alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

FRANKLYN A. SANCHEZ-ARROYO,

Appellant,

Case No. 5D22-1457 

v. LT Case No. 2021-101016-CFDL 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed April 25, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Volusia County, 

James R. Clayton, Judge. 

Mathew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali 

L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender,

Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EISNAUGLE, JAY and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal L 36I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 036I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 642 February 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 036I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 642 February 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | * | Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/119 of 1 February 2021 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/119 of 1 February 2021 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/1475 on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp.(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jasmine Gregory, the Chief 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.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending  March 31, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  August 13, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | ---------------------------------------
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50816

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LAQUINCE THOMAS, also known as La-Quince De-France Thomas

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-270-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Laquince Thomas appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the district

court following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the

sentence, which was the maximum allowed by statute and was above the

suggested range set forth by the Sentencing Guidelines, was greater than

necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Thomas’s

sentence will be affirmed if it is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50816

2

See United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir. 2008); United States

v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005). 

In less than 18 months of supervised release, Thomas had multiple

positive drug tests, failed two attempts at drug rehabilitation, and was arrested

on three occasions. During his latest arrest, officers had to use a taser and

pepper spray to bring him under control. In addition, the district court

appropriately focused on Thomas’s unabated drug addiction and the

ineffectiveness of non-prison sanctions in treating that addiction. The sentence

was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         276,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,462,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,314
<INVENTORY>                                    226,062
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,016,715
<PP&E>                                          40,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                 314,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,728,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,650,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,057,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,728,680
<SALES>                                         43,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,915
<CGS>                                           20,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,064,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (961,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (961,014)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of U-Need-A-Roll Off Corporation, Petitioner, v New York State Tax Commission, Respondent.

Mikoll, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which held petitioner liable for deficiencies in payment of sales or use taxes imposed under Tax Law article 28.

Petitioner is a trash removal company which charges its customers various rates for supplying containers and compactors (referred to collectively as containers) for collection of their refuse. The containers are left with customers until petitioner is requested to unload or remove them. Petitioner utilizes trucks especially equipped to automatically unload these containers, but does not provide trash removal service without some type of container being supplied to the customer. Occasionally, petitioner rents out a container without providing trash removal services.

During the period in question, petitioner paid no sales tax on purchases of these containers, claiming that such were purchased for resale and consequently exempt from sales tax. After a field audit, such purchases were determined to be subject to sales tax and, therefore, a notice of sales tax deficiency was issued. After a hearing, respondent ruled that certain of the purchases were time barred but the remainder were found to be subject to the sales tax without exemption. Petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding, which was transferred to this court by Special Term.

Tax Law § 1105 (a) imposes a sales tax on “receipts from every retail sale of tangible personal property”. However, where a purchaser acquires such property for the purpose of resale, which includes rental (Tax Law § 1101 [b]; *see, Matter of Albany Calcium Light Co. v State Tax Commn.,*44 NY2d 986, 987), the purchase is exempt from sales tax (Tax Law § 1101 [b] [4]).

*458Respondent construed the term “resale”, in the circumstances of this case, as requiring a billing method whereby a separate charge for rental is specified either on the bill to the customer or in petitioner’s fee structure. Insofar as this construction elevates form over substance, it is erroneous, for it is the substance of a transaction which controls rather than the form it takes (see, *Matter of Burger King v State Tax Commn.,*51 NY2d 614, 623). Respondent should have examined the evidence with a view towards determining whether a rental arrangement existed in substance. The method of billing should not be the determinative factor *(supra; see also, Matter of Concrete Delivery Co. v State Tax Commn.,*71 AD2d 330, 331-332, *lv denied*49 NY2d 709). Respondent’s determination, based upon an insufficient and improper standard, must be annulled and the matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith *(Matter of Parkmed Assoc, v New York State Tax Commn.,*60 NY2d 935, 936).

Determination annulled, with costs, and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       8,650,817
<SECURITIES>                                 2,939,448
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,326,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,990,704
<PP&E>                                      17,607,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                 223,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,177,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,664,615
<BONDS>                                      9,981,235
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,349,841
<COMMON>                                    10,808,703
<OTHER-SE>                                   (101,133)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,177,684
<SALES>                                     13,088,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,260,249
<CGS>                                        8,108,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,945,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             561,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                135,095
<INCOME-TAX>                                    58,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             76,695
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 53,097
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,598
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
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

I, Scott
Sullinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2006
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

Date: June 14, 2006



By:

/s/ Scott SullingerName:

Scott SullingerTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 60 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 60

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2012

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
November 15, 2012, through Friday, November 16, 2012, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on 
Monday, November 26, 2012, or such other time on that day as may be 
specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and 
that when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, 
November 16, 2012, through Friday, November 23, 2012, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 
November 27, 2012, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1





Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of AHL Services, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Dated: May 9, 2003



| |  | Name:  |  | /s/ A. Clayton Perfall 
| |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AHL Services, Inc. and will be retained by AHL Services Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exhibit103.htm


    ADDENDUM
TO

     

    EXECUTIVE
CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

     

    


     

    THIS
ADDENDUM dated as of December 11, 2009 (“Addendum”) to the EXECUTIVE CHANGE
IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT dated as of March 11, 2009 between the
parties hereto (the “Agreement”), is entered into between Columbia Laboratories,
Inc., a Delaware corporation having its corporate offices at 354 Eisenhower
Parkway, Livingston, New Jersey (“Columbia” or the “Company”), and Robert S.
Mills (“Executive”).

     

    WITNESSETH:

     

    WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive desire to enter into this Addendum to amend the
Agreement

     

    NOW
THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     

    1.           Section
2(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the existing text in its
entirety and replacing it with the following:

     

    “(b)           Base
Salary.   “Base Salary” shall mean the greatest of (i) the annual
rate of base salary in effect for Executive at the time of the Qualifying
Termination, (ii) the annual rate of base salary in effect for Executive at the
time of the Change in Control, and (iii) $390,000.”

     

    2.           The
following Section 2(e) of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the
following sentence to the end thereof:

     

    “Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Company agrees that from and after January 1, 2010
through the date that is 90 days after the Board appoints a permanent Chief
Executive Officer, without the designation “Interim”, Executive may terminate
this Agreement for Good Reason, without the need to specify the reason
therefor.”

     

    3.           This
Addendum shall become effective as of December 15, 2009.

     

    4.           Except
as amended as set forth above, the Agreement remains in full force and
effect.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates set
forth below.

     

    


     

    EXECUTIVE                                                                                     COLUMBIA
LABORATORIES, INC.

     

    


     

    /S/ Robert S.
Mills                                                                           By:  /S/ Stephen G.
Kasnet

    Robert S.
Mills                                                                                 Name:
Stephen G. Kasnet

                                                          Title:
Chairman

     

    Date:  December
11,
2009                                                               Date:  December
11, 2009
#### Ozie M. WARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodney PRUITT; J.E. Patsourakos, Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and Judge A W Flynn; Officer Griffin, Defendants.

No. 11-1210.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

*172Ozie M. Ware, Appellant Pro Se. Evan Markus Gessner, Lide & Pauley, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ozie M. Ware appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ summary judgment motion on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action against them. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Ware’s informal brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ware’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s dispositive holdings, Ware has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.**See Ware v. Pruitt,*No. 1:09-cv-02360-MBS, 2011 WL 703666 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 Because the timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of a district court order adopting that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance, *see Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985), Ware also waived appellate review over the district court’s order by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>  0001000450
<NAME> COMCAST LCI HOLDINGS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            145
<SECURITIES>                                      159
<RECEIVABLES>                                      31
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (5)
<INVENTORY>                                         3
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                          1,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (531)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                         1,492
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (190)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,545
<SALES>                                           543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  543
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   (493)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (126)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (51)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (34)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     70
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                       36
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>