alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ADAM JEFFREY KATZ, P.A., a Fl orida professional association,

and ADAM J. KATZ, individually

, Appellant s ,

v.

ANIEL JEROME
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2835

[ June 13, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Cymonie S. Rowe , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502013CA011596XXXXMB

.

Richard S. Lubliner of Lubliner Kish PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Evans v. McDonald , 313 F . App ’ x. 256, 257 (11th Cir. 2009) ( noting expert testimony in legal malpractice action is not required where “the lawyer's lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact

can resolve the issue as a matter of common knowledge ”); Suritz v. Kelner

, 155 So. 2d 831, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) ( finding expert testimony was unnecessary where j ury could find the attorney was negligent based on the facts presented by the plaintiff)

.

W ARNER
, T AYLOR and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
HOUSING AUTHORITY v. PARTEE.

No. 183P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Adam Shestak, for Housing Authority.

John Roseboro, for Housing Authority.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of April 2008 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion for Stay dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."
STATE v. OXENDINE.

No. COA07-1162.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Robeson (04CRS53161, 04CRS53162, 04CRS53160).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND 

WAIVER OF CERTAIN RIGHTS 

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on the date first set forth below, between Theresa Wasko (“Employee”), Riverview Bank
(“Bank”), and Riverview Financial Corporation, (“Corporation”) (collectively, “the parties”). 
 2. The
parties entered into an Employment Agreement on January 27, 2009 (“Employment Agreement”). 
 3. The parties wish to alter
Employee’s job title and job duties. 
 4. Corporation and Bank agrees to pay Employee a total of $10,000 as a lump sum in exchange for
the waiver below. 
 5. In exchange for good and valid consideration as outlined in Paragraph 3, and intending to be legally bound, Employee
agrees to waive her rights under Paragraph 3(c) of the Employment Agreement insofar as it defines “Good Reason” to include “the assignment of duties and responsibilities inconsistent with Executive’s status as CFO.” 

6. The parties further reaffirm that, in the event Employee is involuntarily terminated by Corporation and Bank without Cause—other than
where Corporation and Bank explicitly characterize the termination as a “nonrenewal” under Section 3 of the Agreement—Employee’s exclusive rights to further compensation or benefits are set forth in Sections 5, 6, and 7 of
the Employment Agreement. 
 7. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. 
  

									
	ATTEST:	 		 	RIVERVIEW FINANCIAL CORPORATION
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Scott A. Seasock
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Kirk D. Fox

		 	Scott A. Seasock	 		 		 	Kirk D. Fox, Chief Executive Officer
				
		 		 		 	RIVERVIEW BANK
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Scott A. Seasock
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Kirk D. Fox

		 	Scott A. Seasock	 		 		 	Kirk D. Fox, Chief Executive Officer
			
	 WITNESS:
	 		 	EXECUTIVE
			
	 /s/ Scott A. Seasock
	 		 	 /s/ Theresa Wasko

	 Scott A. Seasock
	 		 	Theresa Wasko
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000930803
<NAME>                        Hauppauge Digital, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,736,065
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,610,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                   120,000
<INVENTORY>                                    9,402,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               23,911,359
<PP&E>                                         1,089,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                 436,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 24,619,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,764,834
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       45,216
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,809,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,619,694
<SALES>                                        29,569,767
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               29,569,767
<CGS>                                          21,525,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,123,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               19,916
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               20,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,940,203
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,122,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,818,203
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,818,203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.39
        


</TABLE>
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

THEATER GROUP 3, LLC, and THEATER 

GROUP IV, INC., 

 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

UNPUBLISHED 

November 13, 2014 

v No. 317393 

Wayne Circuit Court 

SECURA INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 10-014862-CK 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: FITZGERALD, P.J., and WILDER and OWENS, JJ. 

WILDER, J. (concurring). 

