alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jeffrey C. ABRAMOWSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 31, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019

Jeffrey C. Abramowski, Indiantown, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Due to Appellant's apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Brevard County Circuit Court Case Number 05-2002-CF-063402-A, this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. *See* *State v. Spencer* , 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should *278not be imposed, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.

Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. *See* *Isley v. State* , 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. *See* § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; *Simpkins v. State* , 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Future Pro Se Filings PROHIBITED.

BERGER, LAMBERT and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Harry C. WALTERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4213

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Form CAND 133 (Rev. 2/2017)

BILL OF COSTS Please follow the instructions on page 3 when completing this form. COU

OBJECTION DEADLINE: OBJECTION FILED: YES 

1. CASE NAMEPhan v. Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. 

2. CASE NUMBER16-cv-07243-BLF 

3. DATE JUDGMENT ENTEREDDecember 13, 2018 

4. PARTY AGAINST WHOPlaintiff An Phan 

5. NAME OF CLAIMING PARTYDefendant Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. 

6. NAME OF ATTORNEY FOR CLAIMING PARTY (or indicate “PRO SE”)Teresa H. Michaud 

7. PHONE AND EMAIL O415 576 3023 

teresa.michaud@bakerm

8. REQUEST TO TAX THE FOLLOWING AS COSTS: (SHADED AREAS ARE FOR COURT 

COST ITEM AMOUNT CLAIMED LIST SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION A mt A l l o we d Di sa l l o wed 

a. FEES OF THE CLERK AND FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

Filing Fees and Docket Fees, Civil LR 54-3(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. 1923

$400.00 Filing fee - Notice of Removal, December 19, 

2016 (See Attachment) 

Service of Process, Civil LR 54- 3(a)(2) 

b. REPORTERS’ TRANSCRIPTS

Transcripts for appeal, Civil LR54-3(b)(1) Rulings from the bench, Civil LR 54-3(b)(2) Other transcripts (by order or stipulation), Civil LR 54-3(b)(3) 

c. DEPOSITIONS

Deposition transcript/video recording, Civil LR 54-3(c)(1) 

$9,660.00 See Attachment 8c.

Deposition exhibits, Civil LR 54- 3(c)(3) $386.00 See Attachment 8c.Notary & reporter attendance fees, Civil LR 54-3(c)(4),(5) 

$125.00 See Attachment 8c.

d. REPRODUCTION, EXEMPLIFICATION

Government records, Civil LR 54-3(d)(1) Disclosure/formal discovery documents, Civil LR 54-3(d)(2) Trial exhibits, Civil LR 54-3(d)(4) $82.36 Copy Exhibits to Motion for Summary 

Judgment, 6/22/2018 (See Attachment 8d.) 
*WITNESS FEES/EXPENSES COMPUTATION WORKSHEET FOR ITEM 8.e OF REQUEST TO TAX COSTS (28 USC 1821) 

ATTENDANCE SUBSISTENCE TRAVEL/MI

WITNESS NAME , CITY AND STATE OF RESIDENCE # Days $ Cost # Days $ Cost Travel Cost or # Miles POV 

TOTAL WITNESS FEES/EXPENSES 

Visual aids, Civil LR 54(d)(5)

e. WITNESS FEES AND EXPENSES

Total from itemized Witness Fees worksheet,* Civil LR 54(e) 

f. COURT-APPOINTED PROFESSIONALS, INTERPRETERS

Fees for special masters & receivers, Civil LR 54-3(f) Court-appointed experts,28 USC § 1920(6) Interpreters and special interpretation services, 28 USC §§ 1828, 1920(6) 

g. MISCELLANEOUS COSTS

Costs on appeal, Civil LR 54- 3(g) & FRAP 39 Costs of bonds and security, Civil LR 54-3(h) 

TOTAL AMOUNT $10,653.36 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

9. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, NOTES, ETC:See Attachment for cost summary and backup. 10. AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO 28 USC § 1924: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing costs are correct and were necessarily incurred in this action and that the services for which fees have been charged were actually and necessarily performed. 

Name of Attorney/Claiming Party: Teresa H. Michaud, Attorney for Defendant Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. SIGNATURE: /s/ Teresa H. Michaud DATE: December 21, 2018 

11. Costs are taxed in the amount of and Susan Y. Soong Clerk of Court 

BY: , Deputy Clerk
#### IRDETO ACCESS, INC. (formerly known as TV/COM International, Inc.), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION (now known as EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.), Defendant-Appellee, and Kudelski, S.A. and Nagravision, S.A., Defendants-Appellees. Irdeto Access, Inc. (formerly known as TV/COM International, Inc.), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Echostar Satellite Corporation (now known as EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.), Defendant-Appellant, and Kudelski, S.A. and Nagravision, S.A., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 04-1154, 04-1178.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 20, 2004.

David A. York, Principal Attorney, Latham & Watkins, Menlo Park, CA, David S. Foster, of Counsel, Latham & Watkins, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert R. Brunelli, Principal Attorney, Sheridan Ross, Denver, CO, James M. Heintz, of Counsel, Piper Rudniek, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Philip L. Cohan, Principal Attorney, Piper Rudniek, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees and Defendant-Cross Appellant.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the unopposed motions of EchoStar Satellite Corporation et al. to revise the official caption and to voluntarily dismiss 04-1178.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motions are granted. The revised official captions are reflected above.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 04-1178.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stinger Systems, Inc., for the period
ended June 30, 2006;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 14, 2006
    By:
    /s/ David J. MeadorDavid J. MeadorChief Financial Officer
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 11146 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Alfredo Lopez**

**- Enciso,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 149

- 4

Before **Wiener, Elrod,**  and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Alfredo Lopez

- Enciso has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez

- Enciso has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 6, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-11146 Document: 00516460155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2022No. 21

- 11146

2 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Lopez

- Enciso’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,
counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-11146 Document: 00516460155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2022
In the INTEREST OF A.M. and A.M., children.

