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

TERRANTE WARD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3146 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 7, 2018 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Vivian T. Corvo, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>

SMC CORPORATION  EXHIBIT 11
STATEMENT OF CALCULATION OF AVERAGE
COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months            Nine Months
                                                               Ended                  Ended
                                                        September 30, 2000      September 30, 2000
                                                        ------------------      ------------------
<S>                                                          <C>                    <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:
Weighted average number of shares                            5,763,153              5,774,741
                                                             =========              =========

Diluted Earnings Per Share:
    Weighted average number of shares                        5,763,153              5,774,741
    Stock option plan shares to be issued at prices
       ranging from $3.813 to $9.00 per share                    --                     --
                                                             ---------              ---------

            Total Diluted Shares                             5,763,153              5,774,741
                                                             =========              =========
</TABLE>


Due to the Company's average stock price through September 30, 2000, stock
options accounted for using the treasury stock method would be antidilutive.





                                       18
Order entered March 1 7 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 00757 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M .W.M., JR., A MINOR CHILD On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District C ourt

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 07 - 04168

ORDER Before the Court is appellants’ March 12, 2020 unopposed motion for extension of time to file their reply brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received by the Clerk of the Court M arch 10, 2020 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18449]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (05-139)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United 
States Patent and Trademark office, and are available for licensing.

DATES: September 16, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Walker, Patent Counsel, Goddard 
Space Flight Center, Mail Code 140.1, Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001; 
telephone (301) 286-7351; fax (301) 286-9502.

NASA Case No. GSC-14561-1: Screw Locking Wrench;
NASA Case No. GSC-14657-1: Evolvable Synthetic Neural System;
NASA Case No. GSC-14762-1: Reconfigurable Structure;
NASA Case No. GSC-14603-1: Anti-Backlash Gear-Bearings;
NASA Case No. GSC-15002-1: Method And Associated Apparatus For 
Capturing, Servicing, And De-Orbiting Earth Satellites Using Robotics;
NASA Case No. GSC-14525-2: Passive Gas-Gap Heat Switch For Adiabatic 
Demagnetization Refrigerator;
NASA Case No. GSC-14648-1: Charge Dissipative Electrical Interconnect.

    Dated: September 12, 2005.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management.
[FR Doc. 05-18449 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50654 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. GUADALUPE ARELLANO-GARCIA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-136-ALL Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Arellano-Garcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by A lmendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 5, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statements (No. 333-41989; 333-31351, 333-20007) on Form S-3 of FPA
Medical Management, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, and in the Registration
Statements (333-31341; 333-34027; 33-00074; 333-16741) on Form S-8 of FPA
Medical Management, Inc., and to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated February 22, 1996, with respect to the 1995 consolidated financial
statements of AHI Healthcare Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of FPA Medical Management, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Los Angeles, California
March 27, 1998
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00578

- CR Dylan M CDANIEL , Appellant

v. The The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR1602A Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2014
DIS MISSED
On August 19, 2014 , we notified the appellant that the trial court ’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Additionally, the clerk’s record contains a written waiver signed by the appellant pursuant to which he entered a plea of no lo contendere

. The trial court’s judgment also reflects that the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. Therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a) (2).04

- 14

- 00578

- CR

In our August 19, 2014 order, we warned the appellant that “[this] appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” See id. R. 25.2(d). We ordered t hat this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless the appellant caused an amended trial court certification to be filed by September 18, 2014 that showed the appellant has the right of appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Chavez v. Sta te , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No response was filed. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
STATE of North Carolina v. D'Marcus Delton BALLARD.

No. 18P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, New Bern, for Ballard, D'marcus Delton.

Brent Kiziah, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Brent D. Kiziah, Raleigh.

Seth H. Edwards, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of January 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          47,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,981
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,017
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       268,020
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   373,004
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,102
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,023)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,197
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,810)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,007
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.22
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011340EN.01003302.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission

(Case F-23/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Maintenance of the multiplicaton factor - Loss of promotion points)

2011/C 340/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of decisions notifying the applicants of their transfer of category, in so far as they allocate a grade lower than that which would result from the application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the multiplication factor and withdraw the promotion points of the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108 of 06.05.06, p. 32.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                    87
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (31)
<INVENTORY>                                            4,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       7,326
<PP&E>                                                 2,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (1,536)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         9,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  9,659
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                  71
<OTHER-SE>                                            (1,506)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           9,178
<SALES>                                                4,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       4,123
<CGS>                                                  3,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          249
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      249
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.04
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                       /s/ David C. Mahoney
                                           -------------------------------------
Dated: May 14, 2004                        David C. Mahoney
                                           Chief Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135707 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 135707 

 COA: 282785 

Wayne CC: 04-005427-01-FH

KEITH BRYAN MADDOX a/k/a 

KEITH MADDOX-EL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00530- CV

Terr y Christopher Boun ds an d Diana B ound s, Appellan ts
v. Boun ds an d Pinto Mar keting, Inc. d/ b/a Canyon Lake Visitors Bureau and f/ k/a/ PBC Mar keting Com pany; Austrends, In c.; and Randy O sherow, Trustee of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Estate of Terry C hristopher Boun ds, App ellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 3-0 0213 1, H ONO RAB LE GISELA D. TRI ANA, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellan t s T erry Christopher Bounds and Diana Bounds have filed an unopposed motion to abate this appea l, citing settlement neg otiations that might conclude this proce eding and other rela ted litigation. Appellants reque st that this Court abate this appea l “until further notice from the par ties.” We will gr ant the motion to the ext ent of abating this appea l until M arc h 5, 2014. I f the parties have finalized a settl ement by that date, they are instructed to file a motion to reinstate and dismiss the appea l in acc ordanc e with the settlement ag ree ment. I f the parties have not finalized
a settlement by that date, they are instructed to file a re port informing this Court as to the status of the appe al and, if a

pplicable, a

ny reque st to ex tend the abatement.__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Goodwin Abated Filed: De cembe r 5, 2013

2
ESTATE OF TIPTON v. HIGH POINT UNIVERSITY, et al.

No. 247P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Laura E. Conner, Raleigh, for Tipton, Robert Eugene (Jr.) (The Estate of), et al.

*290Mel J. Garofalo, Charlotte, for Karpovich, Jeffrey A.

J. Douglas Grimes, Charlotte.

C. Rob Wilson, Charlotte.

John E. Spainhour, Asheville, for Qubein, Michael.

Clint S. Morse, Greensboro, for Delta Sima Phi Fraternity, Inc.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., for Jefferson, Marshall.

Michael C. Osborne, for Delta Sima Phi Fraternity, Inc.

Zachary Young.

Douglas E. Fierberg, for Tipton, Robert Eugene (Jr.) (The Estate of), et al.

Douglas C. Melcher, for Tipton, Robert Eugene (Jr.) (The Estate of), et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of July 2015 by Douglas E. Fierberg for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

MARTIN, C.J., recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Sylvester Eugene HARDING, III.

No. 402P11-7.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2016.

Jonathan Shaw, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sylvester Eugene Harding, for Harding, Sylvester Eugene.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 1st of April 2016 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cumberland County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of April 2016."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3664 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3664

 To prohibit the Federal Government from preventing a private business 
from operating during a Government shutdown on Federal property leased 
              by the business from the Federal Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2013

  Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Federal Government from preventing a private business 
from operating during a Government shutdown on Federal property leased 
              by the business from the Federal Government.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Allowing Commerce to Continue in the 
Event of Successive Shutdowns Act'' or the ``ACCESS Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PREVENTING PRIVATE BUSINESSES FROM OPERATING ON 
              LEASED FEDERAL PROPERTY DURING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

    (a) Prohibition.--No Federal department or agency may prevent a 
private business from operating its business during a Government 
shutdown if the business is located on property leased by the business 
from the Federal Government.
    (b) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``Government shutdown'' 
means a period of a lapse in appropriations for any Federal department 
or agency as a result of a failure to enact a regular appropriations 
bill or continuing resolution.
                                 <all>
```