 For the reasons articulated in the lead opinion, I agree that the arbitrator did not exceed 

her authority and that the trial court did not err when it refused to partially vacate the arbitrator’s 

opinion and award. I join that aspect of the lead opinion in full. However, for the reasons 

articulated below, I would not address the question whether the trial court erred in its ruling, 

before the matter was arbitrated, which denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition. 

 Following the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the trial 

court did not sua sponte order that this case would be submitted to binding arbitration. Rather, 

the trial court’s order to binding arbitration was the result of the parties’ stipulation that the 

matter should be submitted to binding arbitration. As represented at oral argument, this 

stipulation resulted from the parties’ attempt to avoid the delays in moving the case forward, 

which were likely to occur due to a change in trial judge. Given the parties’ stipulation, the trial 

court ordered arbitration pursuant to MCL 691.1686(1), which provides in relevant part that 

“[a]n agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent 

controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable 

except on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.” (Emphasis 

added.) MCL 691.1686(1) cannot be waived. MCL 691.1684(2)(a). Thus, a post-arbitration 

challenge to a previous ruling by the trial court is not permitted, because such a ruling renders 

the submission to arbitration revocable in violation of MCL 691.1686(1). 

 For the above-stated reasons, I would also affirm. 

/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
# CE2004078EN.01002001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/20

---

(2004/C 78 E/0020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   Combating cartels

Subject:

As a member of Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I am following with great interest all Mr Monti's efforts against unlawful agreements, abuse of a dominant position and the formation of cartels.

I should therefore particularly like to thank him for taking an often courageous stance, even though the companies concerned sometimes seek support from Members of Parliament, claiming that what has happened is incomprehensible.

Could the Commission provide a list of European companies against which action has been taken since 1999 and the amounts they have been fined?

Could it also indicate the collection rate?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

(2 April 2003)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1032/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject:   Via Baltica

As part of Poland's National Development Plan, which was submitted to the European Commission in January, the Via Baltica motorway is intended to form the first part of a planned European-wide transport corridor and will require co-financing from the European Union. The road proposals threaten an area of significant environmental importance, the Biebrza marshes, as well as two unique natural forests. As Poland's largest national park and home to wolves, elks and many threatened bird species, the Biebrza area of wetland is of such conservation value that it fulfils the criteria for protection under the Habitats and Birds Directives when Poland accedes to the EU. The proposals are contrary to both EU and Polish environmental legislation and may pose a serious threat to wildlife in Poland.

In light of this, does the Commission intend to fund the construction and, if so, will it ensure that the project is both fully consistent with the requirements of EU environmental directives and that any EU funds received are used in a way that is compatible with the EC environmental acquis?

Furthermore, does the Commission intend to explore and promote alternatives in answering Poland's transport problems?

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53619-53620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee, Kamiah, Idaho, 
USDA, Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Nez Perce and 
Clearwater National Forests' North Central Idaho Resource Advisory 
Committee will meet Friday, September 30, 2005 in Potlatch, Idaho for a 
business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The business meeting on September 30, at the 
Potlatch Ranger Station, 1700 Highway 6, Potlatch, Idaho, beginning at 
10 a.m. (PST). agenda topics will include discussion of potential 
projects. A public forum will begin at 2:30 p.m. (PST).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ihor Mereszczak, Staff Officer and 
Designated Federal Officer, at (208) 935-2513.


[[Page 53620]]


    Dated: September 1, 2005.
Ihor Mereszczak,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-17904 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000101510-JUN-201311:00 AM
March 29 , 2012



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SHELTON R. MODELIST , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 01036

- CV V.

JOSEPH DIXON AND WAN DA DIXON D/B/A DIXON CONCRETE

CONTRACTORS , Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on August 30, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by r eason of this appeal be paid by

SHELTON R. MODELIST

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
II 

Calendar No. 196 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 457 

[Report No. 110–79] 

To extend the date on which the National Security Personnel System will 

first apply to certain defense laboratories. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2007 

Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BINGAMAN, 

Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. 

LOTT, Mr. REED, and Mr. BAYH) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 11, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To extend the date on which the National Security Personnel 

System will first apply to certain defense laboratories. 