A.B., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-4947

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Randy Moeder, ChiefExecutive Officer and President of Hiland Partners GP, LLC, the general partnerof Hiland Partners, LP, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hiland Partners, LP;

 

2.     Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statements of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Securities and ExchangeAct Rules 13a – 15(e) and 15d – 15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    reserved;

 

c)     evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation;

 

d)    disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by this report that (the registrant’sfourth quarter in the case of our annual report) has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)     all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)    any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | May 13, 2005                           | /s/ Randy Moeder |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
|   | Randy Moeder                           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  and President |

 

1

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4830-3108-9490.1 3:17-cv-00390-JST

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO DISMISS

LEWIS 

BRISBOIS 

BISGAARD 

& SMITH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

JULIE E. MAURER, pro hac vice 

 Email: Julie.Maurer@lewisbrisbois.com 

JOHN A. TOAL, SB# 194041 

 Email: John.Toal@lewisbrisbois.com 

LAUREN J. KOBLITZ, SB# 256651 

 Email: Lauren.Koblitz@lewisbrisbois.com 

333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 

San Francisco, California 94104-2872

Telephone: 415.362.2580 

Facsimile: 415.434.0882 

Attorneys for Plaintiff United Van Lines, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED VAN LINES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT and SARAH DEMING, husband and 

wife,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00390-JST

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STIPULATION 

TO DISMISS

After consideration of Plaintiff United Van Lines, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Scott and 

Sarah Deming’s (“Defendants”) (jointly as the “Parties”) Stipulation to Dismiss: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The above-entitled Complaint for Declaratory Judgment is dismissed with prejudice; and 

2. Each side shall bear its own fees and costs. 

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

November 1, 2017 HON. JON S. TIGAR
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 363 

Designating September 2021 as ‘‘School Bus Safety Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 

Mrs. FISCHER (for herself and Mr. PETERS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 2021 as ‘‘School Bus Safety Month’’. 

Whereas, in an average year, on every school day in the 

United States, approximately 500,000 public and private 

school buses carry more than 26,000,000 K–12 students 

to and from school; 

Whereas school buses comprise the largest mass transportation fleet in the United States; 

Whereas, in an average year, 48 percent of all K–12 students 

ride a school bus for each of the 180 school days in a 

year, and school bus operators drive school buses a total 

of nearly 4,400,000,000 miles; 

Whereas the Child Safety Network (referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘CSN’’), which is celebrating 32 years of 

public service in the United States, supports the CSN 

Safe Bus campaign, which is designed to provide the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 363 ATS 

school bus industry with driver training, the latest technology, and free safety and security resources; 

Whereas the designation of School Bus Safety Month will 

allow broadcast and digital media and social networking 

industries to commit to disseminating public service announcements that are produced to— 

(1) provide free resources designed to safeguard children; 

(2) recognize school bus operators and professionals; 

and 

(3) encourage the driving public to engage in safer 

driving behavior near school buses when students board 

and disembark from school buses; 

Whereas key leaders who deserve recognition during School 

Bus Safety Month and beyond have— 

(1) provided security awareness training materials to 

more than 14,000 public and private schools; 

(2) trained more than 116,800 school bus operators; 

and 

(3) provided more than 163,120 counterterrorism 

guides to individuals who are key to providing both safety 

and security for children in the United States; and 

Whereas School Bus Safety Month offers the Senate and the 

people of the United States an opportunity to recognize 

and thank the school bus operators and the professionals 

focused on school bus safety and security in the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates September 

2 2021 as ‘‘School Bus Safety Month’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
1 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR REDACTIONS TO 

DAUBERT MOTIONS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR 

REDACTIONS TO COURT’S ORDER ON 

DAUBERT MOTIONS DATED APRIL 17, 

2020 (DKT. 549)

Hon. Beth Labson Freeman

Ctrm: 3, 5th Floor

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that page 11, lines 1–2, 11–

12; page 21, lines 17–18, 20, 25; page 22, line 11; page 23, lines 3, 21–28; and page 24, lines 1-8, 

12-13, 25-26 of the Court’s Order on Daubert Motions dated April 17, 2020 (Dkt. 549) shall be 

redacted.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 

Hon. Beth Labson Freeman

United States District Court

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 551-2 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 1
# L_2017027EN.01009901.xml

| 1.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 27/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 27/99

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2017/161

of 31 January 2017

correcting the French language version of Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 laying down requirements and administrative procedures related to aerodromes pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1),and in particular Article 8a(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Errors occurred in the French language ersion of Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (2) laying down requirements and administrative procedures related to aerodromes. Therefore a correction in the French language version of Annexes II and IV to that Regulation is necessary. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Errors occurred in the French language ersion of Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 (2) laying down requirements and administrative procedures related to aerodromes. Therefore a correction in the French language version of Annexes II and IV to that Regulation is necessary. The other language versions are not affected.

| (2) | Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 should therefore be corrected accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 should therefore be corrected accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(Concerns only the French language version)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 31 January 2017.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 of 12 February 2014 laying down requirements and administrative procedures related to aerodromes pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 44, 14.2.2014, p. 1).

2

---