dismiss, we conclude that the motion should be 

granted. We therefore dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

July 24, 2013

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
EX PARTE Charles QUICK and Donald Quick

1170072 (2160178)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Kari SHISLER

NO. 2019-KK-0670

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 2019

Denied.
Case 3:06-cv-00281-M Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 16
Case 3:05-cv-01775-L Document 1 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1
Case 3:05-cv-01775-L Document 1 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2
Case 3:05-cv-01775-L Document 1 Filed 09/02/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3
Case 3:05-cv-01775-L Document 1 Filed 09/02/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4
Case 3:05-cv-01775-L Document 1 Filed 09/02/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 5
Exhibit 23.1
                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





Board of Directors and Stockholder
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statement Number
333-46736 of Comcast Cable Communications,  Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated
February 5, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified  opinion and includes an
explanatory  paragraph  related  to  the  adoption  of  Statement  of  Financial
Accounting Standards No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities,"  as amended,  effective  January 1, 2001)  appearing  in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.  for the year ended
December 31, 2001.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 28, 2002
Exhibit 31.1
 HORIZON LINES, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Lines, 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 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; andc)
    
    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 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 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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ CHARLES G. RAYMONDCharles G. RaymondPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Eric Dewayne CURTIS v. MICHELS CORPORATION, et al.

No. 2019-C-603

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ALLEN**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Any dismissal not specifically designated "with prejudice" is considered to be "without prejudice." *See* La.C.C.P. art. 1673 ; *State ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. A.P.* , 02-2372 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/20/03), 858 So.2d 498 ("[w]hen the judgment is silent as to whether it is being dismissed with or without prejudice, the dismissal must be without prejudice.")
Gary JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4333

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.5


 





AMENDMENT NO. 3


TO 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No.2  to
the Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), dated September 26, 2016, is by and between Drone Aviation Holding Corp.,
a Nevada corporation with an address 11651 Central Parkway #118, Jacksonville, FL 32224 (the “Company”), and
Daniyel Erdberg (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Employment Agreement on May 18, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


 





WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Amendment No. 1 on October 2, 2015 (Erdberg Amendment No. 1); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered
into an Amendment No. 2 on April 27, 2016 (Erdberg Amendment No. 2); and







 


WHEREAS, the parties wish
to further amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below, with the understanding that all other provisions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain unchanged;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


	1.	Section 3 of the Employment Agreement- Term of Employment- is hereby extended  from May
18, 2018 until December 31, 2018.




 


	2. 	The terms and conditions of all other sections of the Employment Agreement shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this agreement as of the date first stated above.


 





	 	DRONE
    AVIATION HOLDING CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:
     	/s/
    Kendall W. Carpenter
	 	Name:
    	Kendall
    W. Carpenter
	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Daniyel Erdberg
	 	Name:
    	Daniyel
    Erdberg
Case 3:05-cv-02414-M Document 12 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID 90
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02414-M Document 12 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID 91
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02414-M Document 12 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID 92
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02414-M Document 12 Filed 06/07/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID 93
 

 Case 3:05-cv-02414-M Document 12 Filed 06/07/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID 94
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- Vaughn Management & Services, Inc. Under Contract No. NOOl78-07-D-5291 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60319, 61079

William A. Musto, Esq.

Roeder & Cochran, PLLC McLean, VA James S. DelSordo, Esq.

Argus Legal, PLLC Manassas, VA Ronald J. Borro, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney John M. Davis, Esq.

Trial Attorney Port Hueneme, CA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 7 August 2017

DA YID D'ALESSANDRIS Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60319, 61079, Appeals ofVaughn Management & Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREYD. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, David E. Trine, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ChoicePoint 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

February 27, 2007
# C_2017022EN.01004001.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/40

---

Action brought on 11 November 2016 — QD v EUIPO

(Case T-787/16)

(2017/C 022/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: QD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of EUIPO of 4 March 2016 not to adopt a definitive decision regarding the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS and to defer a definitive decision about the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS to a ‘specific procedure’ in the future; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EUIPO of 4 March 2016 not to adopt a definitive decision regarding the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS and to defer a definitive decision about the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS to a ‘specific procedure’ in the future; and

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO has infringed the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Art. 90(1) SR (in connection with Art. 46 CEOS), Annex III to the SR, Art. 2, 8, 53, CEOS, 110 SR; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO has infringed the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Art. 90(1) SR (in connection with Art. 46 CEOS), Annex III to the SR, Art. 2, 8, 53, CEOS, 110 SR;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR);

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO committed a misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO committed a misuse of power.

---
Michael CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-296

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Franklin v. State*, 258 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2018) ; *State v. Michel*, 257 So.3d 3 (Fla. 2018).
#### Leopoldo Agot POLINTAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-70794.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 17, 2004.

Timos Lawrence, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Elise M. Faber, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Leopoldo Agot Polintan, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination, *see Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence and will reverse the IJ only if the petitioner shows that the evidence compels such a result. *Cruz-Navarro v. INS,*232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition.

Accepting Polintan’s testimony as true, substantial evidence nevertheless supports the IJ’s determination that he does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution by the New People’s Army (“NPA”). Polintan offered no compelling evidence *545that the NPA’s effort to recruit him was based on any knowledge of his political opinions, or that his implicit refusal of the NPA’s job offer would be the basis for future persecution attributed to his political opinions. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502*U.S. 478, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Because Polintan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Cruz-Navarro,*232 F.3d at 1031.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Arthur Lee GRIGGS v. STATE

CR-16-0501

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.