alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 22

- 1330

_____________________________
J EREMIAH A. W ILLIAMS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. September 23, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , J AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jeremiah A. Williams, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Motion Granted and En Banc Order filed December 18 , 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 17

- 00558

- CV

MIKE HALL CHEVROLET , INC. D/B/A AUTONATION CHEVROLET HIGHWAY 6 F/K/A CHAM PION CHEVROLET HIGHW AY 6, AUTONATION, INC., AU TONATION ENTERPRIS ES, INCORPORATED, AN DEALERSHIP HOLDIN G COMPANY, AND AUTO HOLDING LLC

F/K/A AUTO HOLDING C ORPORATION , Appellant s

V.

ALEXANDRA DEIKE , F/K/A ALEJANDRA VAL DEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ROSA ELVI A GUERRERO , DECEASED , ARIANA DOMINGUEZ, INDIVI DUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF RUB EN DOMINGUEZ, DECEAS ED, GREGORIO ARMANDO DOMINGUEZ, EILEEN MEJIA, ANDREA ZERTUCHE, JOSE GUERRERO, EDUWIGES G UERRERO, DONALD CLAR K, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA ANN HARTON CLARK, DE CEASED, JENNIFER CLARK

AND JOANNA CLARK, Appellee s

On Appeal from the Probate Court No

. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 388 , 367

- 401



### E N B A N C O R D E R2

A ppellants Mike Hall Chevrolet, Inc. d/b/a AutoNation Chevrolet Highway 6 f/k/a Champion Chevro let Highway 6, AutoNation, Inc., AutoNation Enterprises, Incorporated, AN Dealership Holding Company, and Auto Holding LLC f/k/a Auto Holding Corporation (“Appellants”) and appellees Alexandra Deike, f/k/a Alejandra Valdez, individually and on behalf of th e Estate of Rosa Elvia Guerrero, Deceased, Ariana Dominguez, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Ruben Dominguez, Deceased, Gregorio Armando Dominguez, Eileen Mejia, Andrea Zertuche, Jose
Guerrero, and Eduwiges Guerrero (“Appellees”) have filed a “ Joint Announcement of Settlement and Motion to Withhold Ruling on Pending Motions and Motion to Lift Stay to Allow Court Approval .” We GRANT the joint motion.

T o allow time for the parties to execute settlement agreements and deliver
settlement funds, f

or the next sixty days, this court will not rule on either (1) “Appellees’ Joint Withdrawal of Opposition to Appellants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal, and Appellees’ Motion to Dissolve the Stay of Trial” or (2) the meri ts of this appeal. To allow Probate Court No. 2, Harris County, Texas
, to approve the settlements, we LIFT THE STAY OF

TRIAL in c ause number 388,367

- 401 in Probate Court No. 2, Harris County, Texas
, ordered by this court on October 12, 2018.

We ABATE th is appeal for a period of sixty days from t he date of this order.

We shall treat this appeal as a closed case and remove it from this court’s active

docket. The appeal shall be reinstated on this court’ s active docket when Appellants and Appellees file a joint motion to dismiss this appeal
, or this court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
En Banc Court consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce, Christopher, Jamison, Busby, Donovan, Brown, Wise, and Jewell.
In the MATTER OF: I.A. & E.L.

No. COA17-877

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. VACATED. REMANDED IN PART.
ex4-14.htm













LightPath Technologies, Inc. S-8








EXHIBIT 4.14







Amendment No. 5 to Amended and Restated


LightPath Technologies, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan








	
 














  





  











  








PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE


AMENDED AND RESTATED LIGHTPATH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN


January 31, 2013












The Amended and Restated LightPath Technologies, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended by increasing the “Plan Maximum,” as defined in Section 6 of the Plan, from 1,715,625 shares of Class A Common Stock to 2,715,625 shares of Class A Common Stock, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15 of the Plan. This Amendment No. 5 to the Amended and Restated LightPath Technologies, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors on October 25, 2012, and approved by the stockholders of LightPath Technologies, Inc. on and effective as of January 31, 2013.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20033]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, 
Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is published in accordance with section 10(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of 
the meeting on October 18-20, 2005 is to review new start research and 
development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and 
Development Program funds in excess of $1 million. This meeting is open 
to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file 
statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the 
manner permitted by the Board.

DATES: October 18, 2005 from 8 a.m. to 5:05 p.m., October 19, 2005 from 
8:30 a.m. to 5:20 p.m. and October 20, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: SERDP Program Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 804, 
Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Misa Jensen, SERDP Program Office, 
901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at 
(703) 696-2126.

    Dated: September 30, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-20033 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6939 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TREVOR PLACIDO BENJAMIN, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 00-7022 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TREVOR PLACIDO BENJAMIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR96-217-DKC, CA-00-1723-DKC) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 29, 20002 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Trevor Placido Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on June 23, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 26, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 3 PER CURIAM: Trevor Placido Benjamin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Benjamin , Nos. CR-96- 217-DKC; CA-00-1723-DKC (D. Md. June 20 & June 26, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In the MATTER OF Franklin Matthews JACKSON, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002351

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 16, 2018

ORDER

In December 2015, this Court authorized respondent to be admitted to practice law subject to certain conditions. He was subsequently admitted to practice law in South Carolina in February 2016.

By order dated August 3, 2018, this Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for nine months based on his failure to comply with the conditions of his admission. This order is to provide the bench, bar and public with notice of this suspension.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*, C.J.

FOR THE COURT
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CertificatePursuant to Rule 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Paul Block, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of MerisantWorldwide, Inc. (the “registrant”);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

(a)                                  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)                                 Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)                                  Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)                                  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)                                 Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: November 13, 2007
|   |   | /s/ Paul Block                 |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   | Name: Paul Block               |
|   |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

32

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1352

MOUNIR BEN HASSINE,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 28, 2016

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York, New York, for Petitioner. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin Moresi, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mounir Ben Hassine, a native and citizen of Tunisia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s 

denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture.* We have thoroughly 

reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ben Hassine’s 

merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that 

the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of

the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports 

the Board’s decision. See Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359. We further 

find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s denial of Ben 

Hassine’s motion to remand or in the immigration judge’s denial 

of his motion for a continuance.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. In re: Ben Hassine (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 

2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

 * Ben Hassine does not challenge the denial of his asylum 

claim as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction to 

review this finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v. 

Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
Bar Docket No. 14652

#### In the Matter of Michael Scott Greiving, *Respondent.*

(998 P.2d 509)

Dated this 20th day of April, 2000.

In a letter dated April 11, 2000, to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Michael Scott Greiving, an attorney admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 246).

At the time respondent surrendered his license, a formal complaint had been filed by the Disciplinary Administrator’s office in which there were allegations of lack of diligence, failure to communicate with clients, making false statements to clients, and failure of respondent to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

This court, having examined the . files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that the surrender of respondent’s license should be accepted and that respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Michael Scott Greiving be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Michael Scott Greiving from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to respondent, and that respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 250).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<CURRENCY>               U.K. POUNDS
       
<S>                                            <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.6595
<CASH>                                          103,451,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8,443,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,840,000)
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5,404,000
<PP&E>                                          379,446,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (57,624,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  512,324,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            39,438,000
<BONDS>                                         259,104,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              8,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      213,774,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    512,324,000
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 78,587,000
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    25,598,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 34,971,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               34,898,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  43,205,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              43,205,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1,107,000)
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     42,098,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        

</TABLE>
Rene Jhovany Rodrigues BUSTOS v. Donnie HARRISON

No. 13P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 11, 2018

Mr. Rene Jhovany Bustos, for Bustos, Rene Jhovany Rodrigues

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For Harrison, Donnie (Sheriff of Wake)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 10th of January 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of January 2018."
EXHIBIT 99.1

SCHEDULE II


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          theglobe.com, inc.
                                   VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                    ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS




                                   BALANCE AT         ADDITIONS                          BALANCE AT
                                    BEGINNING          CHARGED                              END
                                    OF PERIOD         TO EXPENSE       DEDUCTIONS        OF PERIOD
                                 ----------------   ---------------  ---------------   ---------------


<S>                                <C>                <C>               <C>               <C>
Year ended December 31, 1996       $     -            $     -           $     -           $     -
Year ended December 31, 1997       $     -            $  12,000         $     -           $   12,000
Year ended December 31, 1998       $   12,000         $  387,878        $  99,742         $  300,136
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23


                          Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Regency Realty Corporation:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
333-63723) on Form S-4 of Regency  Centers,  L.P., of our report dated  February
28,  1999,  relating  to the  balance  sheets of RRC  Operating  Partnership  of
Georgia,  L.P. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997,  and the related  statements of
operations,  partners' capital,  and cash flows for the years ended December 31,
1998 and 1997, and for the period from February 22, 1996 (inception) to December
31, 1996,  which report appears in the December 31, 1998,  annual report on Form
10-K of RRC Operating Partnership of Georgia, L.P.





                                                 KPMG LLP



Jacksonville, Florida
March 12, 1999
# C_2016065EN.01000101.xml

| 19.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2013-2014 SESSION

Sittings of 10 to 13 June 2013

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 253 E, 3.9.2013.

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 253 E, 3.9.2013.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
DLD

- 189 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 3

- 1688

___________ IN RE: MICHAEL EVAN KEELING , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United St ates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 2:09

- cv - 04015, 2:11

- cv - 05304, and 2:12

- cv - 06764)

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 11, 20 13 Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : May 9, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Michael Evan Keeling petitions for a writ of mandamus, req uesting that we order the District Court to “entertain” his filings in three different matters. He complains that the District Court refused to do so when it dismissed his cases for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction. Mandamus is an extraordinary reme dy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) . Within the discretion of the issuing court, mandamus traditionally may be “ used . . . only „ to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel2

it to ex ercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. ‟” Id. (citations omitted). M andamus is not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367 , 380

- 81 (2004) (citations omitted); Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996)

. B y his phrasing, Keeling tries to suggest that the District Court refused to consider filings that were properly before it. However, that is simply not the case. A review of the relevant court records reveals that the District Court did, in fact, entertai n his filings. Although Keeling disagrees with the result in those cases, his disagreement is a matter for appeal, not for mandamus relief. We will deny his petition.
STATE of North Carolina v. Rodney Wayne ROBINSON, Defendant.

No. COA17-1190

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 16, 2018

NO ERROR.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ Matthew A. JonesName:
    
    Matthew A. JonesTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate: May 17, 2010