alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the MATTER OF Mark E. SCHNEE, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001608

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

September 10, 2018

**555ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asks this Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rules 17(b) and (c) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). The petition also seeks appointment the Receiver pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent's license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent's client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain. Mr. Lumpkin shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent's clients. Mr. Lumpkin may make disbursements from respondent's trust account(s), escrow account(s), **556operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating account(s) of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent's mail and the authority to direct that respondent's mail be delivered to Mr. Lumpkin's office.

Mr. Lumpkin's appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless an extension of the period of appointment is requested.

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

FOR THE COURT
RE: EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING PILOT PROGRAM-COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Appellate Case No. 2015-002439

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 18, 2018

**14ORDER

Pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution,

IT IS ORDERED that the Pilot Program for the Electronic Filing (E-Filing) of documents in the Court of Common Pleas, which was established by Order dated December 1, 2015, is expanded to include Calhoun County. Effective August 7, 2018, all filings in all common pleas cases commenced or pending in Calhoun County must be E-Filed if the party is represented by an attorney, unless the type of case or the type of filing is excluded from the Pilot Program. The counties currently designated for mandatory E-Filing are as follows:

*291?

Attorneys should refer to the South Carolina Electronic Filing Policies and Guidelines, which were adopted by the **15Supreme Court on October 28, 2015, and the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page at http://www.sccourts.org/efiling/ to determine whether any specific filings are exempted from the requirement that they be E-Filed. Attorneys who have cases pending in Pilot Counties are strongly encouraged to review, and to instruct their staff to review, the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page.

*/s/ Donald W.Beatty*

Donald W. Beatty

Chief Justice of South Carolina
In the MATTER OF: S.A.A. and L.M.A.

No. COA17-1211

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 8.1



List of Subsidiaries of Telefonica Brasil
S.A.



|Subsidiaries                       |  | 2015 | 
|---------------------------------- |  | ---- | 
|                                   |  |      | 
|Telefônica Data S.A.               |  | 100% | 
|GVT Participações S.A.             |  | 100% | 
|Aliança Atlântica Holding B.V.(1)  |  | 50%  | 
|Companhia AIX de Participações (1) |  | 50%  | 
|Companhia ACT de Participações (1) |  | 50%  | 
|(1) jointly controlled             |  |      |
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 20596 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RENE AMAYA AGUIRRE , also known as Jose Maria ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 301

- 1

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rene Amaya Aguirre has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Aguirre h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 3, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-20596 Document: 00514412774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2018No. 17

- 20596

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leav e to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-20596 Document: 00514412774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20012

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ROBERTO MARTINEZ-ALVAREZ, also known as Jose Alberto 

Martinez, also known as Jose Roberto Martine Alvarez, also known as 

Bladimir Rodriguez Tovar,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-494-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Roberto 

Martinez-Alvarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Alvarez has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20012 Document: 00512969436 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
No. 14-20012

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-20012 Document: 00512969436 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2015
# Child Health Day, 2005

Children are a precious gift, and we have a responsibility to help them realize a hopeful and promising future. On Child Health Day, we underscore the importance of healthy and active lifestyles for our Nation's young people, and we reaffirm our commitment to helping them use their gifts to work toward a successful future.

We have high aspirations for all our Nation's children. Parents play the central role in ensuring the health and well-being of their children and in creating a safe and nurturing environment. Schools, communities, and government leaders can support the work of parents by helping to build a society based on the fundamental values of respect, honesty, self-restraint, fairness, and compassion. We must all continue to promote a culture of responsibility in which families and communities teach young people to understand that their decisions affect their health now and in the future.

My Administration remains committed to giving parents, teachers, mentors, and communities the resources they need to help children avoid drugs, alcohol, violence, early sexual activity, and other dangerous behaviors. Through the Helping America's Youth initiative, led by First Lady Laura Bush, we are helping children to overcome the challenges they may face so they can lead healthy lives and realize their full potential.

Young people are America's future leaders, and we can all work to instill the values that sustain a free society. On this day and throughout the year, I urge our citizens to give their time and talents to benefit our Nation's youth.

The Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 18, 1928, as amended (36 U.S.C. 105), has called for the designation of the first Monday in October as “Child Health Day” and has requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this day.

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Monday, October 3, 2005, as Child Health Day. I call upon families, schools, child health professionals, faith-based and community organizations, and governments to help all our children discover the rewards of good health and wellness.                          ( print page 58288)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

[FR Doc. 05-20155

Billing code 3195-01-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua BOLEN

No. 193P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 10, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Ricky Bowman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Joshua Bolen, for Bolen, Joshua.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 9th of July 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Stokes County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of July 2018."
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Honeywell International, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63636

)

Under Contract No. 00000-00-0-0000 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq.

Erin N. Rankin, Esq.

William M. Tucker, Esq.

 Crowell & Moring LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq.

 DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Matthew D. Bordelon, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

 Defense Contract Management Agency

 Chantilly, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: January 16, 2024

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63636, Appeal of Honeywell 

International, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: January 16, 2024

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Judith BURNS, Appellant, v. HILTON ENTERPRISES and Feisco Risk, Appellees.

No. 1D01-4725.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 5, 2003.

Woodburn S. Wesley, Jr. of Woodburn S. Wesley, Jr. & Associates, Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellant.

Tracey J. Hyde of McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A., Panama City, for Appellees.

KAHN, J.

Claimant Judith Burns challenges a workers’ compensation order by which the judge of compensation claims (JCC) rejected the opinion of an expert medical advisor (EMA) on the grounds that it was lacking in impartiality and medical objectivity and declined to reconsider a previously denied claim for wage loss benefits from February 13, 1997, to May 28, 1999, on grounds of res judicata and estoppel by judgment. We affirm the second challenged ruling without discussion. As to the first issue, we conclude that the JCC here improperly determined that the statutory presumption of correctness, with regard to the EMA’s opinion, was overcome by clear and con-*1108vineing evidence to the contrary. *See*§ 440.13(9)(c), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994).

We recognize that a determination by a JCC rejecting the opinion of an EMA will not be disturbed on appeal so long as it is “predicated on competent substantial record evidence which the judge could reasonably find to be clear and convincing.” *Jacaranda Manor v. Randolph,*755 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); *see also Walgreen Co. v. Carver,*770 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Here, the final order fails to point out evidence that the EMA’s opinion is false or unreliable on its merits. *See, e.g., Carver,*770 So.2d at 174-75 (finding “that an expert medical advisor’s opinion has ‘nearly conclusive effect’ ” (citations omitted)); *Jacaranda Manor,*755 So.2d at 782. *See also Allen v. Protel, Inc.,*852 So.2d 916, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (following *Carver).*Criticism by the EMA of one of the disagreeing physicians is not alone a reasonable basis for rejecting the report of an EMA when, under section 440.13(9), the EMA is appointed with an expectation that his testimony will contradict one of the health care providers already in the record. *See*§ 440.13(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994) (EMAs are engaged “to provide peer review or medical consultation to the division or to a judge of compensation claims in connection with resolving disputes ... ”). In this case, nothing in the EMA’s report or deposition establishes bias or predisposition to disagreeing with the employer/carrier’s independent medical examiner (IME). Instead, the EMA’s report and deposition are a reasoned and thorough critique of the IME’s evaluation of the claimant — apparently as contemplated by the statute. *See*§ 440.13(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994).

The Final Order is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
David HAMPTON and wife, Mary D. Hampton v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY

No. 60PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Robert A. Hasty, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Cumberland County.

Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Hampton, David, et al.

*111***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal in which there is a dissent from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Petitioners on the 22nd of February 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Petitioners on the 22nd of February 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioners on the 27th of February 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15 (g)(2).
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

34 

KA 08-00379 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARK D. SANDS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P.

Punch, J.), rendered January 7, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of use of a child in a sexual

performance, promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child,

sexual abuse in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child,

unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree and criminal

possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, use of a child in a sexual

performance (Penal Law § 263.05). County Court properly refused to

suppress the oral and written statements that defendant made to a

police investigator. The record of the suppression hearing supports

the court’s determination that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and

intelligently waived his Miranda rights before he made those

statements (see People v Shaw, 66 AD3d 1417, lv denied 14 NY3d 773). 

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his

statements were elicited after he requested counsel, and we decline to

exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion

in the interest of justice (see People v Rumrill, 40 AD3d 1273, 1274,

lv denied 9 NY3d 926). “To the extent that defendant preserved for

our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by

legally sufficient evidence, we conclude that his contention lacks

merit” (People v Barnard, 295 AD2d 999, lv denied 98 NY2d 708). 

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### STATE ex rel. Wallace BENOIT, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-0760.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Benoit, Wallace Sr.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 346,204; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 KW 2298.

Denied.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 29 , 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00907- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF FOREST BENNETT SMITH, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 428751-401

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed November 15, 2017. No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On November 27, 2017, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).2

On February 13, 2018, this court granted appellant’s motion to abate the appeal because the parties notified this court they had reached an agreement to settle the issues on appeal. The parties were directed to file a motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositive motion on or before April 11, 2018. On June 5, 2018, this court granted appellant’s motion to extend the abatement period through July 16, 2018. On September 5, 2018, no dispositive motion having been filed, this court reinstated this appeal.
Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Jamison.
Argued and submitted April 17,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration May 15, 2003

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Appellant, v.*ORRIN OWENS, *Respondent.*

01-11-53181; A117565

69 P3d 763

Daniel J. Casey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Kenneth E. Kahn II argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Kahn & Associates, Attorneys.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Brewer and Schuman, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of *State v. Warner,*181 Or App 622, 47 P3d 497, *rev den,*335 Or 42 (2002).
STATE v. Donald Durrant FARROW

341P12-7

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Donald Durrant Farrow, for Farrow, Donald Durrant.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of July 2018 by Defendant to Amend Petition for Writ of Mandamus:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
exhibit_4-12.htm










Exhibit 4.12


 


January 2013


 



	
To:

	
Mazor Robotics Ltd. 7 


HaEshel St.







Caesarea Park, ISRAEL


 


Re: Extension and Term under Manufacturing Agreement


 


Reference is made to that certain Manufacturing Agreement dated February 15, 2005, as amended on May, 2007 and on August, 2012 by and between the undersigned (together the "Agreement"). All capitalized terms used herein, which are not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


Whereas the term of the Agreement has previously expired, and notwithstanding such expiration, we have continued to manufacture the Systems which are the subject matter of the Agreement; and


 


Whereas the Parties wish that we will continue to manufactured the Systems under the terms and conditions of the Agreement;


 


We hereby agree to extend the terms of the Agreement for a period of 24 months from the date of this letter, subject to prior termination in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as applicable (the "Extended Agreement").


 


Notwithstanding to the above mentioned and to Section 11 of the Agreement, We hereby agree not to terminate the Extended Agreement in case that during any year the total quantity of Systems ordered by you shall be less then 20, subject to your commitment to continue to manufacture all your Systems with us in the extent period of 24 months from the date of this letter.


 


Please confirm your consent by fixing your signature below.


 


Yizrael Tamuz Ltd.


 


By: /s/ Eyal Ram


Name: Eyal Ram


Title: CEO


Dated: January 10, 2013


 


Agreed and accepted:


 


Mazor Robotics Ltd.


 


By: /s/ Ori Hadomi


Name: Ori Hadomi


Title: CEO


Dated: January 10, 2013


 


By: /s/ Sharon Levita


Name: Sharon Levita


Title: CFO


Dated: January 10, 2013
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David Wayne SIMPSON a/k/a Wayne David Simpson.

No. 2002-KO-3120.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

*635In re Simpson, David Wayne a/k/a; Simpson, Wayne David; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 98-0611; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-KA-1850.

Denied.