alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Marie LAFLEUR, Appellant, v. The ARBOR HOLDING COMPANY LLC d/b/a Barrington Terrace of Fort Myers and United Wisconsin Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 1D18-0381

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 12, 2019

Cory J. Pollack, Fort Myers, and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.

Robert C. Barrett and McKensey M. Sims of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, McLain & Mangan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

Ray, J.

In this workers' compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying Claimant the right to select the doctor who would serve as her one-time change of physician available under section 440.13(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2014). We reverse on the authority of *Myers v.**Pasco County School Board* , 246 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018),* because the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the JCC's finding that the Employer/Carrier's authorization of an anesthesiologist, although made within five calendar days of Claimant's request for a one-time change, satisfied their statutory obligation to provide a physician in the "same" specialty as the previously authorized physician who specializes in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Section 440.13(2)(f) contemplates that the originally authorized physician be "in the same specialty as the changed physician." *Myers* held that "[a] physician who provides similar services in a *different* specialty does not qualify as a doctor in the 'same specialty' because-quite simply-'same' is different than 'similar.' " *Id.* at 1279.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Roberts and Winsor, JJ., concur.

*

The JCC did not have the benefit of the *Myers* opinion before rendering the order under review.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-06-00275- CV In re Josephine Douglas -P ete rs

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P uryear and Waldrop Filed: May

24, 2006
ALLERGAN FINANCE, LLC, f/k/a Actavis, Inc., et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. State of Florida, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1834

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Christopher D SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0325

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 2019 Rehearing Denied August 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
'Hon. T. M. Trimble Opinion No. O-3352 

First Assistant State Superintendent Public Instruction Re: Annexation of Territory 

Austin, Texas to Junior College District 

Dear Sir: 

We are in receipt of your request for an opinion of 

March 28, 1941, concerning a junior college district for Galveston County, which is accompanied by letters from the County 

School Superintendent and Presidentof the Board of Trustees of 

the City of Galveston. 

It appears that the City of Galveston many years ago 

assumed control of the public schools within its limits and in 

1935 created by vote of its citizens, as provided in Article 

2815h, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, a Junior College District 

within said city. Subsequently, an attempt to vote a maintenance 

tax for the Junior College District was defeated and the Junior 

College for that reason has not functioned as suoh. A movement 

has been instituted to bring this Junior College District into 

operation and also extend it so as to include the remainder of the 

County outside the City of Galveston. Several questions are asked 

concerning the procedure to be followed with reference to Sections 

4 and 17, of Article 2815h, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, bowever 

we think the procedure set in Section 21 of said statute adequately disposes of the various inquiries. 

Section 21 of Article 2815h, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, reads as follows: 

Wet. 21. (Annexation of districts to junior 

college district.)- An independent school district, 

or districts, a common school district or districts, 

may be annexed to a junior college district for 

junior college purposes only, by an election as provided in Section 2 hereof, upon petition of five per 

cent of the property taxpaying voters in such district 

or districts seeking to be annexed, provided further 

that such annexation shall have been previously approved by the board of trustees of the junior college 

district and provided further that election for suah 

annexation shall be called and the results canvassed 
Hon. T. M. Trimble, page 2, (O-3352) 

and declared by the aounty board of eduoation 

or the county commissioners's court of the county, 

in oase there is no county board of education, 

provided further that the territory included in 

such annexed district shall thereby assume its 

share or any outstanding bonded indebtedness of 

the junror oollege district, in proportion to the 

assessed valuation within the said district, and 

shall also beaome liable for taxes for maintaining 

the junior college." 

It is our opinion that a junior college district including all the territory in Galveston County may be formed by following the annexation procedure provided in the above quoted statute. 

It would also be necessary, of course, to vote a maintenanae tax 

for said district. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By /c/ Cecil C. Cammack 

Cecil C, Cammack, Assistant 

APPROVED MAY 7, 1941 

/s/ Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY: BWB, CHAIRMAN 

CCC:lh:wb
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CEDRIC LAMONT CRAWFORD, )

)

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4904

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed August 21, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and

Christopher Desrochers, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and David Campbell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Graham v. State, 207 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 2016); Valdes v. 

State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009). 
- 2 -

KHOUZAM, C.J., LUCAS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10053]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Acadia National Park Advisory Commission; Meeting

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. Ap. 1, sec. 10), 
that the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission will hold a meeting 
on Monday, May 15, 1995.
    The Commission was established pursuant to Pub. L. 99-420, sec. 
103. The purpose of the commission is to consult with the Secretary of 
the Interior, or his designee, on matters relating to the management 
and development of the park, including but not limited to the 
acquisition of lands and interests in lands (including conservation 
easements on islands) and termination of rights of use and occupancy.
    The meeting will convene park headquarters, Acadia National Park, 
Rt. 233, Bar Harbor, Maine, at 1 p.m. to consider the following agenda:
    1. Review and approval of minutes from the meeting held December 
12, 1994.
    2. Report of the Conservation Easement Subcommittee.
    3. Report of the Acquisition Subcommittee.
    4. Report of the GMP Subcommittee.
    5. Superintendent's report.
    6. Public comments.
    7. Proposed agenda and date of next Commission meeting.
    The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make 
oral/written presentations to the Commission or file written 
statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent at least 
seven days prior to the meeting.
    Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from 
the Superintendent, Acadia National Park, PO Box 177, Bar Harbor, Maine 
04609, tel: (207) 288-3338.
Chrysandra L. Walter,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 95-10053 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
John J. WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-0163

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40616

Summary Calendar

CARLOS KIDD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RICK THALER, DIRECTOR,TDCJ; RALPH BALES,Prisoner Rape Elimination

Act Ombudsman; BRAD LIVINGSTON, Executive DirectorTDCJ; NATHANIEL

QUARTERMAN, Institutional Director; STATE CLASSIFICATION

COMMITTEE; REGION 1 DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE; D. MORRIS, Assistant Region 1 Director; LYNN SHARPE, Safe

Prisons Program Coordinator; CODY GINSEL, Senior Warden; G. CURRIE,

Assistant Warden; S. MILLER, Assistant Warden; K. WILLIAMS, Unit

Classification Chief; MAJOR BRYANT, Major; KRIS C. COLLINS, Captain;

TOD N. ALLEN, Captain; SANDIE M. VINCENT, Lieutenant; RICHARD A.

ADCOCK, Lieutenant; EDWARD B. SELLS, Lieutenant; CHRISTOPHER L.

NORSWORTHY, Sergeant; ROGELIO A. GARCIA, Sergeant; ROYCE D.

JACKSON, Sergeant; TONYA BUTLER, Sergeant; JASON L. ODOM, Sergeant;

JOHNNY L. MILLS, Sergeant; PATRICE GOODMAN, Sergeant; PHILIP R.

WHIGHAM, Sergeant; ANDREW D. YANOCK, Sergeant; OFFICER NEAL,

Correctional Officer V; CLINTON A. ARD, Correctional Officer IV; MYRON

BADGER, Correctional Officer II; JOSEPH A. CLARK, JR., Correctional Officer

II; JEREMIAH D. COULTER, Correctional Officer II; CARLOS A. DELGADO,

Correctional Officer III; JUSTIN E. ANDRESS, Correctional Officer I; CHERYL

A. GORDON, Correctional Officer III; BILLY MCGUIRE, Correctional Officer

II; ALICE MAGEE, Correctional Officer IV; DETRA A. MONROE, Correctional

Officer III; JOHN A. SCROGGINS, Correctional Officer III,

Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 11-40616 Document: 00511759807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2012
No. 11-40616

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:11-CV-18

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Kidd, Texas prisoner # 1079464, filed a civil action, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging threats to his life and safety on the Gib Lewis Unit. He

now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a mandatory injunction. 

During the pendency of this interlocutory appeal, the district court dismissed

Kidd’s § 1983 action. The court’s dismissal of Kidd’s § 1983 action as well as

Kidd’s transfer from the Gib Lewis Unit render his instant interlocutory appeal

moot. See 11A Charles Alan Wright Et Al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2947

at 126 n.19 (2d ed. 1995) (citing Venezia v. Robinson, 16 F.3d 209, 211 (7th Cir.

1994)); Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, Kidd’s interlocutory appeal, which challenges only the denial

of injunctive relief, is DISMISSED.

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

2

Case: 11-40616 Document: 00511759807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2012
David S. HASTINGS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kelli E. HASTINGS, a/k/a Kelli E. Ross, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2180

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
-1- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 

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 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION OF ACT | THE APP 

ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN 

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION 

TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION FOR STAY 

PENDING APPEAL 

Place: Courtroom 8 

Judge: Hon. Lucy Koh 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1504 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK 

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 

Good cause appearing, the motion of ACT | The App Association for leave to file a brief as 

amicus curiae is hereby GRANTED. 

DATED: _______________, 2019 By: 

Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

June 12

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1504 Filed 06/12/19 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7065

ANTHONY JAMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(1:13-cv-02292-TMC)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony James, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, 

MCDONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony James appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on James’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

James v. Cartledge, No. 1:13-cv-02292-TMC (D.S.C. July 7, 2014). 

We deny James’ motion for transportation to medical appointments 

outside the prison. 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 process.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




G-III Apparel Group, Ltd.

512 Seventh Avenue

New York, New York 10018




January 28, 2009




Sammy Aaron

17 Ormond Park Road

Brookville, New York 11545





			
	           Re:	 	Employment Agreement





Dear Sammy:




     Reference is made to the Employment Agreement, dated July 11, 2005, as amended October 3, 2008
(as so amended, the “Employment Agreement”), between G-III Apparel Group, Ltd. and you.



     This letter agreement, when executed by you, shall constitute our agreement that, for the six
month period commencing February 1, 2009, your salary pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Employment
Agreement shall be paid at the rate of $600,000 per year.



     This Letter Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and
the same agreement. Any signature delivered by a party by facsimile transmission, or in “PDF”
format circulated by electronic means, shall be deemed to be an original signature hereto.



     If the foregoing accurately sets forth our agreement, please execute this letter and return it
to the undersigned.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	G-III APPAREL GROUP, LTD.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Wayne Miller
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Wayne Miller	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Chief Operating Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Accepted and agreed to:
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Sammy Aaron
 


	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SAMMY AARON
AMERICAN TREE CARE SERVICES AND HARBOR SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY & ENSTAR (US) INC., Appellants, v. Eric BUNDSHUH, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4939

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Richard FIGUEREDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3120

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 28, 2019

Richard Figueredo, Miami, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM.

*230Richard Figueredo appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, wherein he argued that the five-year driver's license suspension imposed on him by the trial court was illegal. We agree and reverse.

After entering a plea to trafficking in methamphetamine, Figueredo was sentenced to serve seven years in the Department of Corrections as a habitual felony offender (HFO). The trial court also ordered his driver's license suspended for a period of five years.

Section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides a basis for the revocation of a driver's license based upon a conviction involving a controlled substance, as follows:

> Notwithstanding s. 322.28, upon the conviction of a person 18 years of age or older for possession or sale of, trafficking in, or conspiracy to possess, sell, or traffic in a controlled substance, the court shall direct the department to revoke the driver license or driving privilege of the person. The period of such revocation shall be *1 year or until the person is evaluated for and, if deemed necessary by the evaluating agency, completes a drug treatment and rehabilitation program approved or regulated by the Department of Children and Families*. However, the court may, in its sound discretion, direct the department to issue a license for driving privilege restricted to business or employment purposes only, as defined by s. 322.271, if the person is otherwise qualified for such a license. A driver whose license or driving privilege has been suspended or revoked under this section or s. 322.056 may, upon the expiration of 6 months, petition the department for restoration of the driving privilege on a restricted or unrestricted basis depending on length of suspension or revocation. In no case shall a restricted license be available until 6 months of the suspension or revocation period has expired.

(Emphasis added). The trial court offered no explanation for the length of the suspension other than to suggest it was lawful based on Figueredo's designation as an HFO. This was error.

Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand with directions that the trial court grant the motion and direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke Figueredo's driver's license as provided in section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes.

REVERSE and REMAND.

COHEN, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CSNK WORKING CAPITAL FINANCE 

CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEXT CREATION HOLDINGS.

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-00305-VKD 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On February 26, 2018, plaintiff CSNK Working Capital Finance Corp. d/b/a Bay View 

Funding (“Bay View”) notified the Court that this action had conditionally settled. Dkt. No. 65. 

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause, setting the show cause hearing for May 29, 2018 and 

requiring the parties to file a response by May 22, 2018. Dkt. No. 66. The parties failed to file a 

response to the show cause order, and further failed to appear at the hearing. Dkt. No. 68.

On August 31, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be 

Dismissed, advising the parties that it would dismiss the action unless either party filed an 

objection to dismissal or unless the parties filed a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Dkt. No. 70. Neither party filed objections to dismissal, nor did the 

parties file a stipulated dismissal. 

Both parties have appeared and consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 8, 

13. The Court therefore DISMISSES the action. All hearings and deadlines are vacated. The 

Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

///
2

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

Dated: September 19, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge
CitiMortgage, Inc.
4000 Regent Blvd., 3rd Floor
Irving, TX 75063
Attention: Master Servicing Division, John Guyon


      Re: Annual Compliance Statement for BAFC 2007-6

      In connection with the loans serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
      (the "Company") pursuant to the Company's Servicing
      Agreement(s)/Purchase and Sale Agreement(s) with Bank of America
      National Association and any applicable Reconstitution
      Agreement(s) (together, the "Transaction Agreements"), I, the
      undersigned officer, hereby certify the following as of December
      31, 2007:

      (i)     The Company conducted a review of its activities during
              the immediately preceding calendar year (or applicable
              portion thereof) and of its performance under the
              Transaction Agreements during such period has been made
              under my supervision; and

      (ii)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
              Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
              Transaction Agreements in all material respects
              throughout such calendar year (or applicable portion
              thereof), except as follows:

           -  SunTrust Mortgage did not maintain the required fidelity
              bond coverage amount in accordance with Section
              229.1122(d)(i)(iv) at all times during 2007. The Company
              maintained fidelity bond coverage in the amount of $150MM
              throughout calendar year 2007, which was determined to be
              insufficient according to applicable FNMA transaction
              agreement terms. This deficiency was an issue for limited
              portions of the year and resulted from an increase in the
              volume of the servicing portfolio. SunTrust Mortgage has
              requested a waiver from FNMA stating this coverage amount
              is adequate without regard for the size of the
              residential servicing portfolio, subject to an annual
              FNMA review. FNMA has verbally agreed to this request,
              and SunTrust Mortgage is working to formalize this
              agreement.



      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereby certify the foregoing as of the
      date hereof.




      /s/John R. Purcell, Jr.
      ------------------------------------
      John R. Purcell, Jr.
      Senior Vice President - Manager, Servicing Division

      Date:  March 12, 2008