alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JERRY LEWIS JONES, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3645

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, 

Judge.

Jerry Lewis Jones, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Jones v. State, 60 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table 

decision); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 

2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Jones v. State, 901 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (table 

decision); Anderson v. State, 779 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harris v. State, 777 

So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

MORRIS, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.
---

---

Exhibit 14.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12904) pertaining to the
Employees Share Purchase Plan and the Share Incentive Plan of Tikcro Technologies
Ltd. of our report dated June 25, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Tikcro Technologies Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
year ended December 31, 2006.

|                 |                                    
|---------------- | -----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|                 | /s/ KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER
|                 |                                    
|June 26, 2007    | KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER    
|Tel-Aviv, Israel | A Member of Ernst & Young Global   



---

---
| Ø | Contract      number: NO.81101200800001465; |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Loan      principal: RMB 131 million; |
|--------|---------------------------------------|

| Ø | Loan      term: from the date loan is provided to December 31,  2008; |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Floating      interest rate: annually 6.21%, adjusted every 3  months; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | n | Penalty      interest rate for delayed repayment: 6.21% plus 50%  *6.21%; |
|--------|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | n | Penalty      interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 6.21%  *1; |
|--------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Purpose      of the loan is to provide working capital for purchasing raw      materials; |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Advanced      repayment of loan needs to be approved by the  Creditor; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Breach      of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract; suspension of loan      un-provided, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before      maturity; imposition of punitive interest incurred due to delayed loan;      imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of      plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any accounts of the      Company the loan principal and interest; compensation for the Creditor’s      expenses incurred due to the Company’s breach of contract such as lawyer’s      fee. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Guarantee      contract for this loan agreement: Guarantee Contract of Maximum Amount      (No. 81905200800000212); |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Supplemental:      The Company undertakes to pledge the Land Use Right      Certificate(“Certificate”) of BAK Industrial Park to the Creditor as soon      as obtaining the Certificate; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
ex10-32_f10k12312009.htm


    Exhibit
10.31

     

    
      
         

        
          	
                  OIS

                  221
      Lathrop Way, Suite I

                  Sacramento, CA
      95815  

                  USA   

                	
                  www.oisi.com

                  main 088.338.8436

                  fax 916.646.0207

                   

                


        

              

      

    

    
 

    October
30, 2009

    VIA
Facsimile and mail

    


    Jonathan
R. Phillips

    792
Chatham Avenue

    Elmhurst,
ILL 60126

    


    


    Re:           Ophthalmic Imaging Systems Board
Membership – Addendum 1

    


    


    Dear
Jonathan:

    


    The
following has been changed to your OIS Board Membership Agreement dated August
31, 2007 to outline your new compensation structure:

    


    Effective
October 1, 2009,

    


    The
Company will pay an annual retainer in the amount of $20,000, payable in
4  equal quarterly installments of  $5,000.  The
Company will also reimburse for travel expenses according to the Company’s
travel policy.

    


    Please
indicate your formal acceptance of the foregoing by signing and dating where
indicated below.  At your earliest convenience, please return via
facsimile the executed copy of page 2 to the attention of Mr. Gil Allon at the
Company’s offices at (916) 565-0415.

    


    Again,
thank you for your continued efforts as a board member during this very exciting
time for the Company.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    /s/ Uri Ram                
                                           

    Uri
Ram

    Chairman
of the Board of Directors

    Ophthalmic
Imaging Systems

    


    


    Approved:

    


    /s/ Jonathan R.
Phillips              
                                                      

    Jonathan
R. Phillips

    


    Date :
11/9/09

     

    
       

      
        	Better
      Insight.  Better Sight.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT WILLIE JUNIOR BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-1346 November 15, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michael S. Williams, Judge. Willie Junior Brown, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. KELLY, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edgar Carlton, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered October 14, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Neither , the defendant nor his attorney made any objection when the sentencing court imposed the mandatory surcharge of $100 *(see,*Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a]). Further, the record contains no indication that the defendant either applied for resentencing pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5) or otherwise sought a waiver of the surcharge on the basis that payment of it would "work an unreasonable hardship” (CPL 420.35). The defendant’s argument on appeal that the sentencing court abused its discretion in failing to waive the surcharge is therefore not preserved for review *(see, People v Baker,*130 AD2d 582). The defendant’s arguments concerning the constitutionality of the mandatory surcharge are meritless *(see, People v Barnes,*62 NY2d 702; *People v Brown,*105 AD2d 509). In any event, the defendant’s application for a waiver of the surcharge is premature *(see, People v Peralta,*127 AD2d 803, *lv denied*69 NY2d 953). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following entities, unless otherwise indicated, are wholly-owned direct or
indirect subsidiaries of the Registrant as of September 30, 2006.



|                                              |  |                                 
|--------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Name                                          |  | State or Country of Organization
|Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J) |  | Florida                         
|PBS&J Construction Services, Inc.             |  | Florida                         
|PBS&J Constructors, Inc.                      |  | Florida                         
|Seminole Development, Inc.                    |  | Florida                         
|Seminole Development II, Inc.                 |  | Florida                         
|Post, Buckley International, Inc.             |  | Florida                         
|Durham Technologies, Inc.                     |  | Virginia                        
|Welker & Associates, Inc.                     |  | Georgia                         
|Tri-Line Associates, Inc.                     |  | Pennsylvania                    
|W. Koo & Associates, Inc.                     |  | California                      
|Croslin & Associates, Inc.                    |  | Texas                           
|Land & Water Consulting, Inc.                 |  | Montana                         
|EIP Associates                                |  | California                      
|PBS&J Caribe Engineering, CSP                 |  | Puerto Rico
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certifications**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Chris E. Paterson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Patient Infosystems, Inc. (the “Company”), and Glen A. Spence, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

|   | **1.** | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **2.** | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report. |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 31st day of March, 2006.

| /s/ Chris E. Paterson

Chris E. Paterson

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) | /s/ Glen A. Spence

Glen A. Spence

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

This certification “accompanies” the Annual Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Annual Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit
31.1**
   *Certification*
   I,
Michael Lewis, certify that:
   1.  I have
reviewed this Form 10-QSB of eLinear, 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 small business issuer as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
   4.  The small
business issuer'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)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 be designed 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; and
   c.  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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.
   5.  The small
business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.
  Date: May
20, 2005
 
 
 /s/
Michael Lewis ________________________
 Michael
Lewis, Chief Executive Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2548 

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to a national pediatric 

research network. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 

a national pediatric research network. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pediatric Research Im5 provement Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL PEDIATRIC RESEARCH NETWORK. 

7 Section 409D(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 284h(d)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2548 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘in consultation with the 

2 Director of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Na3 tional Institute of Child Health and Human 

4 Development and in collaboration with other 

5 appropriate national research institutes and na6 tional centers that carry out activities involving 

7 pediatric research’’ and inserting ‘‘in collabora8 tion with the national research institutes and 

9 national centers that carry out activities involv10 ing pediatric research’’; 

11 (B) by striking subparagraph (B); 

12 (C) by striking ‘‘may be comprised of, as 

13 appropriate’’ and all that follows through ‘‘the 

14 pediatric research consortia’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘may be comprised of, as appropriate, the pedi16 atric research consortia’’; and 

17 (D) by striking ‘‘; or’’ at the end and in18 serting a period; and 

19 (2) in paragraph (1), paragraph (2)(A), the 

20 first sentence of paragraph (2)(E), and paragraph 

21 (4), by striking ‘‘may’’ each place it appears and in22 serting ‘‘shall’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

WILLIAM PENNY PEARCE

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number: 2023-0357

Enforcement Activity Number: 7806100

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION AND CONSENT ORDER 

APPROVING AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This matter comes before me on the United States Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Notice of 

Withdrawal and Substitution of Settlement Agreement (Notice of Withdrawal), filed on

November 8, 2023. The Coast Guard initiated this proceeding on October 10, 2023, by filing a 

Complaint. On October 13, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Motion for Approval of Settlement 

Agreement and Entry of Consent Order (Motion for Approval). In the Notice of Withdrawal, the 

Coast Guard states it identified errors in the original settlement agreement filed on October 13, 

2023, and seeks to substitute that settlement agreement with an amended settlement agreement. 

I will construe the Notice of Withdrawal as a motion requesting substitution of the 

original settlement agreement with the amended settlement agreement submitted with the Notice 

of Withdrawal. Having done so, I GRANT the Coast Guard’s motion.

Turning to the amended settlement agreement and the Coast Guard’s request for approval 

thereof, I have carefully reviewed the request and the terms of the agreement and find they are 

fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

WHEREFORE,
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Coast Guard’s Notice of Withdrawal is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the Motion for Approval is GRANTED, and the 

amended settlement agreement, signed by the parties on October 31, 2023, and submitted for 

approval on November 8, 2023, is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. 

This Consent Order shall constitute full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the telephonic pre-hearing conference scheduled for 

November 14, 2023, is CANCELLED.

Done and dated November 13, 2023,

at Baltimore, Maryland

Hon. Lineka N. Quijano 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0355 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MISTY JADE MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 26, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 19 2021

01/19/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0355
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

HARRY W. ANDERSON, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 329, 2019 

§ 

§ Court Below: Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1206018361(N) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Submitted: August 14, 2019 

Decided: August 16, 2019 

Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 

it appears to the Court that: 

(1) On July 30, 2019, the appellant, Harry Anderson, filed a notice of 

appeal from a Superior Court order dated and docketed on June 26, 2019, in which 

the Superior Court denied Anderson’s motion for correction of an illegal sentence 

and denied his motion for reargument of the court’s denial of postconviction relief. 

Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or 

before July 26, 2019. 
2 

(2) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 

jurisdiction.1

 The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of 

appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing 

is attributable to court-related personnel.2

(3) On July 30, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 

Anderson to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. 

In response to the notice to show cause, Anderson attributes the delay to the prison 

mail system, stating that he deposited the notice of appeal into the prison mail system 

at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center on July 22, 2019. To demonstrate the 

date of mailing, Anderson has submitted a copy of his inmate account statement, 

which reflects charges for postage on July 22, 2019. 

(4) Anderson’s response to the notice to show cause does not provide a 

basis for excusing the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. A notice of appeal 

must be received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3

 

Delaware has not adopted a rule similar to the federal prison mailbox rule, which 

deems a notice of appeal as filed at the time it is delivered to prison authorities for 

mailing.4

 Because the record does not reflect that Anderson’s failure to file a timely 

 

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 

2 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 

3

 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 

4 Schafferman v. State, 2016 WL 5929953 (Del. Oct. 11, 2016). 
3 

notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal must be 

dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice