alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 24, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No s

. 3D23

- 1287 & 3D23

- 1304 Lower Tribunal No. 2 3

- 6429 CC

________________ 

### Miami - Dade County , Appellant,

vs. 

### Louise Davis, et al. , Appellee s

.

A ppeal s from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Diana Gonzalez

- Whyte , Judge. Geraldine Bonzon

- Keenan, Miami

- Dade County Attorney, and Sabrina Levin and Christopher J. Wahl, Assistant County Attorneys , for appellant

. L. Turner Law, P.A., and Lauren N. Peffer ( Boca Raton ) , for appellee s

.
Before SCA LE S , GORDO and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM.2

In this consolidated case, Miami

- Dade County appeals both (i) a July 15, 2023 injunction order ( case number 3D23

- 1287), and (ii) a July 18, 2023 order that voided a March 30, 2023 ex parte final order that authorized the County to confiscate appellees Louise and William Scott Davis ’ s allegedly dangerous dog ( case number 3D23

- 1304). The July 18 th order also found section 767.12 of the Florida Statutes to be “an unconstitutional delegation of power

. ” We consolidated the two appeals. Because both challenged orders were entered after the Davis e s appeal ed the March 30 th ex parte final order ( case number 3D23

- 0 575), but before the Davis e s voluntarily dismissed that appeal in October 2023, both of the challenged orders were rendered while the trial court was divested of jurisdiction. Fonseca v. Taverna Imps

. , Inc. , 193 So. 3d 92, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“It is well settled that . . . a trial court is divested of jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal. Accordingly, a trial court i s without jurisdiction to modify a judgment, while that judgment is pending on appeal, in the absence of the appellate court relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court for that purpose.”) (citation s omitted)

. Therefore, without reaching the merits, we quash both orders as having been entered while the trial court was without jurisdiction over the

case. See Bemben v. Chock , 938 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)

.3

Orders quashed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



 
 

Exhibit 10.4    
    


 
 

AMENDMENT NO. 2
  TO THE
  WITNESS SYSTEMS, INC.
  AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN    
    


        THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE WITNESS SYSTEMS, INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (this "Amendment") is made effective as of the    
day of            , 2004, by Witness Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Company"). 


W I T N E S S E T H:  


        WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted and currently maintains the Witness Systems, Inc. Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan); and 


        WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan to prohibit the repricing
of any stock options granted under the Plan without express prior stockholder approval; 


        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises contained herein, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 


	1.
	The
Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph of Section 13 of the Plan in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following: 


Section 13.

Amendment or Termination 




This
Plan may be amended by the Board from time to time to the extent that the Board deems necessary or appropriate; provided, however, no such amendment shall be made absent the approval of the
shareholders of the Company: (a) to increase the number of Shares reserved under Section 3, except as set forth in Section 11, (b) to extend the maximum life of the Plan
under Section 10 or the maximum exercise period under Section 7, (c) to decrease the minimum Exercise Price under Section 7, (d) to change the designation of
Employees or Key Persons eligible for Stock Incentives under Section 6 or (e) to reprice any outstanding stock option grants. 




	2.
	This
Amendment is subject to, and shall become effective only upon, approval thereof by the Company's stockholders.



	3.
	Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given them in the Plan.



	4.
	Except
as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Amendment. 


1





 

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Witness Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock
Incentive Plan to be executed as of the day and year first above written. 



	 	 	WITNESS SYSTEMS, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	

 David B. Gould

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




2









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.4


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE WITNESS SYSTEMS, INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
V 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1673

For the relief of Laura Maldonado Caetani. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2005

Mr. FORTUN ̃O introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Laura Maldonado Caetani.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LAURA 

4 MALDONADO CAETANI. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Laura Maldonado Caetani shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 
2

•HR 1673 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Laura Maldonado 

2 Caetani enters the United States before the filing deadline 

3 specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have 

4 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi5 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 

6 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 

7 the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Laura Maldonado Caetani, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3

•HR 1673 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Laura Maldonado Caetani 

2 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 

3 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na4 tionality Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.:3:14-MC-11-JEM

)

RYAN ANDERSEN d/b/a )

RYNO MANAGEMENT, )

Respondent. )

OPINION

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Hearing or Dismissal [DE 15], filed by

Respondent, pro se, January 22, 2015. Respondent requests the Court dismiss the compliance ordered

by this Court with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) administrative subpoena. 

Respondent previously filed a Motion for Hearing or Dismissal on December 17, 2014. The

Petitioner responded January 5, 2015, and the Respondent did not reply. The Court denied the motion

January 22, 2015, the same day the instant Motion was filed. The instant Motion does not provide any

new facts to deny enforcement of the EPA’s subpoena, but merely restates Respondent’s objection to the

amount of requested information. Accordingly, the Court’s analysis contained in its January 22, 2015,

Order and Opinion, which Respondent may not have yet received at the time of the instant Motion,

continues to apply. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Motion for Hearing or Dismissal [DE 15].

The Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the Court’s January 22, 2015, Order

and Opinion [DE 14]. 

SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2015.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record;

Ryan Andersen, pro se