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


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 457 RS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DATE OF APPLICATION OF NA2 TIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM TO 

3 DEFENSE LABORATORIES. 

4 Section 9902(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2008’’ each place such 

6 term appears and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ in each 

7 such place. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
Calendar No. 196 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 457 

[Report No. 110

–79] 

A BILL 

To extend the date on which the National Security 

fense laboratories. Personnel System will first apply to certain deJUNE 11, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUE MARIE WRIGHT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner

Social Security Administration,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-35066

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00723-MO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Sue Marie Wright appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction

FILED

MAR 11 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not deny Wright due process by ruling from the bench

rather than issuing a written decision. The district court’s oral ruling, recorded in a

written transcript, together with the administrative record, provide sufficient facts

and reasoning to allow Wright an understanding of the disposition of her case, and

to enable an informed review by this court. See Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1226 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that meaningful review of

an administrative decision requires access to the facts and reasons supporting that

decision); cf. United States v. Sesma-Hernandez, 253 F.3d 403, 405 (9th Cir. 2001)

(en banc) (holding that “oral findings on a transcribed record are sufficient to meet

the ‘in writing’ requirement of due process” for a district court’s decision in a

criminal case to revoke supervised release). 

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in failing to evaluate

evidence regarding Wright’s employment record from 2002. This evidence was

not probative of whether Wright lacked the residual functional capacity to perform

any work during the period beginning in October 2008, her alleged disability onset

date. See Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 833 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Evidence is

relevant when it has ‘any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it

would be without the evidence’”(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401(a))). Even assuming

2
the evidence was relevant, any error on the part of the ALJ was harmless because

the employment records “did not describe any limitations beyond those [Wright]

herself described, which the ALJ discussed at length and rejected based on

well-supported, clear and convincing reasons.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104,

1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (footnote omitted).

AFFIRMED.

3
IN RE J.D.B.

No. COA08-593.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 6, 2009.

Certification Date January 26, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (07JB449, 07JB79).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Loan
Agreement

     


    Party A
(Borrower) : Harbin Humankind Biology Technology Co., Limited

     


    Party B
(Lender) : Xin Sun

     

    ID Number
: 23010219660523161X

    


    On the
basis of equality, voluntariness and negotiation, both Party A and Party B enter
into this agreement about the loan.

    


    
      I. Party
B loans RMB 410,000 to Party A and provides the loan before August 22,
2008.

    

    II. Interest: No Interest.

    III. Life
of Loan: No fixed terms of repayment.

    IV. Date
and Method of Payments: Party A will make the repayments in cash according to
the operation of its company.

    V. Settlements
of Diputes: apply for arbitration in local arbitration committee.

    VI. This
contract is taken into effect since signing date. This contract is executed in
two copies with the same legal effect. Both parties hold one copy
respectively.

    


    
      	
              Party
      A (Seal) :

            	
              Party
      B:

            
	
              Harbin
      Humankind Biology

            	 
      
	
              Technology
      Co. Limited

            	
              /s/
      Xin Sun

            
	
              Date:

            	
              Date:
      August 21, 2008
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 225/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 225/2013 of 6 March 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Ficodindia di San Cono (PDO))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 225/2013                     

# of 6 March 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ficodindia di                        San Cono (PDO))                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006                              of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(2).

(2)Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Ficodindia di San Cono’                              was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3).

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name                              should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

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, 6 March 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.6.****Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed**U.K.

#### ITALYU.K.

Ficodindia di San Cono (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.                           

3

OJ C 150, 26.5.2012, p. 9.
# Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2014Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the appointment of the Head of Mission            of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (2014/310/CFSP)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2014                     

# of 26 May 2014

# on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)

# (2014/310/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)(1), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Decision 2014/219/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the                              Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUCAP Sahel Mali                              mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Mr Albrecht CONZE                              as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali from 26 May 2014 to 14 January 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Mr Albrecht CONZE is hereby appointed Head of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) from 26 May 2014                     to 14 January 2015.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 26 May 2014.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21.