alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carol M. ROSENBLOOM, Appellant, v. Michael ROSENBLOOM, Appellee.

Nos. 4D02-1918, 4D02-2399.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 11, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 2003.

James Fox Miller of Miller, Schwartz *&*Miller, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.

*191August La Rocco and Tracy B. New-mark of Fixel & La Rocco, Hollywood, for appellee.

STONE, J.

This is an appeal of a final judgment of dissolution in which multiple issues are raised. Having reviewed the record, we reverse only as to the issue of equitable distribution; in all other respects, we affirm. *See Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

As to the equitable distribution, the record does not support the trial court’s decision that the former wife must reimburse the former husband $423,777 for a portion of the parties’ stock market losses that were incurred in her management of the parties’ marital assets. We recognize that there is evidence that the former wife failed to advise the former husband of the extent of the stock losses being incurred during 2000-2002 and that there was a substantial increase in her trading activity as the market fell. The ultimate percentage of the loss that was charged to the former wife as waste is based on testimony and extrapolations by the former husband’s accountant arriving at “excess” losses that exceeded an average decline in the major stock indexes during the same period. However, drawing an inference of *intentional*dissipation and waste of marital assets from the confluence of events appearing on this record is essentially speculative and is based on assumptions that are not sufficiently supported by the record.

It is obvious that the former wife’s investment practices and her conduct was troubling to the court; however, given the history of the parties’ mutual treatment of their financial and investment affairs, in which the former husband left all such matters in the former wife’s hands, there is an insufficient basis for an unequal distribution of assets. The former husband, who would have shared in any profits, must share equally in the losses, notwithstanding that the former wife’s investment conduct may well have been imprudent. *See*§ 61.075(1)®, Fla. Stat. (2001); *Gentile v. Gentile,*565 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(holding that husband’s imprudent investments which lost their value in 1987 stock market crash not adequate justification for inequitable distribution of marital assets). We also conclude that the amount arrived at is speculative.

Further, although we affirm the court’s denial of leave for the former wife to relocate to another state with the parties’ eight year old child, the expert testimony, relied upon by the court, indicates that the issue should be reviewed again after the parties have completed counseling.

Therefore, we reverse and remand for modification of the final judgment as to the equitable distribution. In all other respects, we affirm, without prejudice to the former wife again seeking leave to relocate following counseling.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

HOMEBANC CORP.

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with HomeBanc Corp.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the Report), I,
Kevin D. Race, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                               
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kevin D. Race                                             
|                        |  |     |  | Kevin D. Race                                                 
|                        |  |     |  | President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128599 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

RONALD PULERA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128599 

 COA: 250409 

Genesee CC: 2002-074394-CK 

STC BROADCASTING, INC., 

d/b/a WEYI-TV,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

REINSTATE the July 24, 2003 opinion and order of the Genesee Circuit Court. Plaintiff 

admitted in paragraph 10 of his complaint: “Per the terms of the employment contract, 

plaintiff was to work for Defendant Corporation from April 13, 1998 to December 31, 

2000.” This admission establishes that the parties’ employment contract had a beginning 

date of April 13, 1998 and an ending date of December 31, 2000. It is undisputed that 

plaintiff worked for the duration of this period and that defendant paid plaintiff for his 

work during this period. Defendant therefore had no obligation under the employment 

contract to pay plaintiff a severance. New Amsterdam Casualty Company v Sokolowski, 

374 Mich 340 (1965) ("If the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, it is to 

be construed according to its plain sense and meaning."). 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

s1122 

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. 

November 28, 2005 

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4491 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4491

 To amend title 31, United States Code, to restore the 10-year statute 
   of limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative 
                                offset.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2014

 Mr. Buchanan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 31, United States Code, to restore the 10-year statute 
   of limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative 
                                offset.

    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 Stop Punishing Innocent Taxpayers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3716(e) of title 31, United States Code, 
is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) This section does not apply--
            ``(1) to a claim under this subchapter that has been 
        outstanding for more than 10 years; or
            ``(2) when a statute explicitly prohibits using 
        administrative offset or setoff to collect the claim or type of 
        claim involved.''.
    (b) Retroactivity.--In the administration of section 3716(e) of 
title 31, United States Code, the following provisions of law shall be 
treated as if they had never been enacted:
            (1) Section 14219 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
        of 2008 (Public Law 110-234; 122 Stat. 1483), repealed as 
        duplicative enactment by section 4 of Public Law 110-246 (7 
        U.S.C. 8701 note).
            (2) Section 14219 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 
        of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2245).
                                 <all>
```
1

cvIn The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00249-CV

____________________

CARLOS A. DURAN, Appellant

V.

BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL., Appellees

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court 

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CIV28366

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Carlos A. Duran filed a suit against Brad Livingston in his official capacity 

as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and 

Department employees Brenda D. Spitaleri, Vera S. Fox, Helen E. Sheffield, and 

Michael J. Butcher, in which Duran alleged that his photograph album had been 

confiscated illegally and he had exhausted his administrative remedies. The trial 

court dismissed the suit and Duran filed a notice of appeal.
2

The brief of the appellant was due to be filed on or before October 3, 2014, 

but Duran did not file a brief. On October 6, 2014, we notified the parties that the 

brief had not been filed and warned the appellant that his failure to file a brief 

could result in a dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. On November 18, 

2014, we notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted to the Court 

without briefs and without oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8.

In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on December 9, 2014

Opinion Delivered December 18, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



AMPLIPHI
BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

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 annual report of AmpliPhi Biosciences
Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Philip J. Young, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that
to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed”
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date:  April 15, 2014



| | /s/ Philip J. Young                  
| | -------------------------------------
| | Philip J. Young                      
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
ACTS RETIREMENT-LIFE COMMUNITIES, INC. v. TOWN OF COLUMBUS

334PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 28, 2018

Ryan D. Bolick, Virginia M. Wooten, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, for Town of Columbus, North Carolina

Benjamin R. Sullivan, Jr., Charles C. Meeker, Stephen V. Carey, Raleigh, Attorneys at Law, for ACTS Retirement-Life Communities, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the Joint Motion filed on the 28th of March 2018 to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of March 2018."
STATE v. Derrick D. BOGER

158P06-13

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 30, 2017

Derrick D. Boger, for Boger, Derrick D.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of May 2017 by Defendant for Writ for En Banc:

*376"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of May 2017."
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                       ---------------------------------


         Subsection  (b) of  Section  8 of the  Employment  Agreement  made  and
entered into as of July 14, 1994 by and between  Penn  Federal  Savings Bank and
Patrick D. McTernan is hereby amended to read as follows:

               (b)  Definitions.  For  purposes  of Sections 8, 9 and 11 of this
         Agreement, "Date of Termination" means the earlier of (i) the date upon
         which the Bank gives notice to the Employee of the  termination  of his
         employment  with  the Bank or (ii) the date  upon  which  the  Employee
         ceases to serve as an Employee of the Bank,  and "change in control" is
         defined solely as any acquisition of contro (other than pursuant to the
         Conversion or by a trustee or other fiduciary holding  securities under
         an employee  benefit plan of the Holding Compnay or a subsidiary of the
         Holding  Company),  as defined in 12 C.F.R. SS. 574.4, or any successor
         regulation,  of the Bank or Holding  Company  which  would  require the
         filing of an application for acquisition of control or notice of change
         in  control  in a manner as set forth in 12 C.F.R.  SS.  574.3,  or any
         successor regulation.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have  executied  this Amendment as of
this 13th day of October, 1998.

                                                      PENN FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK

                                                 By:  /s/William C. Anderson
                                                      ----------------------
                                                      William C. Anderson
                                                      Chairman of the Board

                                                      EMPLOYEE


                                                 By:  /s/Patrick D. McTernan
                                                      ---------------------
                                                      Patrick D. McTernan
STATE of North Carolina v. Jonathan David FRIDAY

No. COA17-343

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 2, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby Ray MARTIN

No. COA17-462

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN PART. DISMISSED IN PART.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO THE 

NEWS CORPORATION 2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment No. 2 to the News Corporation 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (this “Amendment”) is made as of February 12, 2013. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and
not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the News Corporation 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”). 
 WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, the Board of Directors of News Corporation approved the following amendment to the Plan. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, 
  

	 	1.	Article V, Section 5.2 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 


Section 5.2 Performance Goals. 
 Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, the grant, vesting and/or exercisability of Performance Awards shall be conditioned, in whole or in part, on the attainment of performance targets, in whole
or in part, related to one or more performance goals over a Performance Period. For any such Performance Awards that are intended to qualify for the Section 162(m) Exception, the performance targets on which the grant, vesting and/or
exercisability are conditioned shall be selected by the Committee from among the following goals, on a GAAP or non-GAAP basis (the “Section 162(m) Performance Goals”): Net income, adjusted net income, EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA, OIBDA,
adjusted OIBDA, operating income, adjusted operating income, free cash flow, net earnings, net earnings from continuing operations, earnings per share, adjusted earnings per share, revenue, net revenue, operating revenue, total stockholder return,
share price, return on equity, return in excess of cost of capital, profit in excess of cost of capital, return on assets, return on invested capital, net operating profit after tax, operating margin, profit margin or any combination thereof. A
Section 162(m) Performance Goal may be stated as a combination of one or more goals (e.g., free cash flow return on invested capital), and on an absolute or relative basis. 

In addition, for any Awards not intended to qualify for the Section 162(m) Exception, the Committee may establish performance targets
based on other performance goals as it deems appropriate (together with the Section 162(m) Performance Goals, the “Performance Goals”). The Performance Goals may be described in terms of objectives that are related to the individual
Participant or objectives that are Company-wide or related to an Affiliate, division, department, region, function or business unit, including, without limitation, financial and operating performance and individual contributions to financial and
non-financial objectives, and the implementation and enforcement of effective compliance programs, and may be measured on an absolute or cumulative basis or on the basis of percentage of improvement over time, and may be measured in terms of Company
performance (or performance of the applicable Affiliate, division, department, region, function or business unit) or measured relative to selected peer companies or a market index. 

 

	 	2.	This amendment shall remain in full force and effect for the term of the Plan.
#### Darrin R. TEAGUE, Appellant, v. SOUTHSIDE BANK, Appellee.

No. 12-03-00003-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler.

April 23, 2003.

Darrin R. Teague, pro se.

William Sheehy, Wilson, Sheehy, Knowles, Robertson & Cornelius, Tyler, for appellant.

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J. and GRIFFITH, J.

*OPINION GRANTING REHEARING*

PER CURIAM.

By opinion delivered on February 28, 2003, we dismissed this appeal because Appellant Darrin R. Teague (“Teague”) failed to provide proof of full payment for the clerk’s record after notice. *Teague v. Southside Bank,*No. 12-03-00003-CV (Tex.App.-Tyler February 28, 2003, no pet. h.), 2003 WL 660794. On March 11, 2003, Teague filed a motion for rehearing, which included a request that this court review the trial court’s determination that he is not indigent.

Teague calls our attention to Rule 20.1, which states that a party who cannot pay the costs in an appellate court may proceed without advance payment of costs if:

> (1) the party files an affidavit of indigence in compliance with this rule;

> (2) the claim of indigence is not contested or, if contested, the contest is not sustained by written order; and

> (3) the party timely files a notice of appeal.

Tex.R.App. P. 20.1(a). Unless a contest is filed, no hearing will be conducted, the allegations in the affidavit will be deemed true, and the party will be allowed to proceed without advance payment of costs. Tex.R.App. P. 20.1(f). Teague asserts that he has satisfied the requirements of rule 20.1, that no contest was filed, and that the trial court was therefore without authority to deny his indigency status.

We agree with Teague’s statement of the law. Furthermore, the Texas Supreme Court has determined that, under the amended rules of appellate procedure, an indigent party may obtain the record pertaining to the trial court’s ruling on the issue of indigency. *See In re Arroyo,*988 S.W.2d 737, 738-39 (Tex.1998). Accordingly, we grant Teague’s motion for rehearing, reinstate the appeal, and order the clerk of the trial court, as well as the court reporter (if any hearing was conducted), under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c)(1) and 34.6(d), respectively, to prepare and file within thirty days of the date of this opinion the portions of the record necessary to review the order denying Teague’s indigency status.

*747
      *Motion for rehearing granted and appeal reinstated.*
# Official Journal C 75/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.075.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 75 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 549 March 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.075.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 75

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 549 March 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 075/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6038 — EDFT-L/ATIC/STMC6 JV) (1) | 1 |
| 2011/C 075/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6135 — Carlyle/Administratiekantoor Alpinvest/Alpinvest) (1) | 1 |
| 2011/C 075/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6060 — Citigroup/Public Sector Pension Investment Board/DP World/DP World Australia/JV) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 075/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6038 — EDFT-L/ATIC/STMC6 JV) (1)

1

2011/C 075/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6135 — Carlyle/Administratiekantoor Alpinvest/Alpinvest) (1)

1

2011/C 075/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6060 — Citigroup/Public Sector Pension Investment Board/DP World/DP World Australia/JV) (1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 075/04 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 075/04

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 075/05 | Notice to undertakings intending to import or export controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer to or from the European Union in 2012 and undertakings intending to request for 2012 a quota for these substances intended for laboratory and analytical uses | 4 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2011/C 075/05

Notice to undertakings intending to import or export controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer to or from the European Union in 2012 and undertakings intending to request for 2012 a quota for these substances intended for laboratory and analytical uses

4

